Tuesday, February 28, 2017


Last December 11th was the fifth anniversary of a tremendous loss to those who prized reasoned argument, laced with sardonic wit, wrapped in a husky British accent. Christopher Hitchens would be in his element today, as a staunch defender of free speech in the face of violent anti-speech activism among college students and religious fanatics.

I thought of Christopher Sunday morning after getting annoyed adjacent to Boston Common, where a doe-eyed boy approached me with a clipboard and asked, "Would you like to abolish hate?" I answered in the negative, since I believe hate is sometimes a natural response to being treated hatefully. What I do with that hate is more important than the emotion itself. I asked him whether his initiative, whatever it may have been, would try to interfere with free speech and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. He immediately said, "No." Then he told me how the petitioners would like to pass a law against hate speech. Duh, I thought silently.

I moved on from there. I don't dally with idiots, especially idiots being paid by the likes of George Soros to corrupt the American Constitution. Yes, billionaire George Soros, who profited as an adolescent from the confiscation of the property of Jewish Hungarians, deported to death camps. Why should I look to the likes of George (nee Schwartz) Soros and his paid minions for the moral high ground, much less support their causes? That is the kind of rational thinking that  Hitchens verbalized so eloquently with the detachment of a Zen master in his later years.

Today, after watching the video of the 2010 debate above, I realized how badly discourse has slipped in America to name-calling and Twitter niddling,  Now in 2017 the energetic secularism which Hitchens represented so well has become diluted by those who have caved to acceptance in lieu of principle. They whine that Hitchens and others who strongly expressed their honest rational ideas are/were "too strident" or "too harsh". Yet, these same compromising secularists will rally around the flags of those who are fascistic in their demands for special treatments as victims. They will participate in banning speakers from universities. They will collude with those who strongly adhere to ideologies which are violent, misogynist and homophobic in the name of interfaith cooperation. 

Give me Hitchens and those like him. They will challenge and inspire. They will infuriate and mobilize disagreement against themselves with enthusiasm. They are forgers of nonviolent independent thought, not dictators of oppressive conformist stupidity.

Sunday, February 26, 2017


Bill De Blasio, the current mayor of New York City, has obviously outdone the closeted Wizard of Oz. He has flown way over the LGBTQ+infinity rainbow to Absurdistan. He has stamped his signature to a declaration of 31 distinct genders in this bizarre pamphlet outlining New York City "law", which will hopefully be challenged and found unconstitutional. My sincere hope is that Marty Walsh, Boston's own ultra-Liberal mayor, doesn't catch this disease before the Supreme Court upholds the First Amendment against this genre of threat once again. Liberals used to like the First Amendment. What happened?

I am considering dressing up in a banana suit. I will declare myself trans-species. I will insist that people address me as "Top Banana", "Your Topness", "Your Fruitiness", I will file a hate-crime complaint against anyone who tells banana jokes in my hearing, makes monkey references, threatens to cut me up for cereal, offers to peel me, or refers to my yellow-ness in anything but complimentary terms. I will demand the respect and governmental protection due to any birth-human who decides to become a fruit or vegetable (except radishes, because they give me gas). 

I suppose genetic testing may be used to determine whether or not I am actually a banana. But I will persist. I will not let science stand in the way of my apparent dementia. I will shame and terrorize all those who persist in maintaining any measure of normalcy, based in statistics and science. How dare they? I know they will be freaked out by my obviously insane persistence. This gives me power. 

We have now learned that fascism isn't what we thought it was. Yes, it is the gang mentality of the brutal few who try to inflict their ideology on the masses through intimidation and media manipulation. But it isn't associated necessarily with straight-backed soldiers in uniform doing the goose step.

The new Liberal fascism is now associated with college women who dress like prostitutes and say, "Don't touch me." and "Don't look at me." It is now associated with self-victimizing women in burkas who defend genital mutilation as culturally appropriate. It is now associated with men who hate themselves so much that they have themselves castrated. It is now associated with women who hate themselves so much they have total mastectomies. And, most sadly, it is now associated with confused gay men and lesbian women who have embraced all these causes as sacrosanct at the expense of their own dignity and sub-cultural legacy. 

Saturday, February 25, 2017


An example of  an hysterical idealist when faced with rationality.

I say this repeatedly, but some people seem to miss it every time. I did not vote for Donald Trump. And, I resent being blamed for Hillary Clinton's defeat by her bourgeois harpies because I voted for the other female candidate and her African-American running mate. Stick that in your Liberal pipe and smoke it. Talk about hysteria! Many wailing Liberals probably didn't even realize that another woman and an African-American on The Left were running in the presidential race. They were so obsessed with winning that they (oops) forgot about their much touted principles: Things like peace, environmentalism, freedom of speech. 

YouTube hosts a huge confederacy of dunces, mixed in with some amazingly intelligent people. If you wish to see a full spectrum of human mental function and dysfunction, browse around. Don't just go with the algorithm-generated recommendations. That algorithmic indoctrination  is contributing to the mass insanity around politics in this country right now. If you follow the algorithms, you can be wound up in a cocoon of one-sided propaganda on any issue that you wish to explore. Unless you regularly buck against the algorithms with a manual search occasionally, your mind can get really twisted. You'll end up acting and thinking like PewDiePie. Heavens forfend! One of him is more than enough. 

Back to the Trump hysteria. CNN and the New York Times have had their feelings hurt. Boo hoo. I get it. It isn't enough that they are adulated by the Liberal elite. Bill Maher has a new punching bag. After George W. Bush, his previous mockery gold mine, Bill had to tone it down for eight years, despite his previous incarnation in a show called Politically Incorrect. I can understand his over-the-top riffing on The Donald. I understand the outrage of middle-class and middle-aged coastal women who are especially traumatized. Not only did they experience rejection of pant-suited Hillary vicariously, but they were confronted with the simple fact that they are a dying breed, in part due to the policies of the Democrats and their seduction by centrist economics. I get that too.

What I don't get is the absolute bat-shit-crazy rhetoric among some allegedly educated young Americans. If I hear comparisons between Trump and Hitler for eight years, I may start to throw things. This is so absurd that it qualifies at this point in time as paranoia. Like it or not, Donald Trump is a constitutionally valid president who is participating in a constitutionally valid government of a constitutional republic. If he stops being that, the constitutionally valid impeachment process will kick in. Believe me, I lived through the election of 2000. The lesson I learned is simple: Constitutional republics are not always just, peaceful or responsive to all the electorate. I myself would prefer a technologically enhanced social democracy. Think of Estonia as trying to approach that ideal.

The current state of Liberal hysteria is like scratching a mosquito bite. It simply makes it itch more and swell more. It does not alter the course of your body's absorption of the toxins. In fact, it may impede it. Meanwhile, it just makes it look worse than it is. Or it causes an infection of the self-inflicted scratches, which can turn into septicemia and kill you. Solution: Stop scratching, dab some vinegar on it and be patient. It will go away. Time heals all wounds and wounds all heels. 

I do not think the media are invested in helping. In fact, this hysteria is good business for them on two levels. They are owned by globalists (anti-nationalists) who will get richer than they already are off the ads they can sell on pages laced with venom and fear-mongering. And, the owners can also further their agenda of dissembling any trace of populist input into government so they can eventually rule through parliaments like the EU Parliament and the United Nations. These "parliaments" are actually luxurious clubs for oligarch-sponsored professional politicians. They are neither democratic nor egalitarian. Our own U.S. Congress is morphing into a similar body. The House of Representatives, once the bulwark against elitist rule, is rapidly being filled with career politicians who are getting rich and living large in their positions. 

Hysteria is useless. Those of you who are screaming madly have the same opportunity to engage with the electoral system as the smug Trumpets. Many of you, it seems, supported Bernie Sanders. My own prejudices make me most sympathetic to your outrage. After all, you were stabbed in the back by Hillary's trolls in the Democratic Party and also by Bernie himself who eventually rolled over and supported Hillary. But you were all more the fools for believing that Sanders, a career politician, would do anything else. Look at what Elizabeth Warren is turning into. 

If you are young and energetic, the cure for your hysteria is simple. Get off your butt, put your phone down and get to a headquarters of a politician in your federal representation district whose principles seem palatable to you. Do not buy a black outfit and waste your energy studying methods for flushing tear gas or pepper spray from your eyes. Antifa may seem cool or chic, but it will not effect the change you desire. It will simply keep the counterproductive cycle revving up. If you like to march and draw things on placards, do so peacefully and openly with your head held high. Nothing wrong with that. And, you may find that you are less hysterical and more motivated to do something constructive instead of just getting more hysterical or straining your voice to no avail. 

Thursday, February 23, 2017


News comes from the elite of the Democratic Party. A raging battle rages over the corpse of the party's once laudable mission. Special interests have replaced the party's concern for Average Joe and Jane in the U.S.A..

The blatant corruption of Hillary Clinton and Debbie Wasserman Schultz in the last election when they colluded to torpedo Bernie Sanders speaks volumes about the Democratic Party elite. The putting up of a militaristic hawk for POTUS who took millions from the global sponsor of Islamic terrorism totally eroded any posture of moral superiority in the DNC. Given that corruption of our national electoral process by the Saudi Arabians, not the Russians, is there any question why Keith Ellison, one of two Muslims in Congress, is in the top tier of candidates to lead that party going forward?

The Democrats are the party of the Regressive Left, the nanny brigade, the welfare-state lovers, who wish to collect from it but not pay into it by actually working for a living. "Sure!" they yell, "Bring in everyone who shows up at a border or an airport! How dare you vet people? How dare you enforce the law on our streets? How dare you practice skeptical judgment on anything?" These welfare enthusiasts are not limited to housing projects. They thrive on Wall Street as well. The Democrats became the party of white-collar welfare in the last eight years of a Democratic administration.

The specter of the Bilderberg globalists, personified by George Soros, hangs over the Democrats in the opened eyes of the working class and dying middle class. The obsession of Democrats with sanctuary cities, pro-Islamic rhetoric, undermining the rule of law by promoting every narcissistic cry of victimhood, currying favor with Hollywood, and demonizing anyone who stands up for more traditional American values, like free speech, has killed its appeal with American workers, the people who get up every morning and get on with it. Yes, those people are the taxpayers who feel ripped off and condescended to by the federal, state and local governments they pay for. 

Tuesday, February 21, 2017


The recent uproar in payback media against Milo Yiannopoulos, the gay provocateur and free-speech advocate, comes unsurprisingly after Milo's national cable-TV appearance on Bill Maher's Real Time show on HBO. I have to congratulate Bill Maher for being true to his stated commitment to free speech and diversity of ideas. However, the same dark reactionary forces who would gladly undermine Bill Maher, if he were not a popular national voice of Liberals with a bully pulpit, have decided to single out a gay man who dresses and speaks provocatively in the abrasive tradition of Lenny Bruce.

An edited video of a stoner talk show from the internet was released by The Reagan Battalion, a Center-Right PAC which backed independent Evan McMullin for U.S. President in the last election. Evan McMullin is a former CIA operative, investment banker, a former Republican-Party consultant and Mormon, born in Utah. He is anti-gay-marriage and anti-choice. He has been vocal against Donald Trump after losing his own bid to become U.S. President without any previous elected government experience. In fact, he has proposed a popular movement to remove the elected President Trump from office. It is unclear to me how he plans to do this without sparking a populist revolution with himself at the head of some mob. Perhaps his tactic with Milo is a preview of how he plans to demean President Trump out of office. 

The spurious attack on Yiannopoulos' personal character with inference that he is a pedophile or pro-pedophilia is frankly reminiscent of McCarthyism, that peculiar Congressional madness of the 1950's in which Ronald Reagan himself reveled. McCarthy was homosexual, closeted, Roman Catholic and a Democrat. He vented his insane fear of Communism by victimizing U.S. citizens, many of them Jewish, who supported Leftist ideals. Perhaps Evan McMullin is a reincarnation of Joseph McCarthy who died in 1957.

I grew up with consciousness of my own homosexuality in working-class America of the 1950's and 1960's. My mother was a first-generation Russian-American. My father's mother was descended from a Jewish family which converted to Catholicism to avoid Prussian persecution in the 19th century. Listening daily to hatred of Russians, hatred of Jews and hatred of homosexuals in all aspects of media and society has shaped my view of the world. It certainly has given me radar to perceive a real creep when I see one. My radar goes off with a blast whenever I see Evan McMullin sanctimoniously railing against Donald Trump. I am fairly certain that time will tell his true story.

I have published some statistics above from the U.S. Department of Justice website. Why? The Reagan Battalion's obvious attempt to use ignorant prejudice against gay men to silence Milo Yiannopoulos is aimed at an age-old erroneous assumption among the ignorant that gay men are all sexual predators. I grew up around this ignorant prejudice.  

My decent, devoutly Catholic father, who blushed at the word "sex" and never used a word of profanity, warned me about homosexual predators in the first grade. He actually took me to a local alley and said, "If a man ever tries to pull you into an alley like this, never go with him. Run away. And never let a man take off your clothes." This conversation totally puzzled me at the time. A few years later, my father stopped our car in our city's shopping district. He pointed out a man walking along the sidewalk. "See that! Never talk to anyone like that!" Again, I had no clue what he was talking about. Later, when I was years older, I saw the man and realized he was a local hairdresser. 

In light of today's LGBTQ+ sensibilities, my father was paranoid. And his hateful indoctrination of his homosexual child could be considered child abuse. He was trying to teach me to be self-loathing, in other words. Luckily for me, other people in my childhood provided me with the antidote to this mental poison. 

The 2012 U.S. D.O.J. statistics at the top of this essay (click on it to enlarge) tell us something interesting. Of the 1,800,000 adolescents sexually abused in the U.S. in this sample, only 324,000 (18%) were boys. 1,440,000 (82%) were girls. In other words, heterosexual pedophilia is a far larger problem than gay-male pedophilia by the numbers of victims (4.4 times greater). But gay pedophilia remains a powerful red herring in politics and religion. It is a surefire method to demean or devalue an opponent ... just the inference that that gay male opponent 'supports' pedophilia is enough to gather sharks. Ask John Podesta, Dennis Hastert or Barney Frank.

(Note: The statistics cited are not broken down by declared sexual preference or gender of perpetrator. These variables would most likely increase the ratio of heterosexual-bisexual sex crimes against underage males vs. homosexual male sex crimes against underage males. In other words, even fewer cases may well be classified accurately as gay male pedophilia.)

I am 67 years old. I was never sexually approached by an adult homosexual male when I was a child. As an adult, I have never sexually approached anyone under legal age for sex. Yet I have endured the indignity of being told to stay away from the children of my own family members after I came out as a young gay man. I taught high school for two years in the early 1970's. I later saw one of my better students ten years later in a gay bar. He exclaimed, "Mr. Creeden, what are you doing here?" I laughed, but I also saw that his Catholic indoctrination had left its mark. 

I think Milo Yiannopoulos is a poor standard-bearer for most gay men by any measure. He is no more representative of all gay men than the loony self-loathing gay men who fawn over man-hating feminists and Muslims. That bunch are overly representative of us in gay politics and mainstream media. They are sell-outs to the globalist agenda. They do not realize how dispensable they will become when the global elite have managed to subvert nation-based democracy in favor of global totalitarian oligarchy. But, Milo Yiannopoulos does not deserve to be tarred and feathered with ancient prejudice against gay men which is founded in myth and sexual repression. I would see him openly debated and proven wrong in some of his views. That is the way to gain support in a truly civilized society.

Addendum, 02.21.2017: Milo Yiannopoulos held a press conference today. He apologized for offense to fellow pedophilia victims who may have been offended by his remarks in the released videos. He admitted to saying things off the cuff which were irresponsible. However, he asserted clearly that he had not and would never condone nor advocate for pedophiles. Frankly, as a gay man, I feel his apology more than satisfied any doubt that he was indeed misunderstood. Nonetheless, the fact still remains that the attempt at smearing his reputation was a deliberate political act, perpetrated by people who are not concerned for victims of pedophiles or the damage their act could cause to the general perception of gay men by the public. If Milo were a heterosexual celebrity in a similar circumstance, I suspect the mainstream press would have dealt with the story very differently, if at all. 

Sunday, February 19, 2017


I am writing about this because of the current social crisis in the U.S. after our presidential election. President Donald Trump has become the brunt of hatred by those who claim some of his policies lack compassion. How someone can spout hatred at an individual from a position of compassion eludes me. What is compassion really? English dictionaries tend to define compassion from the standpoint of Judeo-Christian charity. Words like "sympathy" and "empathy" are seen as synonyms. The Asian perspective on compassion, based in Buddhism, is somewhat different. I refer to this compassion when I write about it.

Buddhist teaching is based in a concept of generalized human suffering. Rich people suffer as much as the poor if they do not liberate themselves from the hunger of material need. In other words, Buddhist compassion is a much more sophisticated view of what it means to relate to any form of human suffering. I suspect Jung and Freud were both strongly influenced by this Buddhist concept.

You see, just handing a dollar to a drug addict at a traffic light may well satisfy a Judeo-Christian sense of compassion. However, it can be poisonous in Buddhist terms. The Buddhist would see this as potentially enabling the drug addict to increase his suffering by providing money to fuel his addiction, which is at the root of his suffering. The ignorant Western mind might confuse the image of Buddhist monks extending their begging bowls with the addict knocking on a car window. These are very different actual events.

The original itinerant Buddhist monks renounced material possessions in support of their quest for liberation and enlightenment. Offerings were given by those lay people who admired that quest, but who were themselves not able to make that commitment. Their sacrifice, in many cases, to nourish the monks at their own expense was seen as participation in the Buddhist ideology. In that sense, the monks felt they were extending compassion to their benefactors by begging and reminding their benefactors of the Buddhist ideals they, the monks, represented.

There is logic in this form of giving, unlike the mindless giving of affluent Westerners to a myriad of dubious causes from food relief campaigns to politicians. Few affluent benefactors in the The West seriously consider the greater implications of the charities they support. They increase suffering in many impoverished parts of the world by bloating the indigent with surplus GMO grain, for example. This is leading to a rise in diabetes and obesity in the developing world. A Buddhist-oriented charity might fund organic gardening methods, community planning, sex education and birth control. This approach is supportive of the liberation of the poor from charity, as well as poverty.

The much misunderstood Buddhist concept of karma is inextricably linked with logic and compassion. I relate karma in my Western mind with accountability. The Japanese, with whom I spent some time studying, speak of cause and effect. The Western concept of charity is nearly polar opposite to the notion of karmic accountability. It is also a convenient rationalization for personal greed within capitalism as it coexists with relative poverty among the majority of human beings. 

Judeo-Christian charity is based in "sympathy" which is more often a kinder semantic substitute for "pity". In Buddhist ideology, this kind of charity is seen as narcissistic arrogance, because each individual is seen as master or slave of his existence. Those who master their lives take up the quest of liberation from insatiable hunger. Those who are enslaved are those who give way to egoism and constant hunger for fulfillment by material success or popular adulation. 

Each capable individual is accountable for his choices and actions. The Buddhist view does not include the Western myth of fairness. Buddhist ideology does not accept that there is fairness in its Universe. The Universe may demand balance, but it is up to the individual's choice to think and act for his/her own sake in this regard. Those who choose not to should be afforded respectful avoidance. Those who are truly incompetent by birth deserve respectful assistance. Doting on the capable who choose to be incompetent is disrespectful, or infantilizing in clinical parlance. 

The current "social justice" activists among feminists and militant anti-fascists are like any cult which worships any mythology. From a Buddhist perspective, this explains the tortured, enraged and violent nature of so many of the participants in these groups. Like the addict at the stop light, they are knocking at the window of a metaphorical limo containing a non-existent population of untroubled and privileged people, whether they are perceived as White men or corporate oligarchs. 

They are operating from the Judeo-Christian perspective of compassion and feel deprived of charity from those who are not suffering because they are "privileged". The resulting tantrums are simply a way of absolving themselves of any accountability for their own state of suffering. They are making the choice to externalize their own inability to practice true compassion for themselves by working harder, thinking harder and peacefully creating change in society by creating change within themselves.

As Dalai Lama has suggested, the world does not need more Buddhists but it does need more compassion. Unfortunately, Western capitalism as it exists and its inevitable materialism stand in the way of the kind of compassion which can liberate lives from suffering. The top-down economic theories which are used to rationalize greed in The West are simply illogical from the position of Buddhist compassion. Wealth as a hedge against accountability at any cost is diametrically opposed to the concept of liberation from karma which leads to enlightenment. 

Monday, February 13, 2017


The word "activist" in relation to gay social issues has always rankled me. It is like these endless new gender-free pronouns which the narcissistic are trying to get legislated into law. It can mean anything. And that is the whole idea for those who arrogantly use the word "activist" to describe themselves.

The older I get, the more annoyed I am by revisionists of social and personal history. Why? Because they devalue the credibility of those of us who are honest about our histories. The same jerks who sat in the shadows while some of us dodged bricks and bottles for being out in the earliest days of Gay Liberation now call themselves "gay activists" or, worse, "LGBTQ-whatever activists". Really? Getting legally married and grinning on Facebook after people suffered for that right with actual effort going back decades is not activism. It is opportunism.

I became disillusioned with political-movement groupies some time back. I marched for peace during the Vietnam war. I participated in a civil rights march after the King assassination. I marched in Gay Pride parades for decades after they began.  I attended the Gay March on Washington in 1979.  I've done AIDS walks. I've had my fill of looking up at stages and podiums at the aggressive and self-satisfied who often rise to the tops of movements. Some of their spouted ideology is so undemocratic and self-serving that I have often been tempted to boo in protest of their protest.

In the latter years of Gay Liberation (1978-1982), I worked as a state-funded psychiatric nurse in a largely volunteer-staffed gay/lesbian community mental health center, one of the few nationwide. Dr. Richard Pillard and Dr. Jalna Perry, both psychiatrists, were major forces in getting this up and running for their Boston community. They were community and professional activists in every legitimate sense of the word. They were out in their profession at a time when homosexuality was being hypothesized as a disorder among psychiatrists and psychologists. 

Eventually volunteer therapists, who also had private practices, exploited our low-fee clinic for private-practice referrals: Clients who could pay higher fees or had health insurance with therapy benefits. They cannibalized the clinic by insisting it meet the standards of a hospital outpatient clinic for private insurance certification. In other words, they eliminated it as competition by driving it out of business. There was no way it could meet the salaries of the health and business professionals needed to pass the private insurance standards for a medical-model clinic. It closed soon after.I myself was forced to leave my low-paying job as clinical director because my position had to be filled by a doctoral-level professional. The clinic lost its state-funded position as well. 

Leaving that job was actually good for me personally. I was working long days and the stress was showing in my personal life. I had not seen myself as an activist there. I was a nurse, a gay man, a community member. I had skills for which I was willing to be paid little. The activism, if I were to consider calling it that, existed within my profession of nursing. Few nurses were out at the time. Fewer in the state system, where I had been out since my first nursing job. And to keep my job at the clinic, I had to work night shifts on demand at a local state in-patient hospital in the heart of a poor neighborhood. I was the only RN on duty for two packed psychiatric wards, approximately 100 acute patients, locked in due to the nature of their diagnoses. The nursing director of that hospital, through which my position was funded, made it clear that she was doing me a favor by letting me have a job in the gay community as a gay man in exchange for being at her disposal. 

Liberation isn't following any ideology in goose-step. Liberation is the opposite of submission. I will not submit my mind or my speech or my body to any set of rules or ideas that are against my principles, rooted in mindfulness and compassion. This is what I consider being liberated. The Liberation movements of the 1960's and 1970's, Women's Liberation, Gay Liberation, Men's Liberation, were invitations to join the ranks of self-liberated individuals. Today's LGBTQ activism is not that. It is a command to respect and obey. This, I believe, is why today's LGBTQ and Antifa activists resemble ISIS more than their Gay Liberation forebears. It is no wonder to me that many of them support Islamic ideology rather than protest against it. 

Thursday, February 9, 2017


Gay Liberation was a grassroots populist movement. It occurred against all odds. It started from small focal points in Boston, New York and San Francisco. Each cell had a nucleus of dedicated few. They mimeographed flyers and ran fundraising dances in church basements. Most were too young to realize that what they were trying to do was impossible. That was a major element of their success.

Within the 15 years from the Stonewall riot of 1969 and the death of Patient Zero from AIDS in 1984, Gay Liberation had spread globally through new gay publications, mainstream news coverage and gay travel. It was like a good virus which was devastated by the bad virus to follow. The viral nature of Gay Liberation is thought by some to have led to the intentional ignoring of the AIDS epidemic in its early years. It may have seemed to the more conservative and homophobic that AIDS was an answer to a prayer. We now know how mistaken they were.

I lived Gay Liberation and the AIDS epidemic. At 21, I distributed mimeographed flyers around Boston to announce various community actions and events. The first Gay Pride Parade in Boston was one of them. At 34 in 1984, I was infected with HIV. Those 13 years in the warm sun of the Gay Liberation movement sustained me as I worked on in health care through the AIDS crisis. 

My parents were blue-collar people. They had gone hungry at times during the Great Depression. They had suffered through World War II. My father traveled across Europe in the U.S. Army from Normandy to Germany. My mother was a munitions inspector in a U.S. Army arsenal. Yet, despite privation and little appreciation from people with money and power, they managed to build a fairly happy life after the war. They were sober, mindful people. I honor them for that. I try to carry on their legacy as an heir to their sober mindfulness.

Gay Liberation has been all but forgotten by gay men in the U.S.. Liberation in the post-AIDS world of consumer technology has been replaced by lobbying and digital hook-ups. The hedonism which was once a celebration of survival and defiance by gay men of sexually active age has now been reduced to just plain hedonism, an extended adolescence. It is gay cruises and trekking holidays in exotic places for those with the cash. And gay media is one huge infomercial for the commercialism which has replaced community activism. Middle age for gay men now offers legal marriage and financial planning.

Gay men who seek higher education are now free to become bourgeois. Rather than pursuing political science or social work degrees, they may seek MBA's, JD's and MD's. Those with a deeper social consciousness may get seduced into the social justice milieu where they will be bullied by lesbians, asexual feminists obsessed with rape and transgender folk. None of these options is liberating. They are just another form of seeking acceptance or special treatment, respectively, from a vastly heterosexual world, which has always cared less about us than we have assumed. 

So, as one of the decimated ranks of American gay men my age, I identify with the dodo bird, the elephant and the blue whale. We men of Gay Liberation are dying and will be gone soon. The death throes of my generation are unpleasant to observe in today's various digital media. We are considered trolls by both Right and Left on the current political spectrum. We are expected to get weepy over Hillary Clinton's denigration. Why?  I cannot figure that out. She did little for us. And she enabled a husband who displayed himself to be a lying sexist pig. 

We men of Gay Liberation will pass without heirs. But this has always been the way of our kind, until modern gay men decided it would be cool to produce IVF clones of themselves with surrogates. Will those heirs be heirs of gay men in their minds? Or will they be heirs of men who were married in the suburbs and happened to fall on some endless gray scale of modulated sexual identity?  Our kind, the likes of Edward Carpenter, Walt Whitman, Henry Hay and Harvey Milk, have been fine with being set apart and leaving a legacy to be picked up by whomever chose to do so. Perhaps movements cannot have true heirs, but the ideas they leave behind in articulate form may have, in another age. 

Sunday, February 5, 2017


I recommend reading the Wikipedia piece on Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi (pictured above).

Count Coudenhove-Kalergi, an Austrian-Japanese aristocrat, managed to live through Fascism. He escaped pursuit by the Nazis and is thought to be the inspiration for the Paul Henreid character, Victor Laszlo, in the film, Casablanca (1942). 

Recently I wrote of the influence of financial class upon ideology. Coudenhove-Kalergi's ideology is an example of the influence of the ideas of the wealthy elite, who themselves do not live with the immediate consequences of those ideas when they are put into practice. In fact, they appear to receive criticism of those ideas as ignorant insolence. They point at their lower-class critics as "deplorables', in the words of failed US-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. 

There is nothing particularly odious about Coudenhove-Kalergi's ideas. In fact, his ideas on racial mixing and globalization are a prediction of the inevitable evolution of mankind on its current trajectory. Too many people on too small a space (desertificated and defoliated Earth) will obviously have to intermingle. They will eventually tap into survival instincts to use technology to unify against a common threat of extinction. 

The pace of that change, however, has been artificially accelerated by EU's open border policy. And that policy seems to be rooted in the Coudenhove-Kalergi elitist view of change by globalist government to accelerate evolution in the name of peace. One major fly is embedded in that ointment: Islam. Since Coudenhove-Kalergi's father was an expert of Semitic religions and Count Richard himself was biracial (Austrian aristocrat father and Japanese bourgeois mother), it is possible that he quietly anticipated Islam as the unifying force which would actualize a united global population of one human race in some fashion. His writings extolled post-war Jewish intellectuals and politicians as the evolved elite guides of society. It is impossible to deny the racist attitudes that were at the very core of his claimed anti-racist philosophy. It would not be an irrational leap to speculate that he saw the potential for the eventual Islamic subjugation of Europe to extinguish populist dissent there. He wrote of a wish to see all peoples become Euro-African, looking like modern-day Egyptians. 

The deep-rooted problem with the Coudenhove-Kalergi mindset from a secular-humanist's democratic perspective is obvious. It is Fascist, sectarian and racist. It is forced race-minded evolution by governments in league with capitalist wealth and hereditary aristocracy, overriding popular will. 

Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi grew up in the bath water of global Fascism, despite having to flee the Third Reich. He lived to be an old and influential political influence until 1972. He is suspected of committing suicide at 78. He passed his torch as President of the Paneuropean Union, the equivalent of an American PAC, to Otto von Habsburg, heir to the Habsburg dynasty which once consisted of Holy Roman Emperors. Von Habsburg's crown was appropriately lost as a result of WW I. Von Hapsburg had spent WW II in Washington, DC. The Paneuropean Union was banned from 1933 by the Third Reich and was resurrected in Austria after the war. It is credited with foundations of the the current EU, where von Habsburg sat as a member of European Parliament from 1979-1999, while also leading the International Paneuropean Union. In 2004, he was succeeded in the IPU presidency by Alain Terrenoir. Terrenoir served in Charles de Gaulle's cabinet. De Gaulle was an admirer of Coudenhove-Kalergi. It is notable that von Habsburg's political party in Bavaria is part of a united party to which Angela Merkel belongs. 

It is not surprising that anyone currently from Europe is labelled as a conspiracy theorist or Alt-Right when they refer to this history of conscious and deliberate social engineering by the aristocrats of Germany and Austria. This antiquated and autocratic (patriarchal) approach to social and racial evolution is hard-wired in the EU leadership. It  has brought Europe to its current crisis. I believe that these aristocrats, desperate to exert their undemocratic will upon the masses of the world, may now be exploiting Islam as a tool to achieve their goals. I also believe they do not care about the consequences for the working people from all origins whom these policies impact.