My First Prophecy Fulfilled
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
<< What the Republicans did, cleverly, was to establish effective
"memes" in the minds of the public and the pundits. A meme, so named
by the British evolutionist Richard Dawkins, is like a gene, except
that instead of advancing through organisms, it moves through minds.
Memes are simply ideas that demonstrate a high rate of survival and
transmission. >>
Now that my prophecy made on Sept. 20 that Bush would win, has come
true, (For proof of my prediction, just search a Usenet database for
my messages, between Sept. 15-Oct 1, 2000.) I hope a few more people
are paying attention to my words. I consider myself gifted in this
ability of paranormal foresight, even though I don't claim to
understand why this is happening, or how it happens. I also acknowlege
those people who either don't believe my claims, or don't believe in
such phenomenon at all.
Know that the Republican Party a.k.a. "The Religious Reich" has
unlimited finances to hire the very best scientists in the fields of
psychology and sociology...and thus are acquiring great powers to
manipulate the masses...which "memes" explanation above is but one
among many excellent xamples.
But also know that--despite all their awesome resources to cleverly
brainwash and terrorize people--they lack one power, greater than even
the sum of all the others they possess, and that is this: psychic
abilities such as telepathy and precognition. And it is precisely this
paranormal force that I claim will favor our Gay Family, and will give
us the necessary weapons by which to gain our freedoms. In fact, I
stand as a living example of this, to inspire and even trigger the
same abilities in my gay sisters and brothers. But perhaps I am merely
deluding myself, caught up in some sort of megalomaniac
fantasy...though I strongly doubt this.
My prophecy of Bush being "elected" also included the following
outcomes: nationwide jihad against gays, economic collapse, and civil
war with resulting breakup of the U.S. into various nations...
including the world's first gay nation of Athenia. While my dates
first given are obviously out of whack, I still hold true to my
visions, that the rest will follow, now that my Bush premonition has
proven itself.
Remember that when I came upon the scene, telling people I had a
powerful vision that Bush would win, most reacted with hilarity,
claiming that is so impossible, it will never happen. Since I was
already living a Bush-terrorist gov't in my further visions, I was
talking about gays leaving the country, or coming to northern
California for safe haven. Now, in the last week or so, some
participants in gay newsgroups are speaking of preparing for an
anti-gay holocaust, and that leaving this country for a gay friendly
nation like Holland, may be the best answer.
But along with my visionary gifts, I also seem to suffer the "curse of
Cassandra": whereby a true prophetess who never failed in her
predictions, was condemned by the gods to have no one ever believe her
visions. So, as time passes, many gays will flee the U.S. because of
this holocaust I predicted...though never recalling that I first
warned everyone. But I don't think this curse will remain much
longer...for when one or more of my additional prophecies comes true,
many will seek me for guidance. But since I have seen the future, I
have also prepared for those who seek my help, by providing all
answers in the documents on my Gay Bible website. (I recommend you
download these files ASAP, in the likely event my site will soon be
censored--along with all other lesbian/gay sites.)
For by then (the holocaust/Civil War), I and my soldiers (Blue Rose
Militia) will be way too busy taking over the country and the media,
to answer any questions sent me by e-mail, snail mail, or any other
form of communique. Watch for me on television, having a blast! Bush
is due for a big slap up the side of his head, and it is my destiny to
be the hand to do this.
And, since the gifts of telepathy and precognition will be broadly
disseminated across our Gay Family, no doubt some (if not all) of you
reading this message, will become recruited into this
para-normal-military outfit, and following orders for whatever mission
you are sent on, or choose to create. Indeed, I will hand over my
gifts of leadership to as many gays as possible, the moment they are
ready to accept them. It is already happening, in fact has started
happening, some time in mid-September. My visions show a huge leap in
membership--into the many millions on a global scale--between now and
the end of this month/year/decade/century/millenium-
/world-as-we-know-it.
And, if it does all turn out that I am simply (though joyfully)
deluded, I can't think of a happier fantasy to get lost in, forever.
:o)
Till we meet on the battlefield of Elysium,
I remain "semper fidelis":
Ezekiel J. Krahlin, Chief Thracian
Blue Rose Militia
---
Pennsylvania Dutch Gay Jesus Says:
"Throw the hetero over the fence some hay!"
---
Lavender Velvet Revolution:
http://surf.to/gaybible
Sean MacUisdin
> Now that my prophecy made on Sept. 20 that Bush would win, has come
> true, (For proof of my prediction, just search a Usenet database for
> my messages, between Sept. 15-Oct 1, 2000.) I hope a few more people
> are paying attention to my words. I consider myself gifted in this
> ability of paranormal foresight, even though I don't claim to
> understand why this is happening...
(snip)
Ultimately, your sorry ass is grass from the Bushites, then?
No loss, really...
--
Air muir 's air tir,
Sean of Clan Uisdin
-------------------
If anyone is looking for Sean of Clan Uisdin, he can be found in the
bathtub mulling over his thoughts wi' a dram o' Glen Ord.
Remove 'mac' to reply.
... The heroes of the race of Conn are dead,
How bitter to our hearts is the grief for them!
We shall not live long after them,
Perilous we think it to be bereaved of the brotherhood!
Cathal MacMhuirich
"Well, I'm sick of this room and everyone in it!" - Bender
"Everything's gone wrong since Canada came along!" - MAC (Mothers
against Canada)
Apu Kuntur
power after 8 years of democrats ruling, is surely not difficult, too, to
predict. Come down to earth, Ezekiel! The other candidates had never
really chances.
Apu Kuntur.
--
I believe in the power of belief, and that sincerity integrates sufficient
will for our purposes. I accept the 'as if' to evoke from my unknown self
a mean of transcendentalism and the magic of dynamic change. (A.O. Spare)
"Der Flug des Kondors" - http://www.kondor.de/index.html
Ibis
Yod Hau Vau Hau Heh Hau a king
He'd sing a song to MCI and the CIA
and that Yod Hau Vau Hau He'd have a name
"an axe is a bold as love"
Ibis
Flora and Eric Floen
props for prophecy, anyway... There is always a fifty-fifty chance that
it will come out just because of dumb luck, and no real prophecy about
it...
Divination of any kind is a dicy business and prone to making all of us
look like fools.
I'm not gonna mention your prophecies that didn't come true, but I am
reminding you that this could just be luck.
Blessings,
FLORA
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
<floen...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Oh, c'mon Zeke! You've made others that didn't, and it's hard to get
>props for prophecy, anyway... There is always a fifty-fifty chance that
>it will come out just because of dumb luck, and no real prophecy about
>it...
>
>Divination of any kind is a dicy business and prone to making all of us
>look like fools.
>
>I'm not gonna mention your prophecies that didn't come true, but I am
>reminding you that this could just be luck.
I have no problem with your point of view, especially considering how
graciously you presented it. It is not my mission to coerce people to
my way of thinking.
But people have forgotten that when I made my prediction about Bush
winning, it was at the time when most people saw that outcome as
inconceivable, so they laughed me off.
As for my other predictions: they *will come to pass. It is only the
time line that was off, and that is the only error you can really
point to. Anyone can refresh their memory of my predictions, by going
to my home page. I will not alter them in any way, even if proven to
be wrong. I am not at all afraid to come off as foolish, for the sake
of these visions which are quite potent in the experience.
>Blessings,
>FLORA
Blessings to you, too, Flora. I think you are an outstanding human
being, based on how you handle disagreements.
Flora and Eric Floen
I like to think that people can disagree on an issue and still be friends,
but this is only possible through courtesy. You work very hard to promote
awareness of your views, and though I find some of your methods
exasperating at times, I respect your commitment and the diligence with
which you pursue your particularly unpopular cultural goals. One thing I
will allow no one to say, is that Zeke Krahlin is a quitter or a sellout,
or that disapproval discourages him. No matter what the discouragement,
Zeke keeps on fighting.
For that, I salute you most profoundly.
Blessings,
FLORA
The Talesin
"Flora and Eric Floen" <floen...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3A3E9BF5...@earthlink.net...
> Thank you.
> I like to think that people can disagree on an issue and still be friends,
> but this is only possible through courtesy. You work very hard to promote
> awareness of your views, and though I find some of your methods
> exasperating at times, I respect your commitment and the diligence with
> which you pursue your particularly unpopular cultural goals. One thing I
> will allow no one to say, is that Zeke Krahlin is a quitter or a sellout,
> or that disapproval discourages him. No matter what the discouragement,
> Zeke keeps on fighting.
>
> For that, I salute you most profoundly.
>
> Blessings,
> FLORA
>
> "Ezekiel J. Krahlin" wrote:
--
Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft (tm)
Never argue with an idiot. They will just drag you
down to their level and beat you with experience
ICQ 86535317
AIM Tales1n
jjb
Ezekiel J. Krahlin wrote in message
>Know that the Republican Party a.k.a. "The Religious Reich" has
>unlimited finances to hire the very best scientists in the fields of
>psychology and sociology...and thus are acquiring great powers to
>manipulate the masses...which "memes" explanation above is but one
>among many excellent xamples.
Any proof, please?
>But also know that--despite all their awesome resources to cleverly
>brainwash and terrorize people--they lack one power, greater than even
>the sum of all the others they possess, and that is this: psychic
>abilities such as telepathy and precognition.
Why don't they? Why should they not have this 'power', out of all the other
people in the US? Are you suggesting that if you're a Republican it somehow
cancels out any 'psychic' abilities you may have? If so, how does that
mechanism work? Any proof to go along with it?
>My prophecy of Bush being "elected" also included the following
>outcomes: nationwide jihad against gays, economic collapse, and civil
>war with resulting breakup of the U.S. into various nations...
>including the world's first gay nation of Athenia.
Why, out of all the people in the US that some politicians would find
'disagreeable', would gays be targetted in particular for some sort of
'jihad'? What makes them so important? The so-called threat of a civil war
in the US has been harped on about for years and years, but to no avail.
Sounds like paranoid ranting.
>Remember that when I came upon the scene, telling people I had a
>powerful vision that Bush would win, most reacted with hilarity,
>claiming that is so impossible, it will never happen.
Really? Outside the US, it seemed to alot of us that it would be one of
those 50/50 situations. No suprises who one. Not that your choices were
varied in the first place. You would more or less end up with the same
situation.
>My visions show a huge leap in membership--into the many millions on a
>global scale--between now and the end of this
month/year/decade/century/millenium/world-as-we-know-it.
Hmm - do they pay any fees?
>And, if it does all turn out that I am simply (though joyfully)
>deluded, I can't think of a happier fantasy to get lost in, forever.
>:o)
See ya.
Jerry
*****
'Load of old stones in a field up beyond the village,' said the landlord.
'Load of weirdies came along last summer and had a festival, Druids or
something. I said to them, "Piss off, you load of Druids."'
- from 'The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin'
William Edward Woody
> Ezekiel J. Krahlin wrote in message
>
> >Know that the Republican Party a.k.a. "The Religious Reich" has
> >unlimited finances to hire the very best scientists in the fields of
> >psychology and sociology...and thus are acquiring great powers to
> >manipulate the masses...which "memes" explanation above is but one
> >among many excellent xamples.
>
> Any proof, please?
>
> >But also know that--despite all their awesome resources to cleverly
> >brainwash and terrorize people--they lack one power, greater than even
> >the sum of all the others they possess, and that is this: psychic
> >abilities such as telepathy and precognition.
>
> Why don't they? Why should they not have this 'power', out of all the
> other people in the US? Are you suggesting that if you're a Republican
> it somehow cancels out any 'psychic' abilities you may have? If so,
> how does that mechanism work? Any proof to go along with it?
It especially seems odd that the Republican party wouldn't have
purchased the best psychics that money can buy using their vast
unlimited finances. Or perhaps in addition to cancelling out any
potential desire to join the Republican party, psychic power also makes
you allergic to money?
> >Remember that when I came upon the scene, telling people I had a
> >powerful vision that Bush would win, most reacted with hilarity,
> >claiming that is so impossible, it will never happen.
>
> Really? Outside the US, it seemed to alot of us that it would be one of
> those 50/50 situations. No suprises who one. Not that your choices were
> varied in the first place. You would more or less end up with the same
> situation.
And anyone with half an ounce of sense inside the US would have realized
that after the initial count in Florida, Gore had a substantial uphill
battle to change the count sufficiently and pursuade enough people that
this was the correct count. And even before the elections, it was the
concensus around the political pundant circuit that Nader would pull
enough Gore votes to upset the elections in Bush's favor.
So consider the odds more like 60/40.
> >And, if it does all turn out that I am simply (though joyfully)
> >deluded, I can't think of a happier fantasy to get lost in, forever.
Dunno; the fall of the United States "Empire" through Jihads which cause
mass slaughters of Gays, economic depression that upsets the homes of
perhaps a quarter billion people, and a civil war which causes millions
more to die, brought about by a omni-powerful and vastly wealthy
Republican party who can buy just about every mind control device
(except psychics, for some indescribable reason) which has kidnapped
democracy strikes me as more paranoid than happy.
--
- William Woody wo...@alumni.caltech.edu
The PandaWave http://www.pandawave.com
In Phase Consulting http://www.pandawave.com/inphase
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
wrote:
>"an axe is a bold as love"
Or as I like to say: "When in Rome...vandalize!'
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
<sean.ma...@home.com> wrote:
>Ultimately, your sorry ass is grass from the Bushites, then?
Of course not. I did *not want Bush to be President, whether through
election or skulduggery (which is the case, as it turns out). I am
only reporting my vision as accurately as possible...which means no
flinching away from anything that might depict me as a bearer of bad
news. You are speaking from the knee-jerk philosophy of "kill the
messenger".
As I have already explained what my visions tell: that the ascension
of Bush to the Whitehouse Throne will spark a worldwide rebellion of
gay people. This will not be the first time a dark cloud over a people
gives birth to a great and victorious illumination to a better age for
humanity. Only this time, it is gay people who win the main prize
(whereas in previous scenarious, it was some other group).
>No loss, really...
Quite correct. There is only everything to be gained...though not as
you interpret things.
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
<Archae...@newsfactory.net> wrote:
>A fifty percent chance is not very difficult to prophetice. A change of
>power after 8 years of democrats ruling, is surely not difficult, too, to
>predict. Come down to earth, Ezekiel! The other candidates had never
>really chances.
Hello, Apu. It is quite easy, with hindsight, to claim my odds were
simply 50-50. When I made my prediction, most people did not see a
Bush conquest as possible in any way...not even me! I only reported
what my vision showed me...that the intrinsic homophobia among many
people, including democrats, would sway the election towards Bush. The
news media has ignored this likelihood, though, as it usually ignores
gay issues as flatly irrelevant. They only focused on the Nader votes,
once it became obvious they would contribute to less votes for Gore.
As my other predictions come true, then you will be less eager to
challenge me, and a lot more concerned about your own spiritual
outcome. These will be: massive economic collapse; an anti-gay
holocaust declared by Bush and his ilk; civil eruption and dissent
over gay rights (and then quickly following, women's rights, and
minority rights which unite with gays); imposition by global forces
against the U.S.'s attack on gays; gay revolution spreading worldwide
and disrupting the Muslim regime; creation of areas of "safe haven" in
different parts of the globe, for gay men and women, including
Northern California; secession of N. California to create world's
first gay nation of Athenia.
I have listed these events in the chronological order that my vision
says they will occur. By the time global forces enter the scene, we'll
already have a large number of new leaders rising from grassroots
sources, many of them part of this telepathic organization I call Blue
Rose Militia. And at the time, I myself will rise to world leadership
on behalf of Gay Liberation.
Now that you have my prophecy in a nutshell, you can easily hold onto
it (even print it out, and keep it, folded, in your wallet or
pocket)...if you so wish.
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
<floen...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Thank you.
I commend you your fine ability to touch souls regardless of
viewpoints.
>I like to think that people can disagree on an issue and still be friends,
>but this is only possible through courtesy.
Yes, I try to do this with everyone I encounter. However, knowing full
well the virulent nature of homophobia, and how intrinsic it remains
to our culture, a much more agressive approach is the only way to
combat it. Granted, the stereotype perception of gays is to always be
peaceful, always try to educate, and never to even defend oneself from
violent attacks and government oppression. I am determined to break
this stereotype, for once and for all. And I know I will, for I know
my destiny.
>You work very hard to promote awareness of your views, and though
>I find some of your methods exasperating at times, I respect your
>commitment and the diligence with which you pursue your particularly
>unpopular cultural goals.
I did not expect such a kind and intelligent outreach on your
part...as I am so accustomed to very dumbed-down responses even among
gay-friendly heteros who haven't a clue as to what gays are really all
about, and how homophobia can remain ingrained in those who think they
fully accept homosexuals.
As for my "unpopular" goal, I take this as a compliment, knowing the
"popularity" in the U.S. of attitudes such as homophobia, racism,
misogyny, greed, and financial elitism...and, of course, machismo.
>One thing I will allow no one to say, is that Zeke Krahlin is a quitter or
>a sellout, or that disapproval discourages him. No matter what the
>discouragement, Zeke keeps on fighting.
>
>For that, I salute you most profoundly.
It is thanks to outstanding folks like yourself, that we gays, when we
make our demands, will have true bridges of negotiation. You are
obviously quite capable of understanding what gay people want, and who
we are...when the time comes for us to take opposition against
heterocentric dogma, and demand not just complete equality, but our
very own nation.
>Blessings,
>FLORA
Yeah, well, you are almost too good to be true, Flora. You must have
gone through many trials yourself, to reach such an outstanding level
of comprehension and patience. You realize that one must restore one's
belief in the good, in one's ideals, and not allow cynicism to rule in
the end...if one wants to find one's star in this universe. This is
exactly my calling for my gay sisters and brothers, sort of like Moses
leading his people out of the wilderness into the promised land. (No
false humility, here!)
Your words honor me. I will meditate on them tonight by candle, and
thank Gaia for good folks like you, who are the true healers of this
planet.
I also want to emphasize what a sense of humor these angels have, who
guide me. This is not all serious stuff, ya know.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Permission granted by author for anyone to distribute this
writing free of charge (including translation into any
language)...under condition that it remain intact and
complete, including title and credit to the original author:
Ezekiel J. Krahlin.
ezek...@my-deja.com http://surf.to/gaybible
--------------------------------------------------------------
ODE TO A FIREMAN'S HOSE
or
BABY, UNLIGHT MY FIRE!
by Ezekiel J. Krahlin
Oh whip it out, hard-helmeted brute,
Turn that nozzle and shoot, shoot, shoot:
Oh uniformed man in sacrifice red,
Free me from my burning bed,
Rescue me from passion's fire,
Quench my ardent heart's desire!
Fling your ladder against the wall
(Elope with me to City Hall):
Carry me away from sirens' alarm,
Safe from pyromaniac harm
In those strong, those kind, heroic arms!
Lay me on a wedding bed
Of curbside grass or sidewalk stone;
Sweetly kiss my lips un-red
To wake me from the land of dead...
And from my breath these words shall flow:
"Please take me home, I love you so."
(Let's nuzzle up like hand-in-glove,
In gay dalmatian puppy love.)
---finis
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
>
>Ezekiel J. Krahlin wrote in message
>
>>Know that the Republican Party a.k.a. "The Religious Reich" has
>>unlimited finances to hire the very best scientists in the fields of
>>psychology and sociology...and thus are acquiring great powers to
>>manipulate the masses...which "memes" explanation above is but one
>>among many excellent xamples.
>
>Any proof, please?
That was just a brief quote from an article, which entirety I now
iterate:
---begin article:
How the Republicans Stole the Election
GOP won by planting seeds of deception
December 14, 2000
BY ROGER EBERT
Now that the adventure is over, it might be instructive to consider
some of the ideas that seeped into the general consciousness. How and
why, for example, did it become established in so many minds that Bush
was the presumptive winner and Gore the apparent loser?
What the Republicans did, cleverly, was to establish effective "memes"
in the minds of the public and the pundits. A meme, so named by the
British evolutionist Richard Dawkins, is like a gene, except that
instead of advancing through organisms, it moves through minds. Memes
are simply ideas that demonstrate a high rate of survival and
transmission.
Bush became the "winner" of a dead heat, in the midst of an incomplete
recount, when a premature victory was declared on her own unnecessary
deadline by his Florida campaign co-chairwoman, who also held the
crucial post of secretary of state. Once this bogus "certification"
was final (Ms. Harris signing several copies on TV, including a
valuable souvenir for herself), the Republicans referred to it
endlessly as a valid event, even though it was clearly a shameless
ploy to slam the door before the election escaped. A meme was born.
The other effective GOP meme was the mantra, "we counted, and counted
again, and then a third time." These words were chanted by Baker and
the other Bush spokesmen until many Americans accepted them as a form
of truth, even though it is clear that thousands of ballots were never
counted at all.
Another successful meme was the assault on the honesty of election
judges and the courts in general. They were often characterized by the
GOP as partisan crooks, unless their findings agreed with the Bush
cause, in which case they were patriots.
This led finally to the spectacle of the "states rights" party
applauding the Supremes' federal coup halting the recount because, in
words that will haunt Scalia forever, a recount might cast "a cloud
upon what [Bush] claims to be the legitimacy of his election." Think
about that. In other words, if Gore ended up with more votes, a cloud
would be cast on Bush's claims.
Three days later the Supreme Court majority overruled the Florida
court's attempt to interpret Florida law. John Paul Stevens' dissent
lamented this "lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of
the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote
count were to proceed," and added, in words that will long be quoted,
"...the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation's
confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the law." The
Republicans were not only more effective creators of memes but were
also better at raising their voices. The Democrats were on the whole
more civil in their public statements.
The GOP had no hesitation in making the dangerous charge that
Democrats were "stealing" the election. This in the face of plausible
evidence that Gore got more votes in Florida, as he did nationally.
Right-wing pundits were stirred to a frenzy. Ann Coulter accused the
Democrats of being "delusional nutcases," called the Florida Supreme
Court "power-mad lunatics," and found that the Democrats had crossed
the "fine line" between "typical Democrat lies and demonstrably
psychotic behavior."
More Americans voted for liars and psychotics than for her candidate?
Really? Comments like these are an example not of opinion but of
behavior. Have you ever seen Ms. Coulter on television? Even her
conservative stablemates look queasy as her ideological flywheel
spins.
The Democrats were just plain outshouted. And Lady Luck rolled the
dice and gave them the butterfly ballot, the Jews for Buchanan, the
election boards that took days off, the hired mob to stop the Dade
recount, the disenfranchised black voters, the illegally franchised
military and absentee voters, the Bush cousin to call the election on
TV, the Bush co-chairwoman to rush it through certification, and the
Bush brother to mastermind operation fail-safe by the Florida
legislature to certify Bush electors no matter who won. Even in Vegas
they'd be amazed by luck this rotten; the Miami Herald's
statisticians estimated that Gore probably outpolled Bush by about
23,000 votes.
That's why it was so important for the Republicans to stop the count.
It is important, then, to keep in mind that Bush was not obviously the
winner nor Gore obviously the loser. The GOP has captured the election
but may have done itself damage in the process, leaving doubts about
the fairness of its tactics and the recklessness of its rhetoric.
At the end the Democrats were left with one meme that showed promise:
That they were the ones who wanted to count the votes, while the
Republicans did not. If memes work like genes in the evolution of
political opinion in America, this one may be the fittest, and may
survive
We can only hope.
Tell me, Conservatives...what part of all of this don't you
understand?
---end of article
>>But also know that--despite all their awesome resources to cleverly
>>brainwash and terrorize people--they lack one power, greater than even
>>the sum of all the others they possess, and that is this: psychic
>>abilities such as telepathy and precognition.
>
>Why don't they? Why should they not have this 'power', out of all the other
>people in the US? Are you suggesting that if you're a Republican it somehow
>cancels out any 'psychic' abilities you may have? If so, how does that
>mechanism work? Any proof to go along with it?
First, I am generalizing when I say "Republicans". The evil now
manifest in the Republican party is horrendous, and its first target
for destruction is homosexuality. For this is their litmus test: if
society looks the other way, they know they've won their dirty culture
war, and shall then destroy many other minorities, such as pagans,
blacks, Asians, Jews, etc. Exactly how Hitler began his pogrom: by
first targeting homosexuals. But of course not all Republicans are
like this; and there are many democrats who are also as evil. But,
when comparing both parties side by side, the Republicans win hands
down for possessing an inordinate amount of evil intent...thanks to
the usurpation by fundamentalist zealots.
Why wouldn't evil people likewise possess psychic abilities,
especially when they have huge financial resources to employ the best
research and experts on this? Because my angels tell me that, since
they have ultimate control over who does and who doesn't possess such
gifts, they will see to it that they shall *not. The angels are paving
the way for worldwide gay uprisings and victories...because it is our
destiny. Ergo, they are giving us the "telepathic edge", that we may
know the thought of our enemies, and their plans before they are even
off the drawing board.
Of course, there will be plenty of heteros working with us...just
nowhere near as many as people might like to believe. Hetero AIDS will
do away with a large sum of such evil folk...which is nothing more
than their "just desserts".
>Why, out of all the people in the US that some politicians would find
>'disagreeable', would gays be targetted in particular for some sort of
>'jihad'? What makes them so important?
I cannot make up for your own ignorance about the gay issue here in
these United States. Just pick up any gay newspaper now and then, and
you will become all too aware of how horrid remains the attitude
against gays. We have already been targeted in big ways, by major
political forces. I care not to be put on the defense, by educating
you with every point that has been struck against us, these last few
years. Do you know about DOMA and DADT? If you don't, shame on you,
especially if you regard yourself as "gay friendly".
The Republican Right Wing has declared gays to be so evil, as to plan
our isolation from general society, and then destroyed. Clinton's
signing of DOMA put the death knell to gay rights, IMO...for it
officializes on a federal level, gays as a threat to all "law abiding"
heteros and their nuclear families, and therefore as de facto
2nd-class citizens. Hitler did that to homosexuals, too, declaring us
a poison to German culture and family values...and look where that got
us.
You are willfully ignorant of the gay plight, and thus I must regard
you as friendly fire, at best.
>The so-called threat of a civil war in the US has been harped on
>about for years and years, but to no avail.
That's a single point, which in no way diminishes or trivializes the
essential important of gay rights.
>Sounds like paranoid ranting.
You would see it that way, in order to keep your heterocentric thumb
crushing our gay souls.
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
<wo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>It especially seems odd that the Republican party wouldn't have
>purchased the best psychics that money can buy using their vast
>unlimited finances.
I'm sure they have. But who ultimately controls these forces?
Certainly, no one human. I call them "angels", just for convenience
sake. They are the final arbiter of whether or not you possess any
pscychic abilities. Indeed, they will give these nasty RepubliNazis
enough psychic "rope" to hang their own sad selves.
>And anyone with half an ounce of sense inside the US would have realized
>that after the initial count in Florida, Gore had a substantial uphill
>battle to change the count sufficiently and pursuade enough people that
>this was the correct count. And even before the elections, it was the
>concensus around the political pundant circuit that Nader would pull
>enough Gore votes to upset the elections in Bush's favor.
Gore failed, mainly, for his lacklustre presentations, and not
grabbing the bull by the horns at the right moments. Nader is not
solely to blame for the Bush takeover. Homophobic democrats, I am
sure, voted for Bush, rather than allow a party to win, that supports
gay marriage. Mostly, these would be democrats from the deep south,
and Bible Belt.
>Dunno; the fall of the United States "Empire" through Jihads which cause
>mass slaughters of Gays, economic depression that upsets the homes of
>perhaps a quarter billion people, and a civil war which causes millions
>more to die, brought about by a omni-powerful and vastly wealthy
>Republican party who can buy just about every mind control device
>(except psychics, for some indescribable reason) which has kidnapped
>democracy strikes me as more paranoid than happy.
I think it's rather breathtaking! I'm in love with the whole concept,
which you so aptly put in a delicious nutshell. Besides which: do
people think their unholy hatred against gay people will never go
unavenged? If you believe in karma, the answer of course is "no".
And of course: the angels are on *my side.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Permission granted by author for anyone to distribute this
writing free of charge (including translation into any
language)...under condition that no profit is made therefrom,
and that it remain intact and complete, including title and
credit to the original author.
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
ezek...@my-deja.com http://surf.to/gaybible
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALL GOD'S ANGELS ARE GAY
(a parable for the 21st century)
Š 2000 by Ezekiel J. Krahlin
(Jehovah's Queer Witness)
Imagine this unpleasant scene: A guardian angel who loves a
person so much appears before that person to make his life a
living miracle. But that person--let's call him Ishmael--takes
his angel's appearance for granted, being the spoiled brat his
parents turned him into. So he taunts the angel, lies to hurt
his feelings, even beats and kicks him whenever he feels like
it, just like he does to Ol' Dawg. Ishmael keeps shutting him
up, before the angel can explain to him of Our Father's Love
and all the Wondrous Things that life can be if you only open
your heart. So the angel pleads and pleads and pleads...but
all to no avail, so that, after a number of terrible months
without a single breakthrough, the angel realizes he's
accomplished his mission as best as possible, and must now
make himself invisible to this person, once more.
Yet this terrible heartbreak suffered by this angel does not
stop him from continuing his mission--albeit invisible--by
pleading and pleading and pleading and PLEADING until that Day
of Triumph comes, and come it will. In fact, the angel never
skips a beat in his devotion to a soul...for he knows how
truly blessed he is, and that it is all a celebration even in
the darkest hour. For it is in that darkest hour only, that
the angel can finally take center stage, and sing out his
heart to God. And in so doing, create a golden chord of
brotherly love that unites himself, the guardian angel, to
this person.
And the angel need only be yanked down once, before he uses
his wings. Yep, you gotta be A-1 tiptop absolute BEST soldier
to score that high! A perfect score, in fact. (And does this
foolish person get pulled up with his angel, or does the chord
break to leave the angel unfettered from any more pain? That,
I believe, depends on whether or not Ishmael has a change of
heart, and if it comes soon enough to make a difference.)
Now, you're probably thinking: "Yes, that does sadden me, as I
know there are all too many people in this world who are just
like that nasty Ishmael!" And as if by an afterthought, you
boast: "Thank God I'm not like that. I'd NEVER harm an angel!"
Oh, you wouldn't would you? Before you think so smug of
yourself, answer me this:
"Do you like gay people; that is: homosexuals?"
And your answer to that single question ALONE, will tell you
for sure, whether or not you are also an Ishmael. And God
shall pass His judgment upon you, accordingly. Let this
parable be spoken in every tongue, in every nation, and in
every home. Blessed be. And may The Angel of Justice pass
you over.
---finis
Apu Kuntur
One point surely will come true in the nearer future: a collapse of the
american economics, at least, when Japan decides to ask the US to pay their
bills ...
Your delusion of grandeur at the last part is amazing. There are simply not
enough gays ´round there to fullfill this prophecy, however. And one thing for
sure: Anyone claiming to be a would-be ruler of the world needs urgently
psychiatric assistance, or the guiding teachings of the church of subgenius,
to get all necessary contacts and the only-true-enlightening-insights, BOB the
True Master of Slack will emanate from his pipes smoke.
Hail Eris,
William Edward Woody
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 02:54:30 -0800, William Edward Woody
> <wo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> >It especially seems odd that the Republican party wouldn't have
> >purchased the best psychics that money can buy using their vast
> >unlimited finances.
>
> I'm sure they have. But who ultimately controls these forces?
> Certainly, no one human. I call them "angels", just for convenience
> sake. They are the final arbiter of whether or not you possess any
> pscychic abilities. Indeed, they will give these nasty RepubliNazis
> enough psychic "rope" to hang their own sad selves.
So you're saying that there are forces beyond us all which would negate
the power of any psychic who receives a paycheck from the GOP, by virtue
of their political orientation?
Are you saying God is a Democrat?
> >And anyone with half an ounce of sense inside the US would have realized
> >that after the initial count in Florida, Gore had a substantial uphill
> >battle to change the count sufficiently and pursuade enough people that
> >this was the correct count. And even before the elections, it was the
> >concensus around the political pundant circuit that Nader would pull
> >enough Gore votes to upset the elections in Bush's favor.
>
> Gore failed, mainly, for his lacklustre presentations, and not
> grabbing the bull by the horns at the right moments. Nader is not
> solely to blame for the Bush takeover. Homophobic democrats, I am
> sure, voted for Bush, rather than allow a party to win, that supports
> gay marriage. Mostly, these would be democrats from the deep south,
> and Bible Belt.
Actually, for most people, homophobia hardly shows up as a blip on their
political radar. For most people, their priorities are the economy (that
is, how comfortable they feel putting food on their table), schools (or
how comfortable they are with their children being able to put food on
their table), police (or how safe they feel about the food on their
table), welfare (or how confortable they feel about the food on other
people's tables), and the like.
Call it the "food on the table" theory of politics.
For the vast majority of people, unless homosexuals are having sex on
the dinner table, they could care less. And that's true of the party
officials of the Republican and Democrat parties, as well as the most
dedicated voters.
In general, "vice" or "lifestyle" issues (such as homosexuality) only
show up on people's radars when they feel that those issues may cause
either a decline in the overall "feel" of their neighborhoods (that is,
if declining morality effects property values--which affects the food on
their table), or when they feel a decline in these issues (either pro-
or anti-homosexuality) may cause a decline in the overall society. And
anything that affects the overall quality of our overall society
affects--you guessed it--the ability for people to put food on their
table.
Most people do not have the imagination to go from "gay marriage" to
"decline in morals" to "lackluster responsibility at work" to "less food
on the table". So most people just don't care about gay marriage, except
in the most abstract sense. And abstract stuff never triumphs over food
on the table.
> >Dunno; the fall of the United States "Empire" through Jihads which cause
> >mass slaughters of Gays, economic depression that upsets the homes of
> >perhaps a quarter billion people, and a civil war which causes millions
> >more to die, brought about by a omni-powerful and vastly wealthy
> >Republican party who can buy just about every mind control device
> >(except psychics, for some indescribable reason) which has kidnapped
> >democracy strikes me as more paranoid than happy.
>
> I think it's rather breathtaking! I'm in love with the whole concept,
> which you so aptly put in a delicious nutshell. ...
And it's a complete crock of crap--in large part because a Jihad would
affect people's abilities to put food on the table. In other parts of
the world, a Jihad makes sense because people don't have the base need
that we have in this country to protect every last scrap of corn we put
onto our collective plates. But here in the United States--we'll nuke
the rest of the world into a dull red glow if we felt it would help us
protect the quality of our meatloaf. (*)
[* I exaggerate here. But not by much--the only times when the United
States has seriously rallied behind violent actions abroad or at home is
when the case could be made to the american public that those actions
would preserve domestic economic security.]
> ... Besides which: do
> people think their unholy hatred against gay people will never go
> unavenged? If you believe in karma, the answer of course is "no".
I live in Los Angeles. I've never seen any "unholy hatred of gays"; the
most I've noted here (except in the most isolated pockets) is a vague
disquiet at the overuse of pastels. Perhaps it's the people I hang
around?
> And of course: the angels are on *my side.
Is it my imagination, or are the angels (God/the Divine/Whatever) is on
the side of the person doing the ranting? Just an observation...
> Imagine this unpleasant scene: A guardian angel who loves a
> person so much appears before that person to make his life a
> living miracle. But that person--let's call him Ishmael--takes
And hope he never catches that whale. Oh, wait; this is a gay thing--and
that whale--okay, let's home he catches that whale after all. (wink,
wink)
> his angel's appearance for granted, being the spoiled brat his
> parents turned him into. So he taunts the angel, lies to hurt
> his feelings, even beats and kicks him whenever he feels like
> it, just like he does to Ol' Dawg. Ishmael keeps shutting him
> up, before the angel can explain to him of Our Father's Love
> and all the Wondrous Things that life can be if you only open
> your heart. ...
Does this 'opening your heart' thing involve a rainbow? I really want to
know.
> ... So the angel pleads and pleads and pleads...but
> all to no avail, so that, after a number of terrible months
> without a single breakthrough, the angel realizes he's
> accomplished his mission as best as possible, and must now
> make himself invisible to this person, once more.
>
> Yet this terrible heartbreak suffered by this angel does not
> stop him from continuing his mission--albeit invisible--by
> pleading and pleading and pleading and PLEADING until that Day
> of Triumph comes, and come it will. ...
Pleading won't help the "Day of Triumph" cum^H^H^Hcome. Usually it
requires a little more subtlty.
> ...In fact, the angel never
> skips a beat in his devotion to a soul...for he knows how
> truly blessed he is, and that it is all a celebration even in
> the darkest hour. For it is in that darkest hour only, that
> the angel can finally take center stage, and sing out his
> heart to God. And in so doing, create a golden chord of
> brotherly love that unites himself, the guardian angel, to
> this person.
>
> And the angel need only be yanked down once, before he uses
> his wings. Yep, you gotta be A-1 tiptop absolute BEST soldier
> to score that high! A perfect score, in fact. (And does this
> foolish person get pulled up with his angel, or does the chord
> break to leave the angel unfettered from any more pain? That,
> I believe, depends on whether or not Ishmael has a change of
> heart, and if it comes soon enough to make a difference.)
>
> Now, you're probably thinking: "Yes, that does sadden me, as I
> know there are all too many people in this world who are just
> like that nasty Ishmael!" And as if by an afterthought, you
> boast: "Thank God I'm not like that. I'd NEVER harm an angel!"
>
> Oh, you wouldn't would you? Before you think so smug of
> yourself, answer me this:
>
> "Do you like gay people; that is: homosexuals?"
As a bisexual, will only half of me get into the kingdom of glory? And
if only half, will be the upper half? Or my lower half? Or more
specifically, my lower six inches?
> And your answer to that single question ALONE, will tell you
> for sure, whether or not you are also an Ishmael.
That damned white whale!
> ... And God
> shall pass His judgment upon you, accordingly. Let this
> parable be spoken in every tongue, in every nation, and in
> every home. Blessed be. And may The Angel of Justice pass
> you over.
Pass me over instead of what? Killing my innocent first born?
Look, I have serious problems with the way gay people are being treated
in this country. And even here in Los Angeles, one of the more lenient
areas of the country, the problems are still rather severe.
However, I usually expect this sort of thing (like predictions of Jihads
and civil war) from the wacky right wing, not from a wacky left wing.
Should we now take rainbow colored guns and hide in pastel colored
bunkers and train for the day of revolution?
Am I the only one who thinks waiting for some sort of religious Jihad
(or worse--trying to bring one around) isn't exactly the answer to
homosexual descrimination?
William Edward Woody
> Yes, I try to do this with everyone I encounter. However, knowing full
> well the virulent nature of homophobia, and how intrinsic it remains
> to our culture, a much more agressive approach is the only way to
> combat it. Granted, the stereotype perception of gays is to always be
> peaceful, always try to educate, and never to even defend oneself from
> violent attacks and government oppression. I am determined to break
> this stereotype, for once and for all. And I know I will, for I know
> my destiny.
Oh, great.
So my question to you is this: as someone who has been insulted, derided
and otherwise accused of an unwillingness to come out of the closet
because I've indicated some degree of bisexuality--by some in the
homosexual community, no less--should I take up arms against the "unholy
hatred of bisexuals from the homosexual community?"
It's a crock of crap to initiate violent opposition to those who hate
you--if for no other reason than those who you don't take seriously may
perceive your comments as hatred for them--and they'll take up arms
against you.
Watch out for a backlash from the bisexuals.
I'm not arguing against vigilence, nor am I arguing against defending
yourself using all necessary force. But you almost sound like you're
hoping to initiate something against "homophobes." And that's not the
answer.
> I did not expect such a kind and intelligent outreach on your
> part...as I am so accustomed to very dumbed-down responses even among
> gay-friendly heteros who haven't a clue as to what gays are really all
> about, and how homophobia can remain ingrained in those who think they
> fully accept homosexuals.
This is the Internet, and it's impossible to know who'se on the other
end of the wire. Be careful not to be prejudiced against everyone, or to
assume everyone you're dealing with are at best "gay friendly
hetrosexuals."
> As for my "unpopular" goal, I take this as a compliment, knowing the
> "popularity" in the U.S. of attitudes such as homophobia, racism,
> misogyny, greed, and financial elitism...and, of course, machismo.
I wouldn't say these are popular. More like rampant, like a fungus. Just
because someone develops a fungus on his feet doesn't mean he accepts
the itching rash...
> It is thanks to outstanding folks like yourself, that we gays, when we
> make our demands, will have true bridges of negotiation. You are
> obviously quite capable of understanding what gay people want, and who
> we are...when the time comes for us to take opposition against
> heterocentric dogma, and demand not just complete equality, but our
> very own nation.
"We gays?" "Negotiation?" "Hetrocentric dogma?"
I almost wander where in this black and white antagonistic world you
would place self-professed bisexuals. And if it is the answer I've heard
from other homosexuals (that bisexuals are just sexually confused
homosexuals in extreme denial at best, or obnoxious pests who muddle the
'cause' at worse), then watch your back.
We just may take arms up against you.
William Edward Woody
> simply 50-50. When I made my prediction, most people did not see a
> Bush conquest as possible in any way...
Except the press, and the political pundants, and those who accused
Nadar of gutting Gore's liberal support...
I suspect you just weren't listening to most people.
eagleraven
ezek...@my-deja.com (Ezekiel J. Krahlin) wrote:
How can you hold in your hand tomorrow when you can not even predict
today? Show me 'today'.
'Tomorrow', or what you call 'tomorrow', is nothing more then the 'sum
total' of every decision, option, opinion and action taken yesterday
day creating a 'mean' overall 'physic' connection to what we 'perceive'
as 'today' but, in reality, is only the 'in between' or transmission
process of two independant moments in time that one may simply not
posses or know.
--
Gentle Peace
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Maqua
Ego, Zeke...Ego.
Maqua
HY
Ibis
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
<wo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>ezek...@my-deja.com (Ezekiel J. Krahlin) wrote:
>> Hello, Apu. It is quite easy, with hindsight, to claim my odds were
>> simply 50-50. When I made my prediction, most people did not see a
>> Bush conquest as possible in any way...
>
>Except the press, and the political pundants, and those who accused
>Nadar of gutting Gore's liberal support...
That was at least five weeks after I posted my prediction on September
20.
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
<wo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>Actually, for most people, homophobia hardly shows up as a blip on their
>political radar.
You've proved my point exactly: the Amerikan majority remains
willfully and blithely ignorant of the gay dilemma. They care not one
whit for our rights, and would still worry about the economy, even
when gays are being whisked off to concentration camp death chambers.
We'd be erased from history, just as the Nazis tried to do to us. I am
terribly ashamed of my country, for when I see people being
interviewed re. politics, not a single one has "gay rights" on his or
her lips. Everything BUT. This arrogance of ignorance will come back
to haunt them, and right the wrongs perpetrated for so long against
gay people.
>For the vast majority of people, unless homosexuals are having sex on
>the dinner table, they could care less. And that's true of the party
>officials of the Republican and Democrat parties, as well as the most
>dedicated voters.
That is a pack of lies. Gays are aggressively demonized and attacked,
in our Amerikan society. What is the "gay friendly" attitude of a tiny
minority of heteros, you would have us believe is a majority opinion.
>I live in Los Angeles. I've never seen any "unholy hatred of gays"; the
>most I've noted here (except in the most isolated pockets) is a vague
>disquiet at the overuse of pastels. Perhaps it's the people I hang
>around?
More bullshit. You willfully remain uneducated about the gay
plight...which is no less serious in Los Angeles than anywhere else. I
have dealt with your kind before: arrogant and ignorant, in a cloak of
seeming gay-awareness and sensitivity. All your words add up to, is to
encourage gays to trivialize their horrendous situation, that we may
continue to be bashed, and eventually rounded up and exterminated...so
that your God of Greed may have his ritual sacrifices in exchange for
continued glorification of heterosexism.
I refuse to be distracted by your list of ignorant and arrogant
statements, as I have answered such many times over, in previous
newsgroups. I am neither here to educate, nor even to elucidate. I am
here to declare war against our true enemies...who will never let us
gays have our freedom in any peaceable manner. Just because Bush has
become our President, is no reason why we gays should meekly accept
four more years of oppression and violence against us good people. It
is clear to me, and to a growing mass of gay folk, that the political,
legal, and social system of Amerika is blatantly designed against gay
equality through the bureacratic channels. We have no choice but to
rattle cages and usurp postions of power in whatever unconventional
ways possible. Of course, you would than insist I am speaking only in
terms of violent confrontation...whereas this is never what I propose,
which is to be aggressive and uncompromising. The tactics I propose
are forms of psychological terrorism at times, and other forms of
extreme, non-violent dissent.
Now, go choke on something, that you may lose your voice. It is your
destiny.
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
>'Tomorrow', or what you call 'tomorrow', is nothing more then the 'sum
>total' of every decision, option, opinion and action taken yesterday
>day creating a 'mean' overall 'physic' connection to what we 'perceive'
>as 'today' but, in reality, is only the 'in between' or transmission
>process of two independant moments in time that one may simply not
>posses or know.
And in so being aware that there is no real "timeline", I am able to
leap about from one era to the next, irrespective of whether future,
past, or present. And that is my little secret: I have access!
>Gentle Peace
Aggressive Dissent.
Do not assuage my ego with images of meekness, submission, compromise
and assimilation. I am unshackling my gay sisters and brothers from
such braindead bondage...who are accused of "violence" for having a
voice in the first place. What hetero skulduggery!
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
<wo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>So my question to you is this: as someone who has been insulted, derided
>and otherwise accused of an unwillingness to come out of the closet
>because I've indicated some degree of bisexuality--by some in the
>homosexual community, no less--should I take up arms against the "unholy
>hatred of bisexuals from the homosexual community?"
You would be foolish and homophobic to do so. I would never accuse a
bisexual of being a closet case. Bisexuality is real, though I see
bisexual politics as hypocritical. Any bisexual who partakes in gay
rights I'd regard as I would any heterosexual doing same: thanks for
the help. However, bisexual supremacy is an attitude all too common
among bi's...and is nothing more than one more variation on the theme
of homophobia.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Permission granted by author for anyone to distribute this
writing free of charge (including translation into any
language)...under condition that no profit is made therefrom,
and that it remain intact and complete, including title and
credit to the original author.
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
ezek...@my-deja.com http://surf.to/gaybible
--------------------------------------------------------------
BISEXUAL POLITICS = VAMPIRES ON THE BLOOD OF GAY RIGHTS
Š 1998 by Ezekiel J. Krahlin
(Jehovah's Queer Witness)
(The following essay is an article I wrote in a gay
newsgroup in February 1998.)
---begin article
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Gay separatist manifesto
From: ezek...@mailcity.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Sun, 01 Feb 1998 10:22:26 GMT
On Sat, 31 Jan 1998 16:43:34 GMT, gm...@ix.netcom.com (George
M. Carter) said:
>ezek...@mailcity.com (Ezekiel Krahlin) wrote:
>
>>I just stumbled across another example of how bisexuals
>>often stab gays in the back, believing themselves to be
>>superior. This is just another style of homophobia,
>>comparable to straights who also see themselves superior
>>to gays.
>
>Or in the alternative....
>
>I just stumbled across another example of how bisexuals often
>stab straights in the back, believing themselves to be
>superior. This is just another style of heterophobia,
>comparable to gays who also see themselves superior to
>straights.
>
>Think about it.
I have, and I don't buy into this heterophobia theory, one
bit. Any gay who does, already reveals his own self betrayal,
hypocrisy, and lack of pride. To accuse a gay person of
heterophobia (or biphobia), is like accusing a concentration
camp survivor of Naziphobia.
As far as the terms "biphobia" and "heterophobia"...they are
invalid because nonexistant. Whatever disgust a gay person
shows towards bi's and straights is founded on truth, not
illusion...and homophobia possesses such extensive dimensions
of hatred, violence, and ignorance...that to even accuse a
gay person of either biphobia or heterophobia is in itself a
homophobic manipulation.
Biphobia is a crock. So's heterophobia. Homophobia, on the
other hand, is real.
A "phobia" is any unjustified fear or hatred. From Random
House Dictionary:
pho+bi+a (fO_bEE uh) n. pl. <-bi+as>
1. a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object,
activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to
avoid it.
Homophobia is totally unjustified. It is a violent and cruel
act of persecution to a vulnerable group of people. Ergo,
homophobia *is* a true phobia.
Fear and hatred of heterosexuals is quite real, as so many
are homophobic...and often difficult to discern which ones
aren't. In our heterosexist society, no gay person can
safely be himself or herself--anwhere in our nation--without
the persistant threat of being murdered, beat up, job loss,
housing loss, or a number of other hostile responses.
"Biphobia" is a clever term created by the so-called bisexual
political movement. Bisexual politics in large part, plays
on homophobia to create their own distinct identity...while
coyly pretending not to be homophobic in the least. They
take the hard-earned achievements of lesbian/thracian rights,
and turn it into their own...rather than bravely participate
directly in the gay movement. For the only real problem
bisexuals have in society, is their desire for homosexual
expression...they have *no* problem being accepted for their
heterosexual passions. In a nutshell: Gays sacrifice their
lives for a better world, and bisexuals lick up the blood to
slake their thirst.
Bisexuals often portray their dual sexual drive as "perfect",
contrasting that with homosexuality, which is implied as
discriminatory to the opposite sex. As if sexual arousal
were proof of acceptance towards another...in truth, it is
only an itch for selfish pleasure, and is often used by
heterosexists to justify a sexual act that is legally seen as
rape.
Every incidence of violence against bisexuals has always been
a form of homophobia. Just because the victim happens to be
bisexual, does not make the hate crime biphobic. Beware, gay
people: any bisexual who *insists* that biphobia is real, is
homophobic, and should not be trusted, ever. Any real
fighter for gay rights--who is bisexual or hetero--has no
difficulty participating in same-sex civil rights without
feeling a need to create a separate political entity...that
is, "bisexual politics". Bisexuality is real, but is not a
valid political movement.
If heterophobia (or biphobia) were real, we'd having roving
gangs of queers bashing straights (or bi's), queer property
owners evicting them, and queer employers firing them. None
of this is the case. But if you insist heterophobia is real,
by pointing out the occassional slur a gay might make about
straights...then you are equating an action that is so
ridculously mild as to be harmless, with another action that
is deplorably brutal and malicious. In other words, you
would be homophobic yourself.
>Meantime, I think you are intentionally distorting Boy
>George's comments to suit your own agenda. I may be wrong,
>but I believe him to be saying that sexuality is fully
>blossomed when one has no impediments to enjoying sex with
>same, opposite or other sexes. I think he would view
>heterosexuality as unevolved.
Again, you are perceiving a superiority where none exists.
It's like claiming one is not a complete human being, if one
does not enjoy the flavor of both chocolate *and vanilla. It
still comes down to the same old phony bisexual
machismo...another form of homophobia when you boil it down.
For a gay person to believe heterophobia exists, and that
bisexuality is a superior attitude...is to oppress and demean
his own homosexuality, and spread homophobia among his own
brothers. And this is exactly what you, poor thing, are doing.
>It's a nice sentiment. It doesn't mean anything, really. What
>we each find attractive (a sexual turn-on) is idiosyncratic.
>One man's meat is [fill in blank].
It's not a nice sentiment at all: it's demeaning and
homophobic. But I agree: It doesn't mean anything on a
theoretical level, when analyzed by intelligent and peacable
people. However, it means *everything (our lives, our
well-being, etc.) when the majority believes it is so
important as to justify fear, hatred, and violence against
homosexuals.
>Think of it this way. The separatist state of ___sexuals that
>permits only the true ___sexuals where people attracted to
>their own race are allowed. People attracted to other races
>are guilty of miscegenation and that is bad because it
>dilutes the people of the ___ race.
Doesn't work that way. I am discussing the idea of secession
as a way of creating a truly secure place on this planet, for
gays and lesbians. It is a similar situation to that of Jews,
who finally did form their own nation. I suppose you would
find the Jews as arrogant, phobic, or misled, for doing so?
Just because our persecution is based on our sexual
attraction, does not make our struggle any less valid. (For my
own part, I would define our attraction on a broader level, as
"affectional" rather than simply "sexual".)
For now, the best we can do is congregate in a few small areas
in a number of major U.S. metropolises...where we nevertheless
get bashed, threatened, and terrorized constantly in what is
still a dominant and violent, heterocentric ambience. Hence,
the majority of gay people remain in the closet, living in
fear, across rural and small-town (and small-city) AmeriKKKa.
Those who are professed gays are mostly in urban areas...and
are a mere smidgen of the real gay population that has yet to
be heard, known, or liberated. Indeed, we have our own silent
majority.
There have been proposals to declare San Francisco as a refuge
for people from other nations being persecuted for sexual
differences. I don't see how such a safety zone could work,
except as becoming a sovereign territory.
>Me: Heterosexuality on an overpopulated planet is a
>psychosocial disorder.
Heterosexuality is not the danger...it is heterosexism that
is. It is a breeder manifesto that is bound to lead to plagues
wiping out 2/3 of our population, in order to bring things
down to a reasonable population level. Once that happens, I
hardly think any society will look at unbridled reproduction
in the same light as previously. In fact, people may become
terrorized at the thought of breeding...and some may even be
*forced by law to propagate, in order to maintain even a low
level of populace.
>Ezekiel (and I think this is funny...)
>---
>The legalization of hetero marriage has opened the
>doors to bestiality, pedophilia, child abuse, and
>other godless atrocities. End this now!
>GodHates...@HetBeGone.com
I am amazed at how few self-proclaimed gays see *any humor in
my statements...which shows me how brain dead, malicious,
conniving, and deceptive many are. Education through
entertainment *is my forte.
---
My web site kicks (but never licks) butt!
http://ezekielk.simplenet.com/
mailto: ezek...@mailcity.com
---end article
P.S.: To this original article, I add the following remark:
Do not forget *who coined the term "heterophobia" in the first
place: the Bible-thumping fundamentalist cults. Now, why would
any gay (or gay friendly) person ever want to define another
gay by using a label arising from the KKKristian homophobic
agenda...one which is intentionally created to trivialize and
demean homosexual equality? It truly saddens me, when I hear a
gay brother or sister accuse another of "heterophobia", as if
he or she really believed in the legitimacy of such a term.
Obviously, the "Religious Reich" has done a good job of
infiltrating our gay lexicon and consciousness, in such a way
as to partially usurp our growing pride and self-worth.
- Ezekiel J. Krahlin, 11/24/98
---finis
>It's a crock of crap to initiate violent opposition to those who hate
>you--if for no other reason than those who you don't take seriously may
>perceive your comments as hatred for them--and they'll take up arms
>against you.
A semi-clever ploy to defuse gay integrity and outrage. Nice try, but
no dice. For one: you insist on defining my aggressive approach as
"violent", in order to turn decent gay folk against me, by twisting my
words. I am not expressing any hatred whatsoever, against the horrors
and atrocities of real-world gay hatred...I am expressing, OUTRAGE. As
for their taking up arms against me...well, you jerk, they already
have, centuries ago...and you would have people believe that finally
resisting such a force of terror as an act of violence? Well, sadly,
you are all too typical of arrogant bisexuals: bi-supremacy, which
partakes along with heteros, in the bashing of gay people who refuse
to live by your demeaning and trivializing definitions of who we gays
really are.
>Watch out for a backlash from the bisexuals.
Thanks for the warning, but I am well aware of the backstabbing of
bisexuals for a long time, now...that's why I wrote the above essay:
to warn gays about rampant attitudes of bi-supremacy. When push come
to shove, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind, as to which side of
the fence bisexuals will stand: the hetero side. Very few bisexuals
are truly gay friendly...even less than the small percentage of
heteros.
>I'm not arguing against vigilence, nor am I arguing against defending
>yourself using all necessary force. But you almost sound like you're
>hoping to initiate something against "homophobes." And that's not the
>answer.
It isn't? How ridiculous! Homophobia is the crux of the matter, when
it comes to gay rights...no more and no less.
>This is the Internet, and it's impossible to know who'se on the other
>end of the wire. Be careful not to be prejudiced against everyone, or to
>assume everyone you're dealing with are at best "gay friendly
>hetrosexuals."
I make no such assumptions towards anyone, either off or on the
Internet. I am not prejudiced against anyone. I merely stand up for
gay equality, and oppose homophobia. All the sludge that wells up to
resist me, in Usenet, is astounding...whereby I, the dissenter, am
accused of violence and prejudice, because I speak genuine outrage
against gay hatred. You are so like many foul-minded folks: you think
you are more intelligent than me, and so talking down to me is all it
takes to convince others of your "rightness". Or so you'd
believe...because you are far dumber than you think. Such is the curse
of homophobia: the more severe the phobia, the more of your
intelligence is sacrificed. Talk about "just desserts"...just look at
the great homophobe Ronald Reagan, ending his sorry years from
Alzheimer's.
>I wouldn't say these are popular. More like rampant, like a fungus. Just
>because someone develops a fungus on his feet doesn't mean he accepts
>the itching rash...
Sorry, but that is an inept comparison to the virulent nature of
homophobia. Ever person who suffers from the nasty fungus of gay
hatred, does indeed accept it, believing it is a godly thing to preach
against the freedom and happiness of gay people, and to bash them to
death, in the name of their god or goddess.
>I almost wander where in this black and white antagonistic world you
>would place self-professed bisexuals.
I would place them as being born with an orientation to both sexes, no
more and no less. And I confront those bi's who regard such an
orientation as superior to 100% gays. I would have to know their own
political stance about gay rights, before passing any judgment.
>And if it is the answer I've heard from other homosexuals (that bisexuals are
>just sexually confused homosexuals in extreme denial at best, or obnoxious
>pests who muddle the 'cause' at worse), then watch your back.
Nope, that's not like me at all. I wouldn't ever regard a bisexual as
an undeveloped, or closeted gay person. Gays who talk like that are
quite ignorant. However, the ignorance you show in other aspects of
gay folk, is rude, barbaric, and all too typical of bisexuals, who
often regard gay people with arrogance.
>We just may take arms up against you.
You have just affirmed my opinion of you: fag-basher!
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
>"Blessed are the meak for they shall inherit the earth."
That's "meek", not "meak".
Do not assuage my ego with images of meekness, submission, compromise
and assimilation. I am unshackling my gay sisters and brothers from
such braindead bondage...who are accused of "violence" for having a
voice in the first place. What hetero skulduggery!
>Ego, Zeke...Ego.
And proud of it!
Gay pride: fight back, bash back, reject the peacemaker stereotype!
William Edward Woody
> William Edward Woody <wo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> >Actually, for most people, homophobia hardly shows up as a blip on their
> >political radar.
>
> You've proved my point exactly: ...
Which point would that be? That the American public don't care about
homosexual issues? Or that the American public care so much about
homosexual issues that they are willing to rise up in arms over the
issue, and wage a holy war?
You can't have it both ways.
> ... the Amerikan majority remains
^
I hope this is a typo; the last time I saw "America" spelled "Amerika"
was by some really wacked out right wing paranoid nuts...
> willfully and blithely ignorant of the gay dilemma. They care not one
> whit for our rights, and would still worry about the economy, even
^^^^
It's not that the American public don't care about gay rights. It's just
not the thing that drives voters to vote for Republicans or Democrats.
> when gays are being whisked off to concentration camp death chambers.
None of my gay friends have been whisked off to concentration camp death
chambers. Plenty of my Native American relatives have been shot by
California officials at the turn of this century, but no concentration
camp death chambers.
Please, don't insult me with paranoid stories about death camps and
gangs of officials trying to silently kill. I've had it happen to my
family for real, and I don't have a hell of a lot of patience for people
trying to self-martyer with paranoid stories.
Having relatives or friends or ancestors killed en-mass does not make
you morally superior nor does it make you or yours martyrs. It just
makes them dead.
> We'd be erased from history, just as the Nazis tried to do to us.
You're Jewish? Hell, I thought you were talking about gay rights.
> ... I am
> terribly ashamed of my country, for when I see people being
> interviewed re. politics, not a single one has "gay rights" on his or
> her lips. ...
Then you're not paying attention, and you live in the wrong part of the
country.
> ...Everything BUT. This arrogance of ignorance will come back
> to haunt them, and right the wrongs perpetrated for so long against
> gay people.
>
> >For the vast majority of people, unless homosexuals are having sex on
> >the dinner table, they could care less. And that's true of the party
> >officials of the Republican and Democrat parties, as well as the most
> >dedicated voters.
>
> That is a pack of lies. Gays are aggressively demonized and attacked,
> in our Amerikan society.
^
Nope. Not a typo. Do you have a Gay version of the Turner Diaries on
hand as well?
Besides, you're performing a non-sequator. I'm talking about the
majority. Yes, homosexuals are attacked in our society, as well as being
marginalized and discriminated against. But this happens by a relatively
small minority, with the majority at worse turning a blind eye.
> What is the "gay friendly" attitude of a tiny
> minority of heteros, you would have us believe is a majority opinion.
I never called the majority of our society gay friendly. I called them
indifferent. Neither good nor bad; just indifferent, and perhaps a
little uncomfortable. And since most people are more concerned about the
food on their table to care, it just doesn't show up in people's radar.
In my opinion, indifference is <<worse>> than hatred--because hatred can
be countered and isolated and fought.
Indifference requires making people care. And that's a hell of a lot
harder.
> >I live in Los Angeles. I've never seen any "unholy hatred of gays"; the
> >most I've noted here (except in the most isolated pockets) is a vague
> >disquiet at the overuse of pastels. Perhaps it's the people I hang
> >around?
>
> More bullshit. ...
And as a native of Los Angeles, you have first hand experience?
> ...You willfully remain uneducated about the gay
> plight...which is no less serious in Los Angeles than anywhere else. ...
So you're saying the plight of Gays in (say) Montana is no worse than
their plight in West Hollywood?
(For those who don't know, West Hollywood was incorporated to be a
gay-friendly city within Los Angeles, and has a mostly homosexual city
council. They also have some of the best clubs and restaurants within
their city limits. And I think it's pretty cool that for a while, there
used to be some gay-targeted billboards showing (amongst other things)
two men kissing.
Montana, on the other hand, is not quite as gay friendly.)
> ... I
> have dealt with your kind before: arrogant and ignorant, in a cloak of
> seeming gay-awareness and sensitivity. ...
Ignorant because I disagree with you, and arrogant because I speak up?
> ... All your words add up to, is to
> encourage gays to trivialize their horrendous situation, that we may
> continue to be bashed, and eventually rounded up and exterminated...so
> that your God of Greed may have his ritual sacrifices in exchange for
> continued glorification of heterosexism.
I don't believe Gays should ever trivialize their situation, any more
than others with sexual orientations or philosophical or religious
beliefs or racial background should ever trivialize theirs.
However, being paranoid--assuming there is a master plan to have "all of
your people rounded up and exterminated in concentration camp death
chambers" does a serious disservice to the Gay community because it
suggests an extreme point of view which is orthogonal to the <<real>>
problems that Gays face.
<<Real>> problems, such as work discrimination, discrimination in the
marriage laws, discrimination in insurance, and housing discrimination.
THESE are the problems that you should be concentrating on, not watching
the skys for the black helicopters to arrive to round you and your
friends up to be carted off to slave camps.
> I refuse to be distracted by your list of ignorant and arrogant
> statements, as I have answered such many times over, in previous
> newsgroups. ...
Where? I haven't seen them, and I see you've conveniently snipped all of
my comments, both gutting and ignoring the essence of my arguments.
> ... I am neither here to educate, nor even to elucidate. I am
> here to declare war against our true enemies...who will never let us
> gays have our freedom in any peaceable manner. ...
"Declare War?" Are you really that fucking paranoid?
Dude! You really should reduce your prozac dosage; you know taking too
much of that crap can cause delusions.
> ... Just because Bush has
> become our President, is no reason why we gays should meekly accept
> four more years of oppression and violence against us good people.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You mean four more years of concentration camp death chambers running
around the clock turning gays into soap?
That is, you mean gays are already being sent off to concentration camp
death chambers and turned into Ivory brand Soap, and only you know about
it?
> ... It
> is clear to me, and to a growing mass of gay folk, that the political,
> legal, and social system of Amerika is blatantly designed against gay
^
There you go again with that damned K...
> equality through the bureacratic channels. We have no choice but to
> rattle cages and usurp postions of power in whatever unconventional
> ways possible. Of course, you would than insist I am speaking only in
> terms of violent confrontation...whereas this is never what I propose,
No, you were talking about the upcoming Jihad and civil war, which would
eventually balkenize the United States.
> which is to be aggressive and uncompromising. The tactics I propose
> are forms of psychological terrorism at times, and other forms of
> extreme, non-violent dissent.
If you are as effective at psychological terrorism as you are in
presenting your case, Gays the world over are in serious trouble.
> Now, go choke on something, that you may lose your voice. It is your
> destiny.
Oh, did you assume I was a "gay-friendly" or "gay-unfriendly"
hetrosexual? *snigger* Choose whatever former label (friendly or
unfriendly) you may choose--but the latter label you think applies to me
is incorrect.
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
<wo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
You contradict yourself when you say:
>I live in Los Angeles. I've never seen any "unholy hatred of gays"; the
>most I've noted here (except in the most isolated pockets) is a vague
>disquiet at the overuse of pastels. Perhaps it's the people I hang
>around?
then in that same message you add:
>Look, I have serious problems with the way gay people are being treated
>in this country. And even here in Los Angeles, one of the more lenient
>areas of the country, the problems are still rather severe.
No surprise here! Thank you, though, for affirming my stance.
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
<wo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>As a bisexual, will only half of me get into the kingdom of glory? And
>if only half, will be the upper half? Or my lower half? Or more
>specifically, my lower six inches?
You already know this answer: bisexuals will be judged the same as all
others: by one's attitude. Considering your crude retort, I suggest
you clean up your act ASAP.
>Pass me over instead of what? Killing my innocent first born?
Your innocent first born will be taken from your homophobic
grasp...that they may instead, be raised in a loving family. Such
firstborn will know no suffering, as their death will be immediate and
painless. It is crass bigots like you that will suffer their loss, and
for good reason.
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
<wo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>It's a crock of crap to initiate violent opposition to those who hate
>you
Ah, yes, this nasty little issue of violence: so well-supported by the
majority when it comes to preserving their own advantages, but soundly
derided when implied by a dissenting minority.
The Allied Forces of WWII sometimes resorted to violence in order to
halt the Nazis from their horrid reign. Many movies celebrate such
forms of violence...such as derailing their trains, blowing up their
centers of operations, and even shooting their guards in order to
access headquarters and shut it down or acquire valuable maps and
codes.
In this way, I view the gay struggle here in Amerika, and in most of
the non-Western-Democratic world (Latin Amerika, Africa, Asia, Middle
East, and Eastern Europe). Gay folk are to the Hetero fascists, as
were the Allied Forces to Hitler/Mussolini/Hirohito. We have formed a
vast, underground network, in order to derail your hetero machine, and
finally put to sleep this centuries-long reign of patriarchy,
machismo, and homophobia. And good riddance to all that!
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
wrote:
>Maqua wrote:
>>
>> "Blessed are the meak for they shall inherit the earth."
Indeed, the meek are destined to inherit this world...if by meek, you
mean the long-suffering and the oppressed. And considering that every
oppressed group (with rare exception) further oppresses its own
homosexual sub-populace, then you must conclude that gays are the
meekest among the meek...thus will not only inherit the earth, but
become its ultimate keepers.
But if by "meek" you mean always-cowering and submissive, then I must
disagree with such a slanted definition. For how on earth will the
meek inherit it, if they do not eventually rise up and claim their
birthright? How could any minority ever win so much as a single right
or equality, if it remains always submissive? Blacks would still be
slaves, women denied the vote and the right to work, and gays would be
exterminated.
Besides: it does not say that the meek shall always remain so. We
"meek" gays shall soon resist, and claim our rightfully hard-won
inheritence: the earth on which you also dwell.
William Edward Woody
(Ezekiel J. Krahlin) wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 11:47:50 -0800, William Edward Woody
> <wo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> >So my question to you is this: as someone who has been insulted, derided
> >and otherwise accused of an unwillingness to come out of the closet
> >because I've indicated some degree of bisexuality--by some in the
> >homosexual community, no less--should I take up arms against the "unholy
> >hatred of bisexuals from the homosexual community?"
>
> You would be foolish and homophobic to do so. I would never accuse a
> bisexual of being a closet case. ...
But the accusation *HAS* been made by quite a large number of members of
the homosexual community. I know. I was there.
> ... Bisexuality is real, though I see
> bisexual politics as hypocritical. Any bisexual who partakes in gay
> rights I'd regard as I would any heterosexual doing same: thanks for
> the help. However, bisexual supremacy is an attitude all too common
> among bi's...and is nothing more than one more variation on the theme
> of homophobia.
I don't see it as bisexual supremecy. You haven't been paying attention.
What I see it as is that a number of members of the homosexual community
has expressed everything from derision to outright hatred of bisexuals.
And this expressed hatred very much paralells the hatred expressed by
elements of the hetrosexual community towards homosexuals.
Which naturally begs the question: if bisexuals are being treated by
homosexuals in the same way homosexuals are being treated by
hetrosexuals, then is it fair that homosexuals should respond to
hetrosexuals, while bisexuals should not?
Or should the bisexuals take a play from your playbook?
You haven't answered this question, by the way.
[snipped someone else's article and your response]
> >It's a crock of crap to initiate violent opposition to those who hate
> >you--if for no other reason than those who you don't take seriously may
> >perceive your comments as hatred for them--and they'll take up arms
> >against you.
>
> A semi-clever ploy to defuse gay integrity and outrage. ...
What, you believe that blanket hatred against hetrosexuals for what you
perceive as blanket homophobia is okay, dispite including hetrosexuals
who are not homophobic?
Oh, that's right; the number of hetrosexuals who are "gay friendly" is
extremely small. You said so yourself in another post.
> ... Nice try, but
> no dice. For one: you insist on defining my aggressive approach as
> "violent", ...
You're the one who brought up the Jihad word and the hope for a Civil
War. Not me.
> ... in order to turn decent gay folk against me, by twisting my
> words. I am not expressing any hatred whatsoever, against the horrors
> and atrocities of real-world gay hatred...I am expressing, OUTRAGE. ...
So let me get this straight, pardon the pun.
You believe that a glorious Jihad and Civil War killing millions and
balkenizing the United States is in fact not glorious or desirable.
> ... As
> for their taking up arms against me...well, you jerk, they already
> have, centuries ago...and you would have people believe that finally
> resisting such a force of terror as an act of violence? ...
I'm native american. California Indian. My uncles were murdered in cold
blood by the police near Morro Bay back in the 50's; others have been
murdered more recently, for the sole crime of having red skin.
What do you think I should do? Murder cops?
> ... Well, sadly,
> you are all too typical of arrogant bisexuals: bi-supremacy, ...
I still want to know what planet you're on to go from
o "Homosexuals bash bisexuals. Should bisexuals retaliate?"
to
o "Bisexuals are supreme."
> ... which
> partakes along with heteros, in the bashing of gay people who refuse
> to live by your demeaning and trivializing definitions of who we gays
> really are.
I also want to know on what planet you are on to go from
o The gay plight may not be what you say it is, and may not be
as serious as you make it out to be (not to suggest it ain't
serious, but concentration camp death chambers? Come on!)
to
o My demeaning and trivializing gays.
You're being paranoid. And you're assuming facts not in evidence, by
assuming that I'm somehow bashing gays or trivializing gays.
I'm not.
Get this straight: I'm trivializing your (paranoid) position, and I'm
demeaning your (insulting) tone. I'm not attacking gays in the least.
I'm just attacking your position.
> ... Very few bisexuals are truly gay friendly...
(*giggle*) No, we just have sex with them...
> >I'm not arguing against vigilence, nor am I arguing against defending
> >yourself using all necessary force. But you almost sound like you're
> >hoping to initiate something against "homophobes." And that's not the
> >answer.
>
> It isn't? How ridiculous! Homophobia is the crux of the matter, when
> it comes to gay rights...no more and no less.
No, it is not the answer, and if you could come out of your paranoid
pipe dream (Jihad? Concentration Camps? Yeah, right), let me explain.
The vast majority of voters in the United States are not homo-friendly
or homophobic. They're indifferent.
And that's the real problem: indifference. Because that very
indifference allows a small minority to engage in all sorts of
discrimination without the majority giving a damn. So long as the food
on their table is good, they won't care if you and your husband (as an
example) cannot get legally married or get health insurance or even (in
some parts of the country) legally rent an apartment together.
What is needed is to make the indifferent majority care. And that means
more than just taking up guns or wishing for Jihads--in fact, as the
majority don't care, engaging in activities that affect the majority in
a negative way (through psychological terrorism--your words, not mine)
may cause the majority to care enough to do something **against** the
homosexual community.
That is, you're shooting yourself in the foot by making the
protestations you are making, because as the majority don't care,
attacking them may make them hate you.
Instead, you need to be vigilant against the minority who would attack
you--by suing the landlord who prevents you from renting an appartment
with your lover, or fighting in a local municipality for the right to
legally marry. But you also need to educate the majority and make them
care about your plight.
Once enough people in the majority believe that diversity is better for
the food on their table (as is becoming the case here in many areas of
Los Angeles), people will start caring about doing something about the
minority who would otherwise discriminate.
A concrete example: Disney has in the last decade did a complete 180
about gay rights, going from escorting gay couples from Disneyland who
would dare (gasp!) dance together at the dance floors in Tomorrowland to
providing some of the most gay-friendly work and consumer experiences,
including holding "gay days" and special promotions for gay consumers,
as well as providing some of the most far-reaching "life partner"
reforms for employees.
Why did Disney do this? Simple: because gays in Southern California have
a higher disposable income than the Southern Baptists who protested
these changes. And as soon as Michael Eisner realized this, when the
Southern Baptists told Disney they would boycott all Disney products,
Eisner basically said "And that is your choice. Goodbye."
Money talks. Bullshit walks.
> >This is the Internet, and it's impossible to know who'se on the other
> >end of the wire. Be careful not to be prejudiced against everyone, or to
> >assume everyone you're dealing with are at best "gay friendly
> >hetrosexuals."
>
> I make no such assumptions towards anyone, either off or on the
> Internet. I am not prejudiced against anyone.
Bullshit. Your righteousness betrays your prejudice views. You're just
so wrapped up in your flag that you've lost perspective, and as such are
no better than the Southern Baptists who even now boycott Disney.
> ... I merely stand up for
> gay equality, and oppose homophobia. All the sludge that wells up to
> resist me, in Usenet, is astounding...
Talk about Jihads and civil war and taking up arms, and you're supprised
there is resistance?
Sorry, but aside from the homosexual stuff, your comments sound right
out of the first chapter of the Turner Diaries.
> ... whereby I, the dissenter, am
> accused of violence and prejudice, because I speak genuine outrage
> against gay hatred. ...
There is genuine outrage. And there is talk about the glorious civil war
and resulting balkenization that results in the murder of millions.
> ... You are so like many foul-minded folks: you think
> you are more intelligent than me, and so talking down to me is all it
> takes to convince others of your "rightness".
Talking about Jihads and confusing comments about bisexuals being
slighted by homosexuals as bi-superiority, and you think I *shouldn't*
talk down? Come on!
> ... Or so you'd
> believe...because you are far dumber than you think. Such is the curse
> of homophobia: the more severe the phobia, the more of your
> intelligence is sacrificed. Talk about "just desserts"...just look at
> the great homophobe Ronald Reagan, ending his sorry years from
> Alzheimer's.
Now are you saying that Alzheimer's disease is God's way of getting even
with homosexuals? I have a great aunt who is now on stage three of
Altzheimer's disease, so frankly I find your comments on Altzheimer's
incredibly insensitive and insulting.
That's no better than the homophobic minority saying AIDS is God's
revenge on gays.
> >I almost wander where in this black and white antagonistic world you
> >would place self-professed bisexuals.
>
> I would place them as being born with an orientation to both sexes, no
> more and no less. And I confront those bi's who regard such an
> orientation as superior to 100% gays. I would have to know their own
> political stance about gay rights, before passing any judgment.
But you have already passed judgement on me, without even giving more
than two clock cycles to what my position is in the first place.
I hope your passing judgement against others is a little more
even-handed than you have so far demonstrated both in this thread and in
your position against hetrosexuals, which you <<REPEATEDLY>> accuse of
being homophobic en-mass.
> >And if it is the answer I've heard from other homosexuals (that
> >bisexuals are
> >just sexually confused homosexuals in extreme denial at best, or
> >obnoxious
> >pests who muddle the 'cause' at worse), then watch your back.
>
> Nope, that's not like me at all.
Oh. So you're different from those in your community who would say that
bisexuals are sexually confused homosexuals or obnoxious pests.
Hmmmmm....
> ... I wouldn't ever regard a bisexual as
> an undeveloped, or closeted gay person. Gays who talk like that are
> quite ignorant.
Hmmmmm....
And perhaps homophobes who talk up their homophobia are otherwise
irrelevant, aside from the fact that they've managed not to rile up the
indifferent majority with their discriminatory acts?
> ....However, the ignorance you show in other aspects of
> gay folk, is rude, barbaric, and all too typical of bisexuals, who
> often regard gay people with arrogance.
Oh, wait--so bisexuals aren't just bisexual--they're also (for the most
part) arrogant.
What a terribly hateful little world you live in.
William Edward Woody
(Ezekiel J. Krahlin) wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 11:49:04 -0800, William Edward Woody
> <wo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> >ezek...@my-deja.com (Ezekiel J. Krahlin) wrote:
> >> Hello, Apu. It is quite easy, with hindsight, to claim my odds were
> >> simply 50-50. When I made my prediction, most people did not see a
> >> Bush conquest as possible in any way...
> >
> >Except the press, and the political pundants, and those who accused
> >Nadar of gutting Gore's liberal support...
>
> That was at least five weeks after I posted my prediction on September
> 20.
No, that had been going on ever since Nadar announced he was running.
Obviously you are more than willing to change your memory of events to
fit the fact that you're somehow Jehovah's Gay Profit.
William Edward Woody
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 21:38:38 GMT, Maqua <mah...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >"Blessed are the meak for they shall inherit the earth."
>
> That's "meek", not "meak".
Are you sure that isn't keek?
After all, if America is spelled with an extra 'k', what other words
should be spelled with an extra 'k'?
> Do not assuage my ego with images of meekness, submission, compromise
> and assimilation. I am unshackling my gay sisters and brothers from
> such braindead bondage...who are accused of "violence" for having a
> voice in the first place. What hetero skulduggery!
And you don't even know what meek means. Meek doesn't mean being a rug
that anyone can walk over. It means being peaceful and mild--but also
vigilant and forceful. Think of the Tao sapling which resists the wind
by being flexable instead of the sold tree trunk which snaps: that's the
same flavor.
> >Ego, Zeke...Ego.
>
> And proud of it!
>
> Gay pride: fight back, bash back, reject the peacemaker stereotype!
Be careful who you fight: they may not be your enemey.
William Edward Woody
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 11:38:01 -0800, William Edward Woody
> <wo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> You contradict yourself when you say:
>
> >I live in Los Angeles. I've never seen any "unholy hatred of gays"; the
> >most I've noted here (except in the most isolated pockets) is a vague
> >disquiet at the overuse of pastels. Perhaps it's the people I hang
> >around?
>
> then in that same message you add:
>
> >Look, I have serious problems with the way gay people are being treated
> >in this country. And even here in Los Angeles, one of the more lenient
> >areas of the country, the problems are still rather severe.
>
> No surprise here! Thank you, though, for affirming my stance.
Of course *you* see a contradiction, seeing the world in black and white.
But the world is not black and white.
Here is Los Angeles, I have not seen an "unholy hatred of gays." But I
have seen some discrimination, unease, and others who could behave
better--such as comments by one fellow who, upon seeing two men kissing
on a billboard in West Hollywood, said that those gay people should keep
it in the closet.
I would not consider that comment "an unholy hatred of gays", but it is
an unreasonable position in my opinion. I do not believe the fellow who
made this comment was about to help round up gays and put them to death
in concentration camp death chambers (as you've indicated), but I do
believe his attitude was a problem none-the-less.
Other problems I've seen in Los Angeles include a failure to accept gay
and lesbian marriages, the failure for some companies to implement
health insurance for "life partners", and some degree of discrimination
in certain other areas of life, mostly demonstrated by people like the
one who commented against the billboard.
However, there has also been serious progress, making many areas within
Los Angeles just as open and accepting to gays as San Francisco and
Berkeley--which also have their problems as well.
I'm sorry if you cannot tell the difference between someone's rude
comment or a gay couple being turned away from renting an appartment
(something which is illegal here but it still happens), and the notion
you apparently advocate that the Bush administration is going to start
putting Gays to death en-mass in two months.
William Edward Woody
(Ezekiel J. Krahlin) wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 11:47:50 -0800, William Edward Woody
> <wo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> >It's a crock of crap to initiate violent opposition to those who hate
> >you
>
> Ah, yes, this nasty little issue of violence: so well-supported by the
> majority when it comes to preserving their own advantages, but soundly
> derided when implied by a dissenting minority.
>
> The Allied Forces of WWII sometimes resorted to violence in order to
> halt the Nazis from their horrid reign. Many movies celebrate such
> forms of violence...such as derailing their trains, blowing up their
> centers of operations, and even shooting their guards in order to
> access headquarters and shut it down or acquire valuable maps and
> codes.
>
> In this way, I view the gay struggle here in Amerika, and in most of
^
There's that damned 'k' again. Having problems with the 'c' on your
keyboard?
> the non-Western-Democratic world (Latin Amerika, Africa, Asia, Middle
> East, and Eastern Europe). Gay folk are to the Hetero fascists, as
> were the Allied Forces to Hitler/Mussolini/Hirohito. We have formed a
> vast, underground network, in order to derail your hetero machine, and
> finally put to sleep this centuries-long reign of patriarchy,
> machismo, and homophobia. And good riddance to all that!
So let me get this straight.
You're not advocating violence but peaceful resistance. But of course
peaceful resistance includes killing (or "putting to sleep") in a sort
of holy war or Jihad, that results in a civil war that murders millions.
You seem to be using a definition of the word "peaceful" which is not in
my dictionary.
And about that "my hetro machine" bullshit: it ain't my machine, in
large part because I'm not hetrosexual, and you know it.
William Edward Woody
(Ezekiel J. Krahlin) wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 11:38:01 -0800, William Edward Woody
> <wo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> >As a bisexual, will only half of me get into the kingdom of glory? And
> >if only half, will be the upper half? Or my lower half? Or more
> >specifically, my lower six inches?
>
> You already know this answer: bisexuals will be judged the same as all
> others: by one's attitude. Considering your crude retort, I suggest
> you clean up your act ASAP.
Fuck you and your righteousness if you can't see the humor (albeit
crude) in my comment.
> >Pass me over instead of what? Killing my innocent first born?
>
> Your innocent first born will be taken from your homophobic
> grasp...that they may instead, be raised in a loving family. Such
> firstborn will know no suffering, as their death will be immediate and
> painless. It is crass bigots like you that will suffer their loss, and
> for good reason.
You fascinate me.
You fascinate me because I have never seen such virulant right wing
propagandist crap spewed in the name of such a liberal left-wing cause.
It's a rather fascinating dichotomy which is even more exaggerated on
your web site.
Hell, what fascinates me the most is that some of the stuff you've
mentioned on your web site and in this tread could be taken nearly
verbatim from the Turner Diaries. Just substitute "Gay" for "White" and
"hetrosexual" for "black", and we're home.
William Edward Woody
> wrote:
>
> >Maqua wrote:
> >>
> >> "Blessed are the meak for they shall inherit the earth."
>
> Indeed, the meek are destined to inherit this world...if by meek, you
> mean the long-suffering and the oppressed. And considering that every
> oppressed group (with rare exception) further oppresses its own
> homosexual sub-populace, then you must conclude that gays are the
> meekest among the meek...
And given that many in the homosexual community deride and oppress
bisexuals, or at least have a negative opinion of bisexuals (as you have
repeatedly showed), does this mean bisexuals will inherit the earth from
homosexuals after the hetrosexuals are overthrown?
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
<wo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>Which naturally begs the question: if bisexuals are being treated by
>homosexuals in the same way homosexuals are being treated by
>hetrosexuals, then is it fair that homosexuals should respond to
>hetrosexuals, while bisexuals should not?
You grossly exaggerate the situation. Considering how many bisexuals
enter the gay community with heterocentric notions, I am surprised
that not a lot more gays treat bi's with caution. Further: bi's are
not treated by gays the same way hets treat gays...that is a
trivialization of the very serious matter of homophobic violence which
still runs rampant in our society.
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
<wo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>> We'd be erased from history, just as the Nazis tried to do to us.
>
>You're Jewish? Hell, I thought you were talking about gay rights.
You are flat-out ignorant.
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
<wo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>However, there has also been serious progress, making many areas within
>Los Angeles just as open and accepting to gays as San Francisco and
>Berkeley--which also have their problems as well.
"Many" areas? I guess you can't count beyond the fingers on one hand.
To you, "three" or "four" = "many".
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
<wo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>Fuck you and your righteousness if you can't see the humor (albeit
>crude) in my comment.
I choose not to acknowledge crude humor, at the expense of my gay
brothers and sisters...be they pagan, Christian, Jew, Muslim, atheist,
Animists, Tao, or whatever.
>You fascinate me.
You nauseate me.
>You fascinate me because I have never seen such virulant right wing
>propagandist crap spewed in the name of such a liberal left-wing cause.
>It's a rather fascinating dichotomy which is even more exaggerated on
>your web site.
Enjoy a taste of your own medicine, bigot!
>Hell, what fascinates me the most is that some of the stuff you've
>mentioned on your web site and in this tread could be taken nearly
>verbatim from the Turner Diaries. Just substitute "Gay" for "White" and
>"hetrosexual" for "black", and we're home.
I am a "mirror shaman", for one. That, and much more. However, you
cannot apply your simplistic interpretations to my mission, and come
out ahead. Not ever.
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
<wo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>I hope this is a typo; the last time I saw "America" spelled "Amerika"
>was by some really wacked out right wing paranoid nuts...
I spell it with a "k" to honor Alan Ginsberg, who first came up with
this derivative spelling. I also spell it this way, to assert my
disgrace for Amerika's continued, official and tacit sanction of
hatred against gays.
>It's not that the American public don't care about gay rights. It's just
>not the thing that drives voters to vote for Republicans or Democrats.
Well, it ought to be a major issue...we're talking about the extreme
terrorism and bashings/deaths of a considerable segment of our
population.
>None of my gay friends have been whisked off to concentration camp death
>chambers.
With ignorant and arrogant ideas like yours, we are coming to a likely
anti-gay holocaust.
>Please, don't insult me with paranoid stories about death camps and
>gangs of officials trying to silently kill. I've had it happen to my
>family for real, and I don't have a hell of a lot of patience for people
>trying to self-martyer with paranoid stories.
Well, I've had it happen to my gay family for real, too. Fuck you and
your phony premise of gay-friendliness. I am not reflecting any
paranoia, merely THE TRUTH. And I am sick of your form of homophobia,
of which you are in smug denial, and which you trivialize by accusing
aware gays like myself of paranoia.
>You're Jewish? Hell, I thought you were talking about gay rights.
No, I don't happen to be Jewish, though that is not a bother for me.
You, in your ignorance, don't even care to acknowledge that the Nazi
progrom began first by attacking homosexuals...who were indeed rounded
up and sent to concentration camps just like Jews.
>Then you're not paying attention, and you live in the wrong part of the
>country.
No part of this pathetic country is free of homophobia.
>Besides, you're performing a non-sequator. I'm talking about the
>majority. Yes, homosexuals are attacked in our society, as well as being
>marginalized and discriminated against. But this happens by a relatively
>small minority, with the majority at worse turning a blind eye.
This "minority" is a lot larger than you care to admit...else we gays
would already have equal rights on every level, including marriage.
There is only a major city here and there, that provides a bare
modicum of some sort of gay "safety". Otherwise, this entire country
is quite redneck and homohobic, including California.
>I never called the majority of our society gay friendly. I called them
>indifferent. Neither good nor bad; just indifferent, and perhaps a
>little uncomfortable. And since most people are more concerned about the
>food on their table to care, it just doesn't show up in people's radar.
Wrong. The majority are not indifferent, for whenever a gay issue is
brought up, this majority consistently rejects it, also voting against
gay rights. This is not indifference, this is evil.
>And as a native of Los Angeles, you have first hand experience?
I stay on top of the gay news in every area, including southern
California. I am also in touch with various activists around the
globe. I make it a point to stay well-informed, spending at least an
hour each day to catch up with the news.
>So you're saying the plight of Gays in (say) Montana is no worse than
>their plight in West Hollywood?
W. Hollywood is a mere fingernail sliver on the hand of homophobic
Amerika. As I stated above, only a few pinpoints on the map of Amerika
show any sort of gay respect...otherwise, we gays remain in utter
terror for our lives, across this pathetic "land of the free". Yeah,
it's free all right: for heterosexuals. Even in W. Hollywood, queers
get bashed from time to time, with a violence equal to those who are
bashed in the boondocks of Montana, such as Matthew Shephard. There
really is no safe haven for gays anywhere, in the U.S. The only
relative safety there is, is if you're wealthy enough to buy the
necessary security that comes with the privileges of the affluence.
IOW, in this county, democracy is *bought, not given by rights of
birth. But in general, being heterosexual provides one with a huge
number of privileges that gays are denied.
>(For those who don't know, West Hollywood was incorporated to be a
>gay-friendly city within Los Angeles, and has a mostly homosexual city
>council. They also have some of the best clubs and restaurants within
>their city limits. And I think it's pretty cool that for a while, there
>used to be some gay-targeted billboards showing (amongst other things)
>two men kissing.
That's right, "used to be". Even in the rare liberal gay-friendly
pockets, we gays are coerced to appease the beast of heterocentric
dogma.
>Montana, on the other hand, is not quite as gay friendly.
You are comparing an entire state to a tiny sliver of a town...that is
grossly unfair, yet typical of a homophobia. When you compare the two
states, Montana and California, you then see that homophobia reigns
supreme in both.
>Ignorant because I disagree with you, and arrogant because I speak up?
Neither. Ignorant because you know you are manipulating the facts,
while pretending to be innocent. Been there, done that.
>I don't believe Gays should ever trivialize their situation, any more
>than others with sexual orientations or philosophical or religious
>beliefs or racial background should ever trivialize theirs.
But your own definition and perception of gays is quite trivializing.
And herein is affirmation of your pretence to ignorance.
>However, being paranoid--assuming there is a master plan to have "all of
>your people rounded up and exterminated in concentration camp death
>chambers" does a serious disservice to the Gay community because it
>suggests an extreme point of view which is orthogonal to the <<real>>
>problems that Gays face.
Nonsense. You have chosen to pretend ignorance of the intent of the
right wingers, when it comes to gays. This extreme point of view is
pontificated on a daily basis, in many fundamentalist and even
moderated churches...on the radio and other media. Even here in "gay
mecca", one of the most hateful talk shows resides, with one Michael
Savage degrading gays all the time, for at least the last four years.
The S.F. Examiner also accepted $30,000 to print a full-page
advertisement claiming that gays can be cured, and that homosexuality
is responsible for most of society's worst ills. This is the exact
parallel of Nazi tactics that led to the Holocaust and WWII. And, like
you, most citizens pretended that gays were not threatened...even
though they are inferior to heteros (don't you know).
><<Real>> problems, such as work discrimination, discrimination in the
>marriage laws, discrimination in insurance, and housing discrimination.
Those <<Real>> problems are the result of extremist attitudes against
gays, you idiot.
>THESE are the problems that you should be concentrating on, not watching
>the skys for the black helicopters to arrive to round you and your
>friends up to be carted off to slave camps.
Who needs to worry about helicopters, when you very neighbors are
ready and willing to drive you from your home, your town, your
friends, and even your very own life? The U.S. is one big slave camp,
for most gays, who are not insulated in major cities with hefty
financial cushioning. News flash: the majority of gay people live in
terror, across Amerika's rural and small-town places that dot our map
thousands of times over.
>Where? I haven't seen them, and I see you've conveniently snipped all of
>my comments, both gutting and ignoring the essence of my arguments.
I've already dealt with these same old, ignorant comments on various
newsgroups, for the past several years. You nauseat me. I shall not be
distracted by trying to educate one, single idiot. I really shouldn't
bother replying so thoroughly to this message, now. Shame on me, when
I have more important matters at hand.
>"Declare War?" Are you really that fucking paranoid?
Call it what you will. The U.S. has been declaring war on gay people,
starting with DOMA. This is an undeclared war, but war none the less.
I am only being honest, and telling it like it really is. The
Republicans have use homophobia as their main platform to win more
converts...and the Democrats have bashed gays by DOMA, which only give
great leverage to the right wing. Just you watch: how much they'll
cite DOMA to justify their reasons for eliminating what few rights we
gays possess.
>Dude! You really should reduce your prozac dosage; you know taking too
>much of that crap can cause delusions.
This may disappoint you to know that I take no medication, or any hard
drugs or alcohol. I am quite rational, and ready to bash back.
>You mean four more years of concentration camp death chambers running
>around the clock turning gays into soap?
No. At least four more years of most gays living in terror for their
lives, with hardly and voice of reason. Then, elimination of our few
rights, with a vast increase of gay bashing, loss of jobs and housing,
and likely official sanctions to isolate us from society. That is
their plan, and they have a good chance of succeding, what with
heterocentric morons like yourself, bisexual backstabber.
>That is, you mean gays are already being sent off to concentration camp
>death chambers and turned into Ivory brand Soap, and only you know about
>it?
You know very well that is not what I said. Again, this affirms my
claim that you twist my words to make me look foolish, and you look
reasonable. Things may come to that, I predict, now that the
Republicans have so much power, and they have been bought out by
fundamentalist bigots.
>If you are as effective at psychological terrorism as you are in
>presenting your case, Gays the world over are in serious trouble.
Goddess forbid I should waste my time with clueless sorts like
yourself.
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
<wo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>Think of the Tao sapling which resists the wind
>by being flexable instead of the sold tree trunk which snaps: that's the
>same flavor.
The Tao sapling is not suffering from anti-gay dogma...else it would
snap no matter how flexible. This is an inept metaphor for this issue.
I refuse to act compliant to our hetero overlords, who are evil.
>Be careful who you fight: they may not be your enemey.
No problem here, fool. Do not assume that because you yourself are
clueless, that everyone else is.
Flora and Eric Floen
I got some real-life experiance here, just the other day in the town's
diner. Now as background, i explain that I am a person openly living as
a pagan in a very small town built around the rodeo and Horse bussiness
in Ca. almost 2 hours outside LA, in the high desert. The whole place
has something like ten feed stores and even more churches, but only two
diners, and supports one supermarket. This is a really small town.
This is where I live with my best friend and life companion, who is a gay
man. An artist, and a leatherboy (right now he is feeling too fat to
dress up, because he is in less than peak condition.) Everyone is town
knows what is up with E. They know that if he didn't cook, we both would
starve, if he didn't do the laundry, that I would wear the same dirty
jeans all week and prolly only change my underthings and my T shirt.
They know he sews. They know he is next to useless fixing things on the
farm. Some call him "Flora's wife." ANd to a man, these cowboys love
this dude. They think he is the funniest, wisest person who ever up and
decided to saddle imself with a very prickly woman. As there is little
ambiguity about my spiritual life (Every cowboy, schoolchild, and
christian wife in town knows I am the Horse-witch by the river, (You
know, with all those cats) I leave my sex life ambiguous. A lotta of
the horse-shoers know whats up with all those girls, who run around with
me... some even compliment me on my taste. But we talk about it in the
barnyards, tho... not in the diner... EVERYBODY eavesdrops in the diners
and feels free to jump in on other people's conversations.
Anyway, there is a farrier (orthopedic blacksmith) who likes to tell me
about his relationship with X. He's been working his way towards telling
Ms. X that he loves her, but has been waiting to be sure that she loves
him back. He talks to me about it because I also date girls. I also
share certain aspects of personal history with X, so he can get an idea
if some aspect of that personal issue is being tweaked, or if he's the
one tweaking her temper. Mostly, I think he tells me stuff because I
won't tease him and he knows I don't laugh.
Diner waitress T asks why he's talking to me about girls... and Jhonny
Smith tells her I should know more than he would, since I dated a girl
just like X and seemed to hang on good.
T, a small-town diner waitress exclaims "How COOL! Flora never told me
she was that way!"
"What way?" sez Flora, looking as innocent as a known witch can look, in
a small-town diner, while offering personal advice.
"You know!" sez T, elbowing me knowingly "All alternative and stuff! I
thought only E was into that. All you ever talk about is your horses and
the cats. Maybe your pickles and the Newspapers, But you never said
anything about *girls.*"
"Well, " sez Flora,"With all these cowboys around, I didn't wanna scare
them and make em think I was weird...."
"That's not weird!" T protests, from behind the counter, "That's *cool!*
People who think differently are all fucked up. If they talk shit on
different lifestyle and then go home and 'ho around and then go to
church. The gay/ bi thing is neat, cause those people are following
their *hearts,* and not worrying about societies rules on them...."
I shit you not. In a small town diner, filled with off-season pro-rodeo
cowboys, church ladies, and stay-at-home moms. And T herself is not
gay. She's just got a romantic heart.
Now, in contrast, when E and I went to the big Stonewall gathering in NY
NY, a few years ago, I got dissed in the crowds because I reflexively
clutched E's hand because I am afraid of big crowds. Got called a breeder
and a lot of other, more unpleasant things. BY GAY PEOPLE. What could I
do? Nothing. I got rainbow shoe laces, but that don't mean shit. I'm
holding a man's hand, so I gotta be het. And a bitch. maybe a cunt.
Hell, tho, I can't blame em. I had a friend of E's who used to just RANT
about picking guys up, and getting totally serviced, then being asked if
he would not visit at home, cause the Girlfriend might freak out. Or the
bottom he picked up in a gay bar, who looked back, while getting totally
PLOWED, to ask worriedly "You're not GAY are you?" TRUE STORY. I would
be irritated with bi behaviour like that, too.
My point being, that you never know what the person is truely like, but
that Hetros can be unexpectedly totally cool, gays can treat other gays
really badly (if the other gay person happens to grab reflexively at a
different-sex friend's hand), and that there are some really irritating
bi-curious, and bisexual people out there, who deserve a strong talking
to, but not to get shot. But there's also cool friends you haven't met
yet, lonely gay cowboys, openminded hick blacksmiths who are the
aforementioned's best buddies, and horse witches who used to debutantes,
but who are now nobody in particular, hangin out with bitter
churchladies, epileptic rocket scientist/poultry farmer/ community
activists, and rotten teens, all mixed up together. And it's hard to
tell the diff between them from a distance, or from casual aquaintance.
LUMPING PEOPLE TOGETHER IS NOT FAIR.
We were created by all that shapes us, our mammas, our dads, our
teachers, our diets, our lives, and our experiances. We can all be
heroes, who follow their hearts towards love, BUT WITHOUT COURTESY, ITS
HARD TO BE CIVIL.
Incivility leads to fights and hard feelings.
I try always to be courtious and civil, because who knows what wars I
avert by being so? E feels the same. You cannot tell a person's views
just by taking a cursory look at their clothes, and the dope standing
next to 'em. You might have to talk to them first, and become friends,
before they show you the goodies that they keep hidden deep inside.
Because we humans hurt each other needlessly, alot, we learn to hide our
more tender secrets. And who wants to offer their goodies to people who
aren't nice to them?
I am curious and greedy, therefore I use civility and see what goodies I
can tease out of each individual.... because they are all different and
all special.
Even Talesin. Sometimes I wonder what kind of goodies that one hides so
well.
Anyway, cheers folks! It's the solstice!!!!
Blessings,
FLORA
Jackdaw
"Flora and Eric Floen" <floen...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3A42F915...@earthlink.net...
> Gotta comment here!
Mega Snip............
> I got some real-life experiance here, just the other day in the town's
> diner. >
> Anyway, cheers folks! It's the solstice!!!!
> Blessings,
> FLORA
Flora, that was a great story...
It really shows what can happen in the real world. Gives us all hope,
doesn't it?
Jackdaw
William Edward Woody
(Ezekiel J. Krahlin) wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2000 15:59:44 -0800, William Edward Woody
> <wo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> >Which naturally begs the question: if bisexuals are being treated by
> >homosexuals in the same way homosexuals are being treated by
> >hetrosexuals, then is it fair that homosexuals should respond to
> >hetrosexuals, while bisexuals should not?
>
> You grossly exaggerate the situation. Considering how many bisexuals
> enter the gay community with heterocentric notions, I am surprised
> that not a lot more gays treat bi's with caution. ...
And you're not answering the question, but just throwing around more
stereotypes.
William Edward Woody
(Ezekiel J. Krahlin) wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2000 15:02:20 -0800, William Edward Woody
> <wo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> >> We'd be erased from history, just as the Nazis tried to do to us.
> >
> >You're Jewish? Hell, I thought you were talking about gay rights.
>
> You are flat-out ignorant.
So you're saying it was 6 million gays and not 6 million Jews who were
taken to the NAZI concentration camps during World War II?
William Edward Woody
(Ezekiel J. Krahlin) wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2000 16:15:09 -0800, William Edward Woody
> <wo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> >However, there has also been serious progress, making many areas within
> >Los Angeles just as open and accepting to gays as San Francisco and
> >Berkeley--which also have their problems as well.
>
> "Many" areas? I guess you can't count beyond the fingers on one hand.
> To you, "three" or "four" = "many".
Dismissive by being insulting?
Come on, you know that doesn't exactly win friends and influence enemies.
Besides, it's pretty clear you don't know jack shit about what's going
on in Los Angeles, so you may as well give it up.
William Edward Woody
(Ezekiel J. Krahlin) wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2000 16:04:13 -0800, William Edward Woody
> <wo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> >Think of the Tao sapling which resists the wind
> >by being flexable instead of the sold tree trunk which snaps: that's the
> >same flavor.
>
> The Tao sapling is not suffering from anti-gay dogma...else it would
> snap no matter how flexible. This is an inept metaphor for this issue.
It's clear you do not understand the Tao, so you may as well not blow
chunks out of your ass by calling it an "inept metaphor."
> I refuse to act compliant to our hetero overlords, who are evil.
Hetro overlords? Are you serious?
William Edward Woody
(Ezekiel J. Krahlin) wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2000 16:34:55 -0800, William Edward Woody
> <wo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> >Fuck you and your righteousness if you can't see the humor (albeit
> >crude) in my comment.
>
> I choose not to acknowledge crude humor, at the expense of my gay
> brothers and sisters...be they pagan, Christian, Jew, Muslim, atheist,
> Animists, Tao, or whatever.
Too bad, too, as some of the crudest (and most enjoyable) behavior has
come from my gay friends.
What? I have gay friends? Supprised?
> >You fascinate me.
>
> You nauseate me.
Ah, poor baby. Perhaps you should take a couple of Tums and relax.
> >You fascinate me because I have never seen such virulant right wing
> >propagandist crap spewed in the name of such a liberal left-wing cause.
> >It's a rather fascinating dichotomy which is even more exaggerated on
> >your web site.
>
> Enjoy a taste of your own medicine, bigot!
*shrug* I'm not the one looking forward to the impending Jihad in
response to the fact that (according to your web site) approximately two
months from now, black helicopters will descend, rounding up gays and
taking them off to concentration camp death chambers.
> >Hell, what fascinates me the most is that some of the stuff you've
> >mentioned on your web site and in this tread could be taken nearly
> >verbatim from the Turner Diaries. Just substitute "Gay" for "White" and
> >"hetrosexual" for "black", and we're home.
>
> I am a "mirror shaman", for one. That, and much more. However, you
> cannot apply your simplistic interpretations to my mission, and come
> out ahead. Not ever.
Do you know what my tribe (I'm California Indian, by the way) used to do
to self-proclaimed "shamans" like you?
William Edward Woody
> Gotta comment here!
[Big snip]
Loved it, thanks!
One experience I had which was interesting to me was an office-mate I
had many years ago. Totally straight looking dude, would never guessed
that he was gay, except that we got to talking just before he moved up
north to San Francisco.
He moved to San Francisco because he was tired of the Los Angeles scene;
being neither a twink or a daddy, he felt totally out of place within
the local gay cultural scene. And all he really wanted was to find
someone to settle down with in a monogamous relationship, perhaps rent
an appartment, and share his live with. Simple family stuff; except he
wanted a boyfriend instead of a girlfriend.
So he moved to San Francisco. And last I heard, he moved out and back
down to Los Angeles, because (paraphrasing his words) the scene up in
San Francisco was way too hard core and way to millitant. The guys he
would meet would think he was a closet breeder because he didn't want to
march or go to the activist meetings. (There's an interesting insult
word: "breeder.") And my understanding is that they played head games
with him; all the things he wanted (a nice apartment, committed
relationship, etc) were all "breeder crap", and his unwillingness to
dress in leather or drop into one stereotype or another or attend
millitant activist meetings or march was just evidence not of his
desires, but of his obvious corruption by the dominate "breeder" society.
I hope he found someone to settle down with. He really was a nice guy
and totally deserved to find some happiness.
WorLord
Woody <wo...@alumni.caltech.edu> :
>an appartment, and share his live with. Simple family stuff; except he
>wanted a boyfriend instead of a girlfriend.
[snip]
>So he moved to San Francisco. And last I heard, he moved out and back
>down to Los Angeles, because (paraphrasing his words) the scene up in
>San Francisco was way too hard core and way to millitant.
Q: Where in SF did he move to, exactly?
I mean, if he went to Castro or some equivalent, then Yeah, I can see
the sense in such a comment.
But Castro is not all of the SF bay area... certainly, even a trip a
bit north (across the bridge) would land him in a virtual nest of
people who want (and generally *have*) what he was looking for: simple
family stuff, only same-sex.
Like most of the people who live on my block.
--WorLord
"You could spend an hour counting the petals in a flower
It might take you a year to count the veins in each petal
If you spent ten lifetimes, maybe you could count its cells...
...but you'd have completely missed the point
You fuckhead."
DCUclean
"Ezekiel J. Krahlin" <ezek...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:3a42c8f5...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2000 15:02:20 -0800, William Edward Woody
> <wo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> >I hope this is a typo; the last time I saw "America" spelled "Amerika"
> >was by some really wacked out right wing paranoid nuts...
>
> I spell it with a "k" to honor Alan Ginsberg, who first came up with
Is Alan Ginsberg Gay?
DCUclean
DCUclean
What are you trying to say? That all your predictions will come true?
How many members of your Gay underground live here in Alabama?
DCUclean
DCUclean
"Ezekiel J. Krahlin" <ezek...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:3a427cef...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 11:49:04 -0800, William Edward Woody
> <wo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> >ezek...@my-deja.com (Ezekiel J. Krahlin) wrote:
> >> Hello, Apu. It is quite easy, with hindsight, to claim my odds were
> >> simply 50-50. When I made my prediction, most people did not see a
> >> Bush conquest as possible in any way...
> >
> >Except the press, and the political pundants, and those who accused
> >Nadar of gutting Gore's liberal support...
>
> That was at least five weeks after I posted my prediction on September
> 20.
>
>
Sean MacUisdin
> >It's a crock of crap to initiate violent opposition to those who hate
> >you
>
> Ah, yes, this nasty little issue of violence: so well-supported by the
> majority when it comes to preserving their own advantages, but soundly
> derided when implied by a dissenting minority.
don't whine so much when others support it for their own causes.
--
Air muir 's air tir,
Sean of Clan Uisdin
-------------------
If anyone is looking for Sean of Clan Uisdin, he can be found in the
bathtub mulling over his thoughts wi' a dram o' Glen Ord.
Remove 'mac' to reply.
... The heroes of the race of Conn are dead,
How bitter to our hearts is the grief for them!
We shall not live long after them,
Perilous we think it to be bereaved of the brotherhood!
Cathal MacMhuirich
"Well, I'm sick of this room and everyone in it!" - Bender
"Everything's gone wrong since Canada came along!" - MAC (Mothers
against Canada)
Flora and Eric Floen
I was really unhappy at first to have figured out that I was gay. It was
gonna be so hard, and my family was soooo homophobic, that i just dreaded
having any kind of out-of-the-closet life. But at the same time, I liked
being pretty.
I talked to my Boss (that's what I sometimes call my first Spiritual Master)
and his reaction was totally unexpected. He thought it was great that I was
gay, told me so, and said to go ahead and do what I felt was in me to
become, and let me know that he was proud of me, no matter what I became.
As long as I was honest about who I was with myself and the world, I didn't
have to shout from the rooftops what I thought in my heart, just do what I
thought was right.
Well, I struck a middle ground. I didn't lie, but I didn't tell anyone I
wasn't close to, either. If I could trust a friend with the information,
they knew, but I kept my clients and such out of it, because i am around a
lot of kids, whose parents might get concerned... So I had a nice little
thing going and my life up to that point was pretty groovy.
When the Boss died tho, my Girlfriend's Mom outed me in front of the clients
and the whole place I worked at. On the same day the Girlfriend dumped me.
On the same day the Boss died .
I still have nightmares about that. It was such an invasion of my privacy
and a betrayal. I lost the clients, the job and a bunch of "friends."
(Please notice that I put "friends" in quotes for a reason.)
So I never look down upon a heavily closeted person. many of us have our
reasons. I too, wanted a stable "home" life, and so I live with E. Most
assume that he is just my husband, and that we are kind of an "odd couple"
relationship. But we know that with the social Security, also comes an
added benefit... we each have one person we can entirely count on. My
girlfriends love E as the person who takes care of alot of the emotional
shitwork they would rather not deal with, and he likes having me as his
pretty beard, who also happens to be an excellent social secretary,
emotional bullwark, and personal confidant. Together we can afford our farm
and European vacations, where I buy broodmares, and he sight-sees and goes
out to check out the club scene. It's really not bad.
Now E is so far in the closet that he is actually very close to sitting
somewhere in the attic, I am only partially closeted these days, and only
for my parents, and some client's (those little girl's parents again)
benefit. But the viciousness of the gay community's reaction to what they
percieve to be traitors to the "cause" has always baffled me.
Why do we attack each other? No one knows better what pressures and fears
we face, than our own community... and yet, if I dress pretty and go to a
gay bar, I get strange looks and occaisionally get in a fight. (Now that is
funny, because I have wonsome of those fights in high-heeled boots.) But
why do we steriotype each other? Why must we fit into molds and behave
according to other gays expectations of us? Why must a Dyke look and dress
like a "boy" if they want to be a top? Why does a pretty thing have to do
the Girl thing is she is pretty? She can't help what face and figure she
was born with! My evil Sissy is an undertaker and talks to the dead, and
in her business most females are gay, but if you are not CLEARLY A DYKE, you
get treated like some kind of incompetant fool, untill proven otherwise.
I liked the story of your friend who just wanted to have a semi-normal
chance at the "american dream" or at least his version of it, because it
reminds me of a friend we have right now, who is restoring a Victorian home
to it's origional beauty, and who has just found a male friend who is
interested in sharing his dream, and his bed... because as a republican with
a double masters degree in Divinity Studies as well as Elizabethan History,
it's hard to find people in the gay community with common intrests willing
to offer intelligent conversation, without starting a fight over P's
political and Christian inclinations.
I dunno why, but we do seem to be a group that often shoots our own wounded.
Sorry about the rant, it's so off-topic it's not funny but this soapbox is
one I had to jump up on.
FLORA
( and her highly political cats)
Paul Williams
lifestyle. It isn't. That's crap. I hate the scene, it's shallow and
hollow. I won;t be put in a neat box for either straights or gays to
feel comfortable. They have to get along with *me*, not the fact that
I am gay, which as far as I am concerned is not that important.
Hope you are having a great Yuletide! (:
Paul (aka Riff)
Live now
Lifegiver
Krahlin) wrote:
<slash>
>
>You've proved my point exactly: the Amerikan majority remains
>willfully and blithely ignorant of the gay dilemma. They care not one
>whit for our rights, and would still worry about the economy, even
>when gays are being whisked off to concentration camp death chambers.
>We'd be erased from history, just as the Nazis tried to do to us. I am
>terribly ashamed of my country, for when I see people being
>interviewed re. politics, not a single one has "gay rights" on his or
>her lips. Everything BUT. This arrogance of ignorance will come back
>to haunt them, and right the wrongs perpetrated for so long against
>gay people.
>
</slash>
Okay, this bloody thread may be crossposted to hell and back, and I
may be suffering from severe sleep deprivation...
BUT, where *are* these 'gay concentration camps' and gas chambers?
Could you cite your sources, or are you going to be sharing these
camps with the fundie Christians who refused to give up thier guns
when the Antichrist takes over the world?
Sorry for sounding skeptical, but I just need a little clarification.
Lifegiver
Y'know, be it harm none, Threefold Law, and all that.
So, don't snap at the wiccans and pagans. They are NOT after you. In
fact, they get just as much shit from the fundies as the gay folk do.
So down boy. Sheesh.
On Thu, 21 Dec 2000 22:34:55 GMT, ezek...@my-deja.com (Ezekiel J.
Krahlin) wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 21:07:56 GMT, eagleraven <tsh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>'Tomorrow', or what you call 'tomorrow', is nothing more then the 'sum
>>total' of every decision, option, opinion and action taken yesterday
>>day creating a 'mean' overall 'physic' connection to what we 'perceive'
>>as 'today' but, in reality, is only the 'in between' or transmission
>>process of two independant moments in time that one may simply not
>>posses or know.
>
>And in so being aware that there is no real "timeline", I am able to
>leap about from one era to the next, irrespective of whether future,
>past, or present. And that is my little secret: I have access!
>
>>Gentle Peace
>
>Aggressive Dissent.
>
>Do not assuage my ego with images of meekness, submission, compromise
>and assimilation. I am unshackling my gay sisters and brothers from
>such braindead bondage...who are accused of "violence" for having a
>voice in the first place. What hetero skulduggery!
Jackdaw
Oops, sorry ...I have been just as guilty and NOT removing the cross
postings. Won't do it again.
I won't killfile Zeke cause I then have to guess what was discussed in the
replies that are give by other folks.
But.
It is a facinating insight into the tortured mind of a paranoic person.
Jackdaw
Collecter of facts, trivia and bright twinkly things.
"Lifegiver" <aste...@pacific.telebyte.com> wrote in message
news:3a45da14...@news1.telebyte.com...
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
<bos...@extremely-sharp.com> wrote:
>Is Alan Ginsberg Gay?
Of course he was. If you've read any of his works, or studied a bit of
his life story, you'd know. One of the main instigators of the Beat
Movement, and eventually the Free Speech Movement, was gay. He passed
on a couple years ago. It is quite typical of heterocentric societies
to change their gay leaders, heroes, and artists, into seemingly
heterosexual types. I mean, you yourself had no idea about Ginsberg, a
*major figure in contemporary social issues.
You probably think that most cowboys of the wild west were all hetero,
too. Thanks to revisionist authors who gave us all our public
education.
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
<floen...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>This is where I live with my best friend and life companion, who is
>a gay man.
I applaud you and your friend for your courage and forthright honest.
(However, living an apparantly hetero lifestyle of man-woman, does not
qualify you two as *that alternative.) But please, don't lull
yourselves into believing your happy little bubble is something that
more than a handful of gays can achieve in our homophobic nation. I,
too, live in a happy little bubble here in San Francisco...but
whenever I cross the invisible wall of this bubble, even here in "gay
mecca", the wolves are ready to tear me apart, if my defenses are not
strong and agressive. You are doing a disservice to gay people, when
you publicly post a falsehood that just makes more of us vulnerable to
violent misery and death.
---begin article from bit.listserve.gaynet (GayNet mailing list, also
posted as a newsgroup):
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 17:50:57 -0500
From: "Tom Keske" <TKe...@mediaone.net>
Subject: [GN] Bush Appoints Virulent Homophobe
BUSH APPOINTS VIRULENT HOMOPHOBE
The appointment of John Ashcroft as Attorney General should deflate
any naive expectations that George W. Bush really meant what he said
about "healing" the nation.
Ashcroft has a perfect zero score on gay issues from the Human Rights
Campaign Fund. He not only voted against protections for gays in job
and housing discrimination, but he voted even against the Ryan White
CARE Act, despite the bill having 51 cosponsors.
He has stated that homosexuals should not be allowed to hold certain
"sensitive" civilian jobs.
Ashcroft cosponsored a bill with the virulently homophobic Senator
Jesse Helms, opposing NEA funding [1].
Ashcroft holds an honorary degree from Bob Jones University, which was
also the center of controversy following a visit by George W. Bush,
last year. Bob Jones University banned interracial dating, until
public pressure recently forced them to change that policy. Other
GOP figures holding honorary degrees include Jesse Helms of North
Carolina and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina.
Ashcroft carries an endorsement from the racist Council of
Conservative Citizens, which has characterized interracial marriage as
"genocide" against whites [2].
Ashcroft is endorsed by nearly all of the major Religious Right
figures, including Jerry Falwell and the Christian Coalition. Several
former aides to Pat Buchanan now work for Ashcroft.
There is reason to believe that Ashcroft might represent one of the
more corrupt Attorney Generals since Ed Messe, in the Nixon era.
This self-righteous former Missouri governor considers himself a moral
crusader, but he has more than his share of petty corruption scandals
from his past as Missouri governor [3]:
- Declared "economic emergency" to push through an 18-mile, $140
million freeway right to a major contributor's property
- Received (and didn't report) a favorable deal on a boat from a
contributor who got $1 million in Missouri state contracts
- His attorney general went to prison for converting state
property to his own.
Ashcroft was defeated in his Congressional race by his deceased
opponent, former Missouri Governor Mel Carnahan. Carnahan, a
comparative liberal, died in a fiery plane crash, just weeks before
the vote.
In a greatly ironic note, Ashcroft complained that he was a victim of
voting fraud. While he claimed that he would be magnanimous and not
press the matter, his staff demonstrated the hypocrisy of this
pretense, by calling for criminal investigations and declaring that
the guilty parties should go to prison.
Speaking of investigations, as an editorial comment- when a commercial
plane explodes or crashes, there is typically an investigation to make
sure that sabotage or explosives were not involved. When a plane
carrying a politician crashes just before an election, it should also
be a matter of routine to investigate fully, to make sure that no foul
play was involved.
The mainstream press is not reporting all the relevant information
that casts doubt on the fitness of Ashcroft, and his ties to the
far-right. The Boston Globe, in assessing the Ashcroft controversy,
failed to so much as even mention the "g" word as a negative against
him. The Religious Right is not shy about mentioning gays. They are
in fact obsessed by it. Why is the "liberal" media so reluctant to
mention the word?
While charges of racism would be a major negative, attitudes toward
gay and lesbian Americans are obviously off the radar of even the most
liberal press.
These are reasons all the more why gays and lesbians should begin
developing a more aggressive stance, and putting less faith in
electoral politics as a means to achieving justice.
Tom Keske
Boston, Mass.
REFERENCES
[1] http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/dtw/www/legal.html
Ashcroft-Helms Amendment to H.R.2107, Page S9314
[2] http://www.multiracial.com/news/pr990126dscc.html
White Supremacist's Presidential Choice: Senator John Ashcroft
WASHINGTON-Senator John Ashcroft's attempts to paint himself as a
moderate were stripped away yesterday, when the CEO of the now
infamous Council of Conservative Citizens, named Senator John Ashcroft
as a candidate he would have supported for president.
Aside from Christian right hero Pat Buchanan, Gordon Baum, head of the
C of CC, said Senator John Ashcroft "comes fairly close to us on some
of the social and cultural issues." ["Both Sides" transcript,
www.cnn.com 1/24/99]
[3] http://www.realchange.org/ashcroft.htm
http://members.aol.com/JBFREEDOM/wchap5.htm
---end of article
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
(Lifegiver) wrote:
>Zeke, this bloody thread is crossposted to alt.religion.WICCA.
I *am Wiccan, so of course the thread is here.
>Y'know, be it harm none, Threefold Law, and all that.
I am well aware.
>So, don't snap at the wiccans and pagans.
I am *not "snapping" at Wiccans and Pagans. I am, however, criticising
the naive belief of many Wiccans, as to their self-proclaimed
non-bigotry and gay friendliness.
>They are NOT after you.
Yes they are, when they are smugly heterocentric.
>In fact, they get just as much shit from the fundies as the
>gay folk do.
We gays get bashed by any and all groups, including pagans and
atheists. So it is important to make all these groups aware that
homophobia is far from a minor issue in their communities. To profess
that only Christians wield gay hatred is a lie, and a
scapegoat...while this evil continues unabated in non-Christian
communities.
DCUclean
> On Fri, 22 Dec 2000 16:23:22 -0600, "DCUclean"
> <bos...@extremely-sharp.com> wrote:
>
> >Is Alan Ginsberg Gay?
>
> Of course he was. If you've read any of his works, or studied a bit of
> his life story, you'd know. One of the main instigators of the Beat
> Movement, and eventually the Free Speech Movement, was gay. He passed
> on a couple years ago. It is quite typical of heterocentric societies
> to change their gay leaders, heroes, and artists, into seemingly
> heterosexual types. I mean, you yourself had no idea about Ginsberg, a
> *major figure in contemporary social issues.
>
> You probably think that most cowboys of the wild west were all hetero,
> too. Thanks to revisionist authors who gave us all our public
> education.
When assessing a person I rarely care about their sexual orientation.
I figure a person's sexual oreintation is a personal thing.
DCUclean
William Edward Woody
> the naive belief of many Wiccans, as to their self-proclaimed
> non-bigotry and gay friendliness.
Including the gay ones?
Did it ever dawn on you Zeke that by lumping everyone into one large
basket as you have, you are as guilty of prejudice as you accuse others
of being?
> We gays get bashed by any and all groups, including pagans and
> atheists. So it is important to make all these groups aware that
> homophobia is far from a minor issue in their communities. To profess
> that only Christians wield gay hatred is a lie, and a
> scapegoat...while this evil continues unabated in non-Christian
> communities.
My only complaint about your rantings, aside from the paranoia, the
looking forward to a Jihad and the death of millions, and--oh, hell, one
of *many* complaints I have about your rantings--is that you presume
that anyone who is not gay cannot possibly be friendly to gays.
That creates a separation which is impossible to cross, by it's very
definition. And by creating such a definition which makes such a
separation impossible to bridge, you do not leave room for a solution,
outside of physical violence, of course.