by Editors

 Rubin, Rubin I’ve been drinking,

Because of what I think you’re thinking-

 

Sounds like diplomacy, looks so fine..

Oh my God it’s Zion slime!

 

 

When the planes hit the Twin Towers, and WHILE BUSH WAS FROZEN SOLID IN THAT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CLASSROOM…..what were the Neo-Con movers and shakers doing?…….

 

For those of you who don’t remember, or were afraid to ask how our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were engineered, please—for all our sakes—review the account inSam Tannenhaus’ July, 2003 Vanity Fair:

 

 

   “Meanwhile, on Sept. 11, across the Potomac, fellows at the American Enterprise Institute, soon to emerge as the Bush administration’s favorite think tank, were receiving similarly aggressive counsel from Wolfowitz’s longtime friend and ally Richard Perle, who was on the phone from France. Perle, himself an A.E.I. fellow, was also the chairman of the Defense Policy Board, a high-powered 30-member group (Henry Kissinger and Newt Gingrich also belong) that periodically gives advice to the secretary of defense. Like Wolfowitz, Perle is never at a loss for a bit-picture reading. One who consulted him that day was presidential speechwriter David Frum, who along with the other administration staffers had taken shelter at A.E.I.’s offices after the White House was evacuated. Frum spent an hour on the phone with Perle. “I remember very clearly what he said”, Frum recalls.  “Whatever else the president says, he must make clear that he’s holding responsible not just terrorists but whoever harbors those terrorists.” ©(Vanity Fair, July 2003, p 117). (emphasis added)

 

In that article you’ll find many references to the A.E.I. (American Enterprise Institute).That’s the “Policy Institute” where all the White House staff sought and found shelter during the 9/11 attacks.  In a crisis, birds of a feather flock together.  The A.E.I. is the political force that started the war in Iraq. It’s composed of the “Neo-Conservative Republicans” who in covert conjunction with Zionist Jews ( Paul Wolfowitz, David and Meyrav Wurmser) set up the cabal within the Pentagon to put the necessary “spin” on C.I.A. intelligence reports to convince America (and maybe even Bush…but not Cheney—he certainly knew better) that the Taliban and Saddham were in league with bin Laden.

 

The Wurmser’s and others, of course, are the Zionist Jews who co-authored “A Clean Break”, the overall plan whereby Israel takes over the Middle East to fulfill Biblical promised-land prophesy by means of manipulating the U.S. to do the nasty—but necessary—military work.

 

The A.E.I. and it’s cousin institute (P.N.A.C. “Project for New American Century) are the critically-massing combo uniting Christian, Republican and Jewish Zionists for the purpose of fulfilling their common fascist will—world domination by Judeo-Christian Zionists.  A Judeo-Christian  Zionist Herronvolk if you will. 

 

Sound like some Orwellian fantasy to you?  Well, just get your head out of the sand of Republican-run TV, and otherwise totally wimpy corporate-machinated media, and , via your computer, Google-scan the opinions of the civilized world outside your fascist homeland. It’s hardly a secret.

 

So, why is this “history” lesson in pre-Afghanistan take-over times important to these post-Iraq take-over times….?  IT’S BECAUSE HISTORY IS ABOUT TO REPEAT ITSELF IN THE CASE OF IRAN. THAT’S WHY. AND FOR THE SAME REASONS. AND WITH THE SAME PEOPLE PULLING THE STRINGS. PEOPLE LIKE MICHAEL RUBIN.

 

Who’s this Rubin guy, and why did I just pen a poem in his …”regard” (seems syntax gave me only two choices, “regard” and “respect”, and I have neither for this invidious fifth-column Zionist media warrior.)  He is Michael Rubin, and he just wrote a diabolically intelligent column fomenting  war with Iran (see April 14, Wall Street Journal “Nuclear Hostage Crisis”). http://online.wsj.com/public/us   If we don’t study what Perle sold us through Bush, via Frum, we won’t understand what the A.E.I. is again selling us through Rubin. Shame on you, Rubin for invoking the eye-for-eye, “Chosen Few” genocidal mentality of an Old-Testament world and it’s “Promised Few”.   Shame on you, Wall Street Journal for calling Rubin’s piece an “op ed”. It’s a paid political advertisement calling for war on the part of the special interests sponsoring war…. and (if more covertly)  Rubin.

 

Certainly the spread of nuclear capacity into Fundamentalist Islamic states is a threat to global security. But war, and maneuvers to provoke it are choices of last resort.  Unless, of course, they are priorities of first ambition.

 

The Cheney/Bush/Halliburtonian administration keeps Mike Rubin across the street from the White House so they can sell the newspapers on the myth that his op/eds aren’t what they actually  are—politically-paid advertisements.  The people who fund the A.E.I. are the same oil interests and foundation facades that sponsor the larger programs of world domination promulgated and pursued by the P.N.A.C. The new-world order being pursued by the P.N.A.C. globally, is more “regionally” being orchestrated in the Middle East by the A.E.I.  Whether “Big H” or “Little H”, it’s all the same- Neo-Con Christian Jewish Zionist Herronvolk.

 

This so-called (and by-lined) “A.E.I. scholar” is diabolically brilliant, and the details of his “inside intel” with Iran’s internal affairs and nuclear intent are persuasive, to say the least, insidiously seductive  to say the most.  But they boil down to this:  Diplomacy won’t work.  We should not deal—he says–with the Islamic governing regime in Iran because today it enjoys only 20 percent popular support (within Iran). Guess what: That’s only about 7 or 8 short of  Bush’s plummeted  popularity in our recent midst. How would we respond if suddenly China and Russia decided to break off nuclear and other diplomatic detente with us based on Bush’s falling from grace in our media poles?

 

Again, Rubin is speaking from one of the strongest media pulpits on earth—The Wall Street Journal.  He’s a Zionist Jew paid by the A.E.I. as a so-called “scholar” (implying journalistic objectivity)  to shape our (largely-uninformed) opinions.  The purpose of the A.E.I. remains to assist Israel and Fundamentalist Christians in America in carrying out the Wurmser’s blueprint proposal (A Clean Break) whereby Zionists and Rapture-seeking Christians  take over the Middle East and then the civilized world.  The dominoes to fall are the same as  originally planned and scheduled: Iraq, Syria, Iran and then Korea. Then, with the Axis of Evil gone, the rest of the world (and its oil) would be “ours”.  The fact that Afghanistan went down  first was just a fluke. Bin Laden’s Saudi base was there and the only problem then became one of  linking his Al-Quaeda to Saddham (Iraq), and that was accomplished easily with the “Bush Doctrine” as opportunistically conceived by Bush’s puppeteers, Frum and Perle. (see paragraph 3 above).

 

It’s happening again, people. Iran’s next.  This time the claimed WMD’s are, if inchoate,  unfortunately real. But, keep in mind, the plan to take Iran existed long before Iran brazenly announced its nuclear intent.  Very likely Bush’s covert war plans played a role in both Iran’s and North Korea’s defensive nuclear maneuvers. Their ruminations on munitions might easily be:  “If we are, as “evil axis” already targets, and if the U.S. refuses to diplomatically discuss nuclear non-aggression, what reason do we have not to pursue nuclear retaliatory power?”  To reason that either Iran or Korea envisions starting and winning a preemptive nuclear war with the West is imbecilic.

 

By the world’s being  “ours”, of course, I’m speaking of America and Isreal, as recently and opportunistically wedded through their greasy “matchmaker”, Zion.   Oil rapture and Armageddon make strange bedfellows and the (oxymoronic) “Right-Reverend Rabbi Zion” is clearly to blame. God knows what the Jewish and Christian Zionists will do to each other if they succeed in conquering the Middle East and get down to  splitting the spoils of that oily war. And we think we had problems with anti-Semitism in Southern country clubs, and the blacklisting days of California movie making in the comparatively  halcyon days of McCarthyism.  

 

Sure, at this stage, all Rubin is advocating is cessation of diplomacy and visiting Iran’s officials with “sanctions” (freezing assets, travel bans, etc.).  But cessation of diplomatic relations is ALWAYS perceived as precursor to war. Because it is always a precursor to war. (OK, Pearl Harbor may be an exception).  With Rubin, Israel, the A.E.I., P.N.A.C. and the administration (Bush’s) which they Howdy-Doody puppeteer, it’s “diplomacy only as a last resort.”   Not once in his 3000-word article does Rubin even mention the United Nations Security Council and optional multi-national peace initiatives, where it’s always “diplomacy first”. The entire spirit of Rubin’s advocacy is the Israeli, Sharonian admonition: “Don’t negotiate with terrorists”; let’s make a “Clean Break”.  (Translation: When you’re about to steal something, don’t ask permission.” )

 

Achtung,  fellow Americans—Let’s do our homework or run the risk of losing our home. Find out who this Rubin guy is,  who he works for, and what he’s doing to further engage us in a war to take over the Middle East, for its oil and to  establish  Christian/Zionist Herronvolk on a global basis.  With Armageddon as part of the process.

 

We’re on the road to hell in a Halliburton hand basket and need to hit the books, and then hit the brakes.

 

War is our only Enemy,

Ignorance is its first lieutenant

and Vigilance is our greatest ally.

 

Posted in Bush Lies, Political, Repubilcans, War On Terrorism | Leave a comment by Editors

            Despite the tactical bumbling, moral inappropriateness, and social disgrace of the inefficient Republican Party the Democratic Party has pitifully demonstrated their inability to stand together, present a unified front, offer viable solutions and strong leadership over the last five years.  It is as though the democrats are still blindly staggering from the republicans’ “Contract with America.”

            But – as fate would have it, the god of the “religious right” has abandoned the zealots and left them to their own self worship and destruction.

            The God of forgiveness and mercy seems to be giving the democrats another chance to pull this country back together again and I for one anticipate the victorious response of the democrats.

            With the pending demise of republican dominance, democrats must vigilantly accept the challenge and opportunistically answer the clarion call.  To change the erroneous course of that group of co-called “compassionate conservatives,” Democrats must deflect their reckless wake and throttle forward with the power of new concepts, changed attitudes and/or changed participants.  The same incumbents with the same agendas as evidenced lately, are unworthy.  The present young democratic officials coupled with hopeful new electives at ever political level can offer a different perspective, new leadership and most of all, new political solutions.

            The corporate community along with political action committees (PAC) which have supported republican-minded democrats must be rendered moot.  Wannabe PACs working to change the attitudes of existing officials will only contribute to the status quo.  Attempting to change already indebted officials by way of issues is a wasted cause – the names and faces must be changed and the old faces must join the new or suffer replacement.  Because they have committed to graft, their day came and went by the way of corruption.  They too should go!

Posted in Political | Leave a comment

by Editors

 A polite and civilized, but genuinely “at-odds” dialogue between two concerned “independents” on the question and handling of the Illegal Mexican Alien issue, which is rapidly becoming the most important political hard-ball in domestic play today. In this exchange, Professor Leonard Carrier* challenges our foreign policy Editor, Dusty Schoch to defend his position that illegal Mexican Aliens (all 11 million of them) should be treated as felons.

 

PART I – Len Opposes Legislation

(In a letter to U.S. Senators)…

 

Your message was sent to the following recipients:

Your U.S. Senators

 

 

I’m writing to urge you to oppose the immigrant punishment bill scheduled to come before you this week.

The bill, which focuses ONLY on harsh enforcement and heavier penalties, does nothing to address the root causes of our immigration problems. Making felons out of millions of undocumented workers is just not a workable solution. As I’m sure you’re aware, the House version of the bill also punishes humanitarian organizations that try to prevent migrants from dying of thirst in the desert, and conference negotiators could easily slip this provision back into the final bill at the last minute. Other provisions under discussion –- including requirements that churches verify the legal status of anyone to whom they provide assistance –- are equally troubling.

Please oppose the immigration punishment bill, and take the time to come up with a more workable and less punitive solution. I look forward to hearing from you with your views on this matter.

Part II

Dusty’s response

 

 

 

 

Leonard,

 

I haven’t studied this bill much, but the media-shown sight of thousands of illegal aliens assembling—en outlaw masse–to protest U.S. governmental enforcement of the laws they broke when they illegally entered the country and continue to violate as they waive sign and shout,  sort of made me say- Aren’t things a little topsy turvy in this picture?

 

The temerity of their massive assembly and protest to me smacked of crumbling civilization…. Too many criminals to enforce the law. Sure we were slow in coming out of the illegal-entry ether.  Once upon a time Mexico was a tolerable place to live and there weren’t so many MILLIONS of fiscal refugees.  We’re slow to catch up on most problems. That doesn’t make illegal entry either smart or tolerable or good.

 

Mexican aliens, because they’re illegal, stay huddled, separatist, ignorant, and mono-lingual in sub-cultural camps.  Their initial fraud of entry breeds a web of successor criminal frauds in forged SS#’s, ID’s and fake drivers licenses that enable them to drive and crash into you and me with uninsured , very old , very heavy automobiles.

 

 They’re afraid even to come to me at the legal aid clinic I conduct (free) in our homeless shelter.  They’re afraid to attend English class at the local (free) trade school for the same reason. The only place they feel safe in is their 1/8^thbedroom space in the suburban ghetto where 6 families park their uninsured trucks in the front yard of their 1500-square house, their Mexican “hole in the wall” point of pathetic refuge, where they dream of saving enough dollars to bring in the rest of their over-expanded families from M-City squalor. They don’t attempt birth control here either, and you and I are paying the birth bills, because our hospitals, like their employers, won’t/can’t say no to the opportunity for more low-cost labor and tax-supported charity healthcare.

 

 I’m for literally enforcing the naturalization laws that exist…on the books today. America is way over-populated, can’t feed its own native poor, and is below 30^th among civilized nations in health care.

 

The objection that it will “make felons” out of hundreds of thousands of “felons” is specious, it appears to me. Because we were lax in enforcement the past 10 years doesn’t make our present enforcement wrong. The law (new) of course can’t be enforced in every instance. We don’t have that many courts or immigration officers.  But even when your main femoral artery is torn on the battlefield, you do what you can to staunch the flow. You apply the tourniquet and do your best.  The law proscribes. It’s the tourniquet.  We may still lose the leg, but we may save the body in the process. And the other leg, in that altered process, might not itself suffer a lesion that exposes us to a compounded risk of bleeding to death.

 

A first (perhaps  preferred) line of remediation would be to punish, under existing laws, employers who hire illegal aliens, just for the bucks. They are guilty under the existing law. They are outlaws again shielded from prosecution by the “virtue” of their numbers.  

 

In my mind, there are two groups of modern day slaves that are bringing America to its indolent knees:  the slaves in China and India who’ll mostly die trying to emulate Western-level consumer madness, and the enslaved poor (trans ethnic, trans racial) in our country that see foot-soldiering in Iraq preferable to being homeless and jobless on the streets of our dying democracy, a democracy waning  from the greed of its moneyed/fascist/corporate/Republican, let’s-export-America-because-it’s-economically-expedient oligarchy. If we rid ourselves of our resident aliens, we’d be ending at least one form of slavery, and forcing their country’s of origin to take care of their own and their indigenous and perennial problem…over population.  In the same process, we’d accelerate the necessarily inevitable  process of industry and labor’s getting back together to find a way to staunch the flow of jobs and labor dollars to even poorer workers’ exploiters abroad.

 

What specifically don’t you like about the proposed bill?  I  think 700 miles of fence is hardly enough.  I think we should put our dollars in rounding up aliens’ employers and deporting them. This corporate exploitation of  aliens is melting our melting pot.

While we were becoming the hybrid mongrel of nations, strong of back and fang, we were still endowed with enough E Pluribus  collective wisdom to insist on a common native language.  Your last batch  of breakfast cereal likely came with bilingual bios of the Chiconic slugger who steroided himself onto history’s  pages and cereal’s box tops. The old rules are good rules: Before you naturalize, you speak and write the language.  The corporate mongrels would give up our language and our economic stability and our criminal control systems…for consistently easier bucks…until consistently easier bucks inflate our capitalistic American dream derrigible til it floats into the galactically  glutonnous ether. (Wrong word: ether connotes solvency.)

 

Educate me, professor.  

March 28, 06

 

PART III

LEN’S REJOINDER

 

 

 

Thanks for your thoughts, Dusty.  I’m against the immigration bill as written by the House mainly because it would make “illegals” guilty of a felony.  Under present immigration law, their undocumented entry into the US is a civil offense, not a criminal one.  Hence, if they’re found they can be deported without any sort of trial.  If we make them felons, then, in effect, our law officers would become agents of the Immigration Service, and our criminal courts will be flooded with cases. 

    Of course, I’m in favor of trying to enforce the laws we have on the books.  But those laws are not working–not to our favor, and not to the favor of the undocumented immigrants that arrive here.  Not to their favor because, as you say, they live among us in fear of deportation, many with no health insurance, drivers licenses, and without funds to get back to their own country.  And even if they were able to return, there is no work for them there, thanks to NAFTA, which has broken the Mexican farming industry.  Not to our favor, because without “illegals” working on our farms, our farmers would not be able to make a profit, because they can’t pass through upgraded costs to the consumer.  (If they could, then the food on our tables would rise considerably in price.)

    I almost hate to say this, but Bush’s idea of guest workers, a limited amnesty, and an easier path to citizenship is not a bad one.  Senators Kennedy and McCain have also worked out another plan that drops the felony component of the House’s bill.  But there are no easy solutions.  No matter how big you build that wall, desperate people are going to try to get a way to feed their families. Homeland Security would have the task of policing this wall, and we all know that they are not capable of securing their own offices. This is not the United States of fifty years ago, when immigration reform wasn’t needed.  Today it is needed, but the House’s simple “law and order” solution will, to my mind, only make things worse. What’s needed is a way to integrate these workers legally within our economic system–give them a chance to work and strive for the American dream, or at least to send back money to feed their families. 

    I usually don’t disagree with you on much, but I think we need to find a way to bring liberty and justice to all–including those who happen to be the undocumented aliens who live among us.

    All the best, Len

 

 

 

PART IV

 

Dusty’s response to Len

 

Dear Len,

 

Thanks for the thoughtful, provocative  and considered response. You gave me considerable pause, and much to consider. Here’s what I (still) say:

 

You say you are in favor of enforcement of the laws that exist, but you oppose subjecting aliens to criminal prosecution and deportation as “felons”.  I see no reason we can’t do both. Giving U.S. authorities the option of proceeding criminally and/or civilly to accomplish deportations of extant  and deterrence of future illegal aliens seems a capital proposition. When officers arrest the alien on felony charges, he’ll be subject to release if he goes peacefully back home. When he’s brought in the second time, there’s no trial. He’s violated probation (banishment) and goes to jail. The criminal “back up” consequence is for deterrence and is invoked/prosecuted only for the incorrigible. We need desperately to stanch the flow of alien entry and residency in our country and the old “civil” process alone is clearly not working.

 

Look to the East, my friend, at our former ally France. Letting their immigration gates swing open, they’re facing social mahem.  The newspapers called yesterday’s protests, riots and marches (March 28), involving over 3 million youths… “about labor law”.  That of course begged the issue. The fact is one out of five Frenchman is now Islamic, most immigrants of recent entry. The influx of people has resulted in unemployment across the board in excess of 20 percent. We’re next. Workers being imported; jobs being exported. Consider the math.

 

Two things have us hell-bent in America for replicating the French disaster, now moving toward anarchy with alarming momentum.  First, our neo-con corporate profiteers have exported a substantial segment of our blue-collar careers to China and other third-world slave labor camps. Second, replacements for the missing labor in the lower ranks of the service  industry (primarily insulation installation, agricultural harvesting and roofing) are  30-percent Mexican.  Greedy American businessmen  have self-servingly succeeded in resisting enforcement of immigration laws.

 

At present, one in 30 “Americans” is an ILLEGAL MEXICAN ALIEN. That is an abysmal number from the law-enforcement and social stability standpoints. That’s not counting their American-born (and under the law “citizen”-status Mexican/American children).  Over 14 percent of the entire population is Chicano; With a soon-to-be accretion of 6,  we’ll stand with the French, with every one in five of us having more ties with a culture and country… south of the border.

 

America, Len, is no longer “the land of opportunity”.  These swarms of immigrants bring to my mind that dark, god-awful scene in “Zorba the Greek” where the aging French “madam” is dying and the native old harpies who were her envious  less-affluent neighbors are teeming in and out of her boudoir carrying off her treasured trousseau and memorabilia while she lies agape, gasping  her final breaths and  grimacing at the canabalism of her invaders’ rites of passage and acquisitions by default.

 

We’re next. Here are some stats that should stun:  There are 12 million illegal Mexican aliens in the U.S.  today.  In California there were 1.4 million in 1990 and 2.5 today; in N.C. in the same period the number has jumped from 25,000 to  395,000, a 16-fold increase. In all, America has over 30 million foreign-born residents; that’s one in ten of us.

 

These people are not joining our culture. They are setting up their subcultures within us. Parasitic rather than symbiotic. Adversity as opposed to diversity. They won’t attend free language classes for fear of detection and deportation. They will not be amalgamated into so as to evolve with diversity the “American Dream”  because they enter under and remain in a marginalized “hole-in-the-wall” ghetto subculture. Because they are illegal aliens in our midst.

 

Ashville, N.C.,  is one of the  most beautiful cities in America’s mountains. It’s the place wealthy Floridians have their “summer homes”.  Len, as a resident of that beautiful city, can you tell me how many houses in your immediate neighborhood—say of the nice 2500-square foot variety—are presently housing 6 Mexican families? –That is about 20 to 30 people inside with 5 to 7 pickup trucks in the front yard because the 2-car garage is  too full of exterior  dining tables, deck chairs, smoking grills and ceramic cheminee’s  for warming the extended families outside during the perpetual family reunion?  In case you haven’t guess it, I just described the situation in my neighborhood, 5 yards ( and driveways)  from where I presently sit, and write.

 

The value of my 4500-square-foot ancestral home is presently, and ipso-facto, a joke.  And I do laugh a little at the poetic justice, consoling myself with the self-sanctioning symmetry of it by saying:  “It’s what you deserve for hanging on to that huge environmental Albatross  in the first place.”  But tell me the truth, Len: Would you want to live in Tiajauna?  O.K., then would you want Tiajuana transplanted and accreting  next door?  And in the bargain, neighbors who will never, ever , speak English?  The fact is “illegal aliens” inside America have little to lose. They can only be deported. So why not do illegal things until that push comes to shove?…things like driving without a license or insurance and saying to hell with single-family housing laws, I want to move in this great house and share expenses with my 26 cousins. We can afford it.

 

Len, somewhere between the insulation of your mountain retreat and the insult of my “Mexican Border standoff” in the urban foothills of N.C., there’s a place to reflect dispassionately and note that America as a whole is in trouble with its burgeoning Mexican subculture and population. We are as a nation already over-populated. That fact alone supplies us with all the reason we need to close our doors to immigration, legal and otherwise.  The melting pot has melted.

 

The affluent countries of the world are but “enablers” and accomplices to irresponsible over-populating nations and cultures when they let down their gates to   population over-flow. There was a time when emigration from overpopulated areas of the world, such as Asia, India and Mexico might have been symbiotic and efficacious for both countries, but it was never good policy from the global environmental standpoint.

 

When a population within a given territory expands beyond its resources and borders, the population should restrain itself. When overgrowth of  tissue in the human body occurs, threatening the life of the whole, we call it “cancer”. When it happens among the human elements of our living, unitary and finite  global ecosystem, we euphemize it “overpopulation”.  When a “cancer” migrates in microcosmic man, they term it “metastasis”;  When it happens in our global macrocosm, it’s “immigration”.

 

Where is the needed “sanction” for inhibiting overpopulation when one country can simply export its unemployed needy surplus population to another?  As earlier postulated, unfettered immigration amounts to “enabling” the globally-dysfunctional process and producers  of uninhibited population growth, and cultural irresponsibility in regard to birth control and conservation of finite resources. What these reproductively-irresponsible masses have done in their countries of origin they will continue to do in our country.  The statistics of the exponential expansion of Hispanic population in America confirm it.

 

As a depressing bottom line, what’s happening in France today as a result of the unimpeded influx of refugee immigration from the calamitous cauldron of the Middle East is destined to happen in America with Monetzuma’s retarded revenge. The 12 million illegal Mexican aliens are not assimilating in America; they are a growing, fuse-glowing time bomb in her bosom and loins and the process of their further invasion needs to be fixed.

 

The problem of the illegal Mexican alien is converted to conundrum by the bloc-voting political power of the legal Mexican immigrants. Both political parties want to avoid alienating the Hispanic voters, who are 100-percent polarized in favor of some form of amnesty, and any form of compromise that will keep their illegal family and friends from being deported. 

 

I say end the Mexican political standoff.   Fix the broken borders.  Mend the fences of the Rio Grande. Give a Marine escort to these southern encroachers back to the halls of Montezuma.  Guard the border lines with the soldiers presently engaged in losing the theocratic war now in Iraq.  Put a life-saving tourniquet on our country’s bleeding boundaries …or prepare to contend with the riots and cultural mahem presently threatening to crumble the foundations of the French Republic.

 

And let’s do it quickly. Before we complete our nightmarish rush to replicate the history of the Roman Empire.

 

Best as always my learned and considerate friend,

 

Dusty

 

To be continued ….

 

 

 

PART  V

 

 

PREVIEW OF  CONTENTIONS TO FOLLOW:

 

 

 

PREVIEW TO LEN’S SIDE…

 

One thing I do want to mention now, though, has to do with your concerns about our losing our national character by having more Latinos living here.  About ten years ago, I attended a guest lecture at the University of Miami given by a demographic expert.  He showed that we were definitely becoming more Latinized, and that soon there would be a majority of people living here with Hispanic backgrounds.  But the lecture had nothing to do with illegal aliens.  It was just based on demographics.  I don’t think that this is such a bad thing.  I lived in Miami during the great influx of Cubans into South Florida.  Mama and papa might not have learned English, but their kids did.  The Cuban influx helped turn Miami into the vibrant city we have today.  I also find it ironic that all you have to do if you’re a Cuban is to set foot on U.S. land and you get asylum; whereas Mexicans are to be hunted down, deemed felons, and turned back. That doesn’t strike me as being a fair and humane policy.  (MORE LATER)

 

PREVIEW TO DUSTY’S SIDE…

 

I’m not opposed to diversity.  I’m proud of my mongrel cultural heritage and DNA.  I detest the integration of bi-linguality  and bi-culturalism  in America. The separateness sucks. It’s not the melting pot that brewed the American spirit. It’s two separate pots on an archaic, increasingly- under-heated and under-tended, single-burner stove, each vying for space over the flame. A national, cultural hell’s kitchen.  Chinatowns are bad ideas…every time and every place. Festering places for fringe criminality and aberrant everything.

 

 We have too many people in the U.S. now, Len. We are overpopulated. Our overpopulation–with our habits of energy and other consumption–adds to the urgency of our closing our gates to barbarians aspiring to become worse…American-Class Consumers. Forget the legal vs illegal issue.  We need to close the gates to all but those who can help save us from us. German scientists who will help rehabilitate our GM-EXXON mentality with wind-powered energetics. As long as we “adopt” the bastard refugee children of over-populating nations, those nations will continue to over-populate, under-develop and under-conserve.  We’re a support system (enablers) for the addiction (unguarded sex) that’s killing the world. Unfettered human sperm is the doomsday WMD.  Plutonium can’t hold a candle.

 

There is no environmental problem that does not have as its essential primary cause, human overpopulation. Even nuclear arsenals and waste have at their roots men’s struggles over limited earthly territory and resources.   Australia …even China of all places are doing positive things about it. Immigration is an ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE FIRST.

 

Please address this in your next response so I won’t be the lone ranger ranting on that most important aspect of the immigration problem. My basic tenet for preservation of life on earth is re-establish borders as a barrier to overpopulation. When a given territory starts losing human lives (thru starvation, disease contagion etc.) because humans have reproduced themselves to a point their space can’t sustain, that’s a problem that warrants quarantining as if it were  the most virulent  disease pandemic in earth’s history…because it is.

 

When a tsunami hits, send volunteers.  When a people begin to starve because there are too many of them eating from the same garden on the island, send them a life raft.  Drop the raft from a jet airplane at high altitude in a position to drift to the shore of the island. Fill the raft with a generation’s supply of contraceptives.

 

Despite what I seemed to imply above (re “hottest issue”), immigration and global warming are karmic (causal)  cousins. (MORE LATER)

 

*(Dr. Leonard Carrier received his B.A. and M.A. from the University of Miami in ’56 and ’58, respectively, and his Ph.D from Stanford in 1967.  He taught at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia and the University of South Florida (Tampa) before spending the rest of his teaching and research career (29 years until 2000) at the University of Miami. )

Robert R. (Dusty) Schoch is an attorney, inventor and writer (novels, essays, screenplays) living in High Point.  BA (English) degree, UNC Chapel Hill,  JD (law) U. of Ala., Tuscaloosa.  Dusty is founder and scribe of the B.E.A. (“Barristers et al”) a N.C.-based, politically-independent foreign policy think tank. He is also co-editor (foreign policy) of Democratswrite.com through the contact link of which readers are invited to correspond with him.

Posted in Immigration, Political | Leave a comment

by Editors

	The GOP’s Stake in Checking the President By Senator Russ Feingold     www.TomPaine.com Thursday 30 March 2006

    During the Watergate hearings, then-Senator Howard Baker, a Republican, showed tremendous courage, and a deep sense of Congress’s duty to hold President Nixon accountable, when he asked that now-famous question: “What did the President know and when did he know it?” Baker was one of a handful of Republicans during the scandal who stood up to their party, and to the President. Today, as the President admits, even flaunts, his program to wiretap Americans on American soil without the warrants required by law, we need more courageous Republicans to stand up and check the President’s power grab.

    When the President breaks the law, he must be held accountable, and that is why I have introduced a resolution to censure the President for his actions. Yet, as we face a President who thinks he is above the law, most Republicans are willing to cede enormous power to the executive branch. Their actions are not just short-sighted, they are a departure from one of the Republican Party’s defining goals: limiting government power.

    Some Republicans are defending the President’s conduct as appropriate and arguing he should have free rein to continue his program, regardless of whether it is legal. Others seek to grant him expanded statutory powers so as to make his illegal conduct legal. But current law already allows a wiretap to be turned on immediately as long as the government goes to the court within 72 hours. The President has claimed an inherent authority to wiretap Americans on American soil without a warrant that he thinks allows him to break this law. So why would anyone think the President will comply with any new proposal? The constitutional system of separation of powers demands that we check a President who recklessly grabs for power and ignores the rule of law, not reward him – particularly when the law he breaks is designed to protect innocent Americans from intrusive government powers.

    As many Republicans focus on defending the President, they are losing sight of what ceding these powers to the President now will mean for their own party down the road. Those expansive powers will rest with whoever sits in the Oval Office. Republicans who argue today that the President has the power to ignore a law passed by Congress are relinquishing authority not just to this Republican President, but to future presidents of any party. They are helping to render future members of their own party powerless to check an executive who claims expansive powers under the Constitution or a future Authorization for Use of Military Force resolution.

    The Republican effort to defend the President works against the party in the long run, and it also goes against the party’s longstanding rhetoric about checking government power and strengthening individual freedoms. It’s hardly in keeping with those values to allow Americans’ communications to be monitored without a warrant, or to concentrate power in one branch of government. One of the best ways to limit government power is to ensure that each branch provides a check on the other two, but most Republicans in Congress today aren’t checking the President’s power or defending the judicial branch’s right to do so – they are giving him a blank check to ignore the rule of law.

    A party that prides itself on limiting government, and supporting individual freedom and the rule of law, should think twice before it allows any President to ignore the laws that Congress passes. By supporting the President now, Republicans are making it tougher for members of their own party to challenge the power of future presidents and departing from their own values in the process. That’s a short-sighted strategy that won’t serve either party, or the nation, in the long run. What would serve the nation, and support the rule of law, is for a few courageous Republicans to follow the example set during the Watergate scandal by standing up to a President of their own party, asking tough questions, and holding the President accountable for his abuse of power.

    Russ Feingold is a US senator from Wisconsin.

Posted in Political | Leave a comment

by Editors

One…Two…Three… IMPEACH HIM! President Bush has (in my opinion) committed three impeachable offenses. First, his authorization of warrantless wiretapping of Americans in the United States not only violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, but it violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits unlawful searches and seizures. Second, in continuing to make false statements about the need to wage war on Iraq, he thereby hoodwinked Congress and the American people into thinking the war was one of self defense instead of being an illegal, aggressive war. Third, his authorization of torture, indefinite detention, special trials, and rendition to foreign countries of prisoners held by U.S. military forces makes him guilty of war crimes. These offenses undermine our republic and our democratic principles, and they demonstrate that Bush has not faithfully executed the law as he swore to do in his oath of office. Presidents Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon and William Clinton had articles of impeachment drawn against them for far lesser offenses. Our House of Representatives must now perform its lawful duty and impeach Bush. It will then be up to the Senate to decide whether he should be removed from office for high crimes and misdemeanors. Leonard S. Carrier, Asheville

Posted in Bush, Bush Lies, Political | Leave a comment by Editors

 

You will never receive a more important message…than this one.  Ever.  It’s just a message, however.  I can’t supply you with a solution to this one. The solution must come…if it ever will…from the great collective us.  Part of what might empower us to join together, face and deal with the problem is the attitude of gratitude…That’s why I entitled this message B.E.A.ppreciative”…

 

Not long ago I sent some of you an op/ed of mine on the Hansen issue.  If that doesn’t strike a bell, you need to read it again. My piece is here attached preceded by an extraordinarily powerful and prophetic address authored by the staff of the one in regard to whom we should all—I suggest–feel  “appreciative” .  Please realize and “appreciate” the fact that this address, as of the present moment is being made available to you because I recorded and transcribed it for you. It’s not yet in print anywhere in the universe, although it is due to be posted on the internet next week, at least on or after March 31^st. *

 

FOR THE CANARY, BE GRATEFUL…

 

When miners in times past (before coal mining got ‘safe” in the U.S.) went down, there were no mechanical methane gas detectors.

Miners therefore carried a canary in a cage with them when they went below, and when they entered harm’s way, the canary did his very utmost to warn them and …died.  The canary’s lungs and immune constitution are such that mere traces of toxic  methane gas will cause it to succumb long before men feel the first effects of the gas.

 

My comfort in and appreciation for Bill Mayer is analogous to the gratitude those miners should have felt for their avante guarde

avian saviors.  The more I write truthful protest messages for the newspapers, B.E.A., and now Democratswrite.com (the website Bob Davidson and I now co-edit), the more I have misgivings about the safety of my routinely calling spades spades in this free country.  Bush and his neo-con corporate cronies and oily puppeteers are fascists.  His crimes and treasons accumulate at the same rate his dominant Republican defense system rallies and strengthens such that the more (even than I) zealous fringe of the liberal elements among us look to the growing number of presently empty FEMA internment camps (for future “concentration” ?) and ponder their individual prospects for future residency.

 

I am personally grateful because I have a canary in my company of independent, anti-neocon warriors for restoring domestic and international  lawfulness and morality to our presently imperialistic and fascist governance.  There cannot be a legitimate “war on terror” when common sense, Webster’s Dictionary and international law all define terror as a tactic rather than an entity.  Bin Laden and Al Qaeda may have been our enemies, but Afghanistan and Iraq, whom we have attacked, invaded and presently occupy were not.  We are imperialist, fascist invaders.  End of story. But not the end of the present message.

 

Thanks, Bill Maher, for being my canary.  When you’re involved in a freak accident on the freeway and your corpse is conveniently encapsulated in the compressed wreckage of your Toyota Prius between the hulking chassis of two government-owned SUV’s or military transport vehicles,  I will know it’s time to climb out of this dark pit  of corporate criminality that used to be the brightest point on Democracy’s star  since ancient Greece and head to Panama, where so many Americans of my ilk are reconnoitering refuge. 

 

Not yet, though…not quite yet.  In a little under three years we will know if there’s enough of America’s old spirit and soul left alive and worth…fighting for.  I’ll stay even when every asset around us is owned by the geriatric potentates  of Peking or the sleazy  Sheiks of Dubai.  But if and when they start killing the beautiful canaries around us, like Bill Maher,  it’s Panama City Time for this old-styled American.

 

Now, sit back, relish…and APPRECIATE  THE RISK BILL MAYER HAS TAKEN FOR US MINERS OF AMERICA’S ANCIENT HEART…IN TELLING US THE TRUTH ABOUT THE GREATEST RISK FACING MANKIND IN THE HISTORY OF EARTH….AND IT IS NOT GLOBAL WARMING….RATHER , IT’S THE PEOPLE AND POWERS TRYING TO CONCEAL IT…

 

GLOBAL WARMING IS LIKE THAT LETHAL METHANE GAS IN THE DEPTHS OF THE GLOBAL MINE WE ARE NOW FORCED TO COHABIT…ALONG WITH THE CORPORATE MONSTERS WHO, WITH JACKHAMMER AND DERICK, ARE CONTIUING TO DRILL THE PREMORDIAL FOSSIL BLOOD FROM EARTH’S HEART AND SPLEEN UNTIL SHE AXPHYXIATES ON HER OWN STALE BREATH.  LISTEN CLOSELY TO YOUR CANARY AND MINE, SPEAKING TO US—WHILE HE STILL LIVES FROM OUR TV SCREEN TO THE WORLD….

 

NEW RULES FOR … GLOBAL WARMING

 

New Rules

By: Bill Maher

March 24, 2006

 

“New Rule:  Nobody can use the term ‘the big problem’ any more unless he’s talking about Global warning!

 

President Bush has been saying ‘we’re in a war against Terror’ and now I get it—He’s not saying ‘terror’, he’s saying ‘terra’…terra firma…as in the earth! Bush is an alien sent here to destroy the earth! (I know it sounds crazy but it made great sense to me when Tom Cruise explained it to me last week.)

 

Now, last week on 60 Minutes, James Hansen, NASA’s leading expert on the science of climate, delivered the world’s most important message:  He said we have to in the next ten years decrease the rate of carbon dioxide emissions and then flatten it out. If that doesn’t happen within 10 years, we’re going to be passing certain ‘tipping points’. If the ice sheets begin to disintegrate, what can you do about it? – You can’t tie a rope around an ice sheet.  Although I know a certain cowboy from Crawford who might think you could.

 

And that cowboy and his corporate goons at the White House tries to censor Mr. Hansen from delivering that message claims such warnings were ‘speculative’…This from the crowd who rushed to war based on an article in the Weekly Standard.  This from the guy who thinks Kyoto is that Japanese emperor dude his dad threw up on.

 

Global warming is not speculative. It threatens us enough it should be considered a national security issue. Failing to warn the citizens of a looming weapon of mass destruction—and that’s what global warming is—in order to protect oil company profits…well that fits for me the definition of treason.  Uncodified treason.

 

The guy in the White House who made the edit was Phil Cooney, who had been an oil industry lobbyist before being given this job—as ‘White House Counsel on Environmental Quality’.  That’s the office that’s supposed to be watching out for us.  But  that’s where Phil busied himself crossing stuff out in scientists’ reports.  Apparently Phil hadn’t switched jobs—he was just doing his old job—oil industry lobbyist—from a different office…you know…in the peoples’ house.

 

Republicans have succeeded in making the environment about some tie-dyed dude from Seattle who lives in a solar-powered tent and eats twigs.  It’s not. This issue should be driven by something conservatives are much more familiar with…utter selfishness.  That’s my motivation.  I don’t want to live my golden years having to put a hat and mask on just to go down and get the mail.  Those are my Viagra years.  When I’ll be thinking about having children…

 

But I wouldn’t know what to tell a kid about our world in 20 years.  ‘Dad, tell me about the birds and bees’.  ‘They’re all gone…so go ahead and eat your Soylent Green.’

We are letting dying men kill our planet for cash and they’re counting on our being too greedy or distracted or just plain lazy to stop them. 

 

So on this day—the 17^th anniversary of the Exxon Valdese Oil Spill,  let us pause to consider how close we are to making ourselves fossils from the fossil fuels we extract. In the next 20 years almost a billion Chinese people will be trading in their bicycles for the automobile.  Folks, we either get our shit together on this quickly or we’re going to have to go to plan B—inventing a car that runs on Chinese people.”

 

Thank you my friends….

 

 

Bill Maher

Real Time With Bill Maher

March 24, 2006

© 2006 Home Box Office; all rights reserved

 

 

Thank you, Bill Maher.   Nobody could have said it better.

 

 

Now, for those of you who missed (or didn’t “get”)
my own piece….please click the title below.

BUSH LIES…WE ALL DIE

Now He’s Lying About the Most Lethal WMD of all:

GLOBAL WARMING

.

 

 

 

Posted in Corporations, Environmental, Global Warming, Political | Leave a comment by Editors

 

Read this and weep. Weep, then rage:

 

The world is in fact—through Global Warming– coming to an end and Bush is lying to us to keep us from finding out…and maybe depressing oil profits.  Bush is presently lying again to cover up the truth about WMD’s.  But this time the WMD’s are real. The WMD’s are the SUV’s, the coal-burning  power plants and our fat-cat corporate industries’ gluttonous consumption of fossil fuels causing earth-endangering global warming.  Bush is clearly and simply telling lies to cover up the story…and in the process, he is literally changing the reporting–and recording–of science and history.  1984, here we come …again. This time, Big Brother Bush is telling us the biggest, most dangerous lie of all:  “THERE IS NO IMMEDIATE  DANGER OF GLOBAL WARMING.”

 

It’s clearly treasonous conduct on Bush’s part to re-write scientific reports prepared by a Federal Agency regarding the  preservation of life on earth as currently being endangered by …us. But that’s clearly what is happening in America today.  Bush is again telling lies about WMD’s , but this time the WMD’s, within a short a time as 10 years, might actually extinguish civilized life on earth as we know it. And for all we know, we are the only life in God’s universe.  Could there be a bigger issue? Could there ever, be a bigger lie?  Could there ever ever be a more flagrant and heinous act of treason?

 

Global warming is happening. 2005 was the warmest year in history. Earth’s polar caps are visibly melting and if C02 emissions  are not substantially reduced in 10 years, the world as we know it will be uninhabitable before the end of this century.

 

NASA’s chief Climatologist , James Hansen writes this  truth and Bush just changes it. Lies to us! How?… Through Bush Staff Attorney, Phil Cooney.   Who WAS this “Cooney” before he became  so-called “Chief of Staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality”? Who else but… lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute.

 

After changing the “10-year MUST reduce CO2 or destroy earth”  story to “uncertainty”, Cooney concocted (as LAWYER re-writing a  NASA SCIENCE report) a statement that NASA reported “the uncertainties so great as to preclude meaningfully informed decision  making.” A total lie and fabrication.

 

Bush is now blatantly lying about—and changing–NASA science reports just as he did C.I.A. intel to launch war in Iraq.

 

Don’t take my word for it: The full stories are detailed in the Jan 29, 2006,New York Times (Andrew Revkin, www.nytimes.com); CBS “60 Minutes” (See March 19^th: “Rewriting the Science”http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/60minutes/main3415.shtml)  or read Bill Meyer’s “New Rules”, (March 24, http://www.hbo.com/billmaher/new_rules/).

 

Good news:  We can save the world in 10 years  if we abandon Bush…now.

 

Dusty Schoch

March 25, 2006

Posted in Bush, Bush Lies, Political, War | Leave a comment

by Editors

	Neo-Contentions II Brokeback Mountain Matters…

 

The theocratic, evangelical, neo-contrived war on America’s homosexual citizens and movement for Republican political posturing and Christian bloc-vote manipulation.

 

 

INTRODUCTORY NOTE:

 

“Neo-Contentions” remains the caption for this second offering in a series  wherein Democratswrite.com contributors will share their website as a forum for debate between and among liberal and conservative minds, and minds machinating in between those politically polar opposites.  

 

This second offering obtains lift-off from B.E.A. founder, Robert (Dusty) Schoch (incidentally, our foreign-policy editor).  What becomes the “Neo-Contentions”  bone of contention is a lengthy article written by one Ronald G. Lee and published in what Schoch maintains is a covert, fifth-column neo-con covey within the alleged “moderate” Catholic community—The New Oxford Review, which you can peruse on the web at http://www.newoxfordreview.org/  .  The Lee article is available on the N.O.R. website, but at a price (you’ll have to subscribe or pay $1.50 for the Lee article, which you won’t have to spend now that the N.O.R. have each given their permission for us to print for you here and now the article verbatim as it appeared in February on the N.O.R. website.)

 

Ronald Lee is a librarian in Houston, and a (previously) self-admitted homosexual who contends that all homosexuals are going to spend time in Purgatory and, unless they repent, Catholic Hell.  In a very lengthy and arguably erudite piece of belabored socio-psycho-theocratic exegesis babble, entitled , “The Truth About the Homosexual Rights Movement”, Lee vents his fifth-column diatribe against America’s homosexual minority.

 

Why is it important to respond to and debate this theological bashing of our homosexual citizenry?  The answer is disturbingly obvious and essentially in two parts: First-  It was GW Bush’s Christian posturings (on the issues of gay marriage, abortion etc.) that got him elected with the blessed bloc voting of America’s increasingly-fundamentalist Christian (including Catholic) community.  It was his election that enabled the neo-cons to take us  Saudi rabbit hunting in Afghanistan,  wage petro-war in Iraq and bankrupt our nation fiscally and politically.  The vital importance of the gay issues in this increasingly theocratic country, whose former bastians separating church and state are crumbling,  is as obvious as the theocratic condemnations of homosexuality are hypocritical, contends Schoch.  Second, the Neo-Con Catholic and Fundamentalist Christian condemnation of Faithful Christian Homosexuals is not only not nice—It is as Un-Christ-like as Hell.

 

Schoch initially submitted his article, entitled “Lee v. Lobo” (explained later herein) for publication by the New Oxford Press as an “independent and balanced” counterpointed composition.  (Regarding his self-applied stamp as “independent and balanced”, Schoch still detests the label “liberal” because he sincerely considers his own polemics “conservative” expressions, polarized “left” of former center by the electrovalent  processes of former Republican elements corrosively transmogrifying  into the monolithic, Neo-Conservative, war-mongering radical (fascistic) element they  are today. )

 

Primarily a commentator on foreign policy, Schoch tendered his counterpoint piece to the Catholic on-line magazine (N.O.R.) explaining that a recent personal experience involving the caustic effect of Catholic condemnation of Christian homosexuals provided additional fuel for his critical composition.  The N.O.R. editors, for a period of over two weeks, considered two successive drafts of Schoch’s essay on Catholic hypocrisy regarding homosexuality within and without the ranks and walls of Catholicism, and ultimately refused to publish either.  Schoch suggests each reader give a fair reading of the Lee and his own articles, both of which are published hereinafter without deletion or abridgement, and then, after looking over the N.O.R. website as a whole, decide why Schoch’s article was editorially eschewed by the good folks at the N.O.R. helm. 

 

BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN BLUES…

 

In coming to your own decision, consider Schoch’s “personal motives” which factored in to his submitting the article (to the N.O.R.) in the first place,  by reading excerpts from his correspondence with this Catholic on-line forum and magazine.  Some of Schoch’s disclosures to the N.O.R. included….

 

. . . “The gay friend (of Schoch’s) for whose benefit (along with others in his position) I (Schoch) wrote this essay had been quite hurt when his orthodox and pious Catholic friend sent him Lee’s rant on the homosexual movement.  The rant includes many statements of orthodox Catholic “consensus” that my friend is going to hell (and purgatory on the way) for his homosexuality, quite apart from his involvement in the gay or homosexual “movements”.  My friend is a truly devout (Baptist) Christian.  Within the same month his friend sent him the Lee article from your website, he suffered, as a Christian homosexual an even more soul-searing experience.  He (an unmarried man) … was attending church a few weeks back with…(a beloved family member)  with  other dear friends… also in attendance, when the preacher chose that Sunday to poll the congregation on whether they wanted gays in the future to be forbidden (as he apparently did)  to attend their services. Sin, fire and brimstone were thrown in the sermon righteously  scorning all homosexuals.  My friend’s kin and others in the congregation know my friend is gay.  They were all embarrassed and hurt on his behalf having to sit and endure that sanctimonious and hypocritical sermon and call for consensus condemnation.  What the family did not know was that the very preacher giving the sermon was himself homosexual and had had homosexual sex with my friend very recently…and in fact had been surfing the internet the previous night, using a coded pseudonym my friend is familiar with, for “new” homosexual prospects…

Heaping cruel insult on top of that soul-searing injury, the Catholic who sent my friend Lee’s diatribe against the homosexual movement, is himself a closeted gay, who is in reality the “type” of closeted homosexual I am writing about in my responsive (to Lee’s article) essay.

There’s no doubt that what is happening to my gay friend in the microcosm is akin to what homosexuals have suffered from orthodox “religions” throughout history.   Hitler’s being a closeted gay IS RELEVANT, (and ironic).  The Catholic Church’s intramural endorsement (by housing, ordination and turning their authoritative backs on homosexuals in the ranks of the priesthood, sisterhood, etc.) while publicly denouncing homosexuality as sin (in the same way Hitler did) are relevant matters which I sincerely believe should be published in response to and balance for  the inordinately long and judgmental rant you published for Ronald Lee.”  …

 

 

 

So, for PART 1 OF THIS NEO-CONTENTIONS INSTALMENT NUMBER II, read (and rue) Ronald Lee’s Neo-con Catholic diatribe against all his fellow homosexuals, and, curiously against a tiny and conservative little gay book shop in Austin Texas, named “Lobo’s Book Store”.   Schoch, in his counterpoint essay to follow, refers to Lee’s article and his own essay rebutting it as the case of “Lee v. Lobo.”

 

Schoch asks that we consider him “devils advocate” in this aberrational theocratic crusade to bash homosexuals in the Christian faith.  He wishes to defend the little homosexual book store in Austin and homosexuals everywhere against the concerted  and hypocritical condemnation on part of the fundamental Christian faiths in America who are with increasing stealth and effectiveness  attempting to garner support for a fascist neo-con administration, waging (oil) acquisitive—and clearly(if ironically) anti-Christian–wars against non-Christian peoples in the Middle East.  We need to be constantly vigilant and industrious in de-constructing these edifices of hatred that serve to empower those who would wage genocidal wars of unprovoked aggression in the name of “crusading” in the holy wars of “Armageddon”.  Gay-bashing is part of this program of neo-conning America’s provincial fundamentalists into believing George Bush is a righteous man and rational leader because, like them, he’s opposed to what they’re opposed to,  and for what they’re for…at least on any given Sunday.

 

So, first, muster all the Christian righteousness, piety… and PATIENCE you can muster and, try to imaging yourself a devout Christian, gay man, reading the following debriefing and dissertation on your homosexuality, and your place as such in Catholic Purgatory and, possibly Hell…..

 

 

 

 

 

 

PART 1 (POINT)

 

THE NEO-CON VIEW FROM BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN

 

 

“The Truth About the Homosexual Rights Movement “

New Oxford Review (Feb.  8,  2006)

By Ronald G. Lee

Ed. Note: This article contains an honest description of the homosexual “lifestyle.” If you don’t want to read such accounts, DO NOT READ THIS ARTICLE. If you do read it, don’t send us a letter of complaint. You’ve been forewarned. 

There was a “gay” bookstore called Lobo’s in Austin, Texas, when I was living there as a grad student. The layout was interesting. Looking inside from the street all you saw were books. It looked like any other bookstore. There was a section devoted to classic “gay” fiction by writers such as Oscar Wilde, Gertrude Stein, and W.H. Auden. There were biographies of prominent “gay” icons, some of whom, like Walt Whitman, would probably have accepted the homosexual label, but many of whom, like Whitman’s idol, President Lincoln, had been commandeered for the cause on the basis of evidence no stronger than a bad marriage or an intense same-sex friendship. There were impassioned modern “gay” memoirs, and historical accounts of the origins and development of the “gay rights” movement. It all looked so innocuous and disarmingly bourgeois. But if you went inside to browse, before long you noticed another section, behind the books, a section not visible from the street. The pornography section. Hundreds and hundreds of pornographic videos, all involving men, but otherwise catering to every conceivable sexual taste or fantasy. And you would notice something else too. There were no customers in the front. All the customers were in the back, rooting through the videos. As far as I know, I am the only person who ever actually purchased a book at Lobo’s. The books were, in every sense of the word, a front for the porn.

So why waste thousands of dollars on books that no one was going to buy? It was clear from the large “on sale” section that only a pitifully small number of books were ever purchased at their original price. The owners of Lobo’s were apparently wasting a lot of money on gay novels and works of gay history, when all the real money was in pornography. But the money spent on books wasn’t wasted. It was used to purchase a commodity that is more precious than gold to the gay rights establishment. Respectability. Respectability and the appearance of normalcy. Without that investment, we would not now be engaged in a serious debate about the legalization of same-sex “marriage.” By the time I lived in Austin, I had been thinking of myself as a gay man for almost 20 years. Based on the experience acquired during those years, I recognized in Lobo’s a metaphor for the strategy used to sell gay rights to the American people, and for the sordid reality that strategy concealed.

This is how I “deconstruct” Lobo’s. There are two kinds of people who are going to be looking in through the window: those who are tempted to engage in homosexual acts, and those who aren’t. To those who aren’t, the shelves of books transmit the message that gay people are no different from anyone else, that homosexuality is not wrong, just different. Since most of them will never know more about homosexuality than what they learned looking in the window, that impression is of the greatest political and cultural importance, because on that basis they will react without alarm, or even with active support, to the progress of gay rights. There are millions of well-meaning Americans who support gay rights because they believe that what they see looking in at Lobo’s is what is really there. It does not occur to them that they are seeing a carefully stage-managed effort to manipulate them, to distract them from a truth they would never condone.

For those who are tempted to engage in homosexual acts, the view from the street is also consoling. It makes life as a homosexual look safe and unthreatening. Normal, in other words. Sooner or later, many of these people will stop looking in through the window and go inside. Unlike the first sort of window-shopper, they won’t be distracted by the books for long. They will soon discover the existence of the porn section. And no matter how distasteful they might find the idea at first (if indeed they do find it distasteful), they will also notice that the porn section is where all the customers are. And they will feel sort of silly standing alone among the books. Eventually, they will find their way back to the porn, with the rest of the customers. And like them, they will start rooting through the videos. And, gentle reader, that is where most of them will spend the rest of their lives, until God or AIDS, drugs or alcohol, suicide or a lonely old age, intervenes.

Ralph McInerny once offered a brilliant definition of the gay rights movement: self-deception as a group effort. Nevertheless, deception of the general public is also vital to the success of the cause. And nowhere are the forms of deception more egregious, or more startlingly successful, than in the campaign to persuade Christians that, to paraphrase the title of a recent book, Jesus Was Queer, and churches should open their doors to same-sex lovers. The gay Christian movement relies on a stratagem that is as daring as it is dishonest. I know, because I was taken in by it for a long time. Like the owners of Lobo’s, success depends on camouflaging the truth, which is hidden in plain view the whole time. It is no wonder The Wizard of Oz is so resonant among homosexuals. “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain” could be the motto and the mantra of the whole movement.

No single book was as influential in my own coming out as the now ex-Father John McNeill’s 1976 “classic” The Church and the Homosexual. That book is to Dignity what “The Communist Manifesto” was to Soviet Russia. Most of the book is devoted to offering alternative interpretations of the biblical passages condemning homosexuality, and to putting the anti-homosexual writings of the Church Fathers and scholastics into historical context in a way that renders them irrelevant and even offensive to modern readers. The first impression of a naïve and sexually conflicted young reader such as myself was that McNeill had offered a plausible alternative to traditional teaching. It made me feel justified in deciding to come out of the closet. Were his arguments persuasive? Frankly, I didn’t care, and I don’t believe most of McNeill’s readers do either. They were couched in the language of scholarship, and they sounded plausible. That was all that mattered.

McNeill, like most of the members of his camp, treated the debate over homosexuality as first and foremost a debate about the proper interpretation of texts, texts such as the Sodom story in the Bible and the relevant articles of the Summa. The implication was that once those were reinterpreted, or rendered irrelevant, the gay rights apologists had prevailed, and the door was open for practicing homosexuals to hold their heads up high in church. And there is a certain sense in which that has proved to be true. To the extent that the debate has focused on interpreting texts, the gay apologists have won for themselves a remarkable degree of legitimacy. But that is because, as anyone familiar with the history of Protestantism should be aware, the interpretation of texts is an interminable process. The efforts of people such as McNeill don’t need to be persuasive. They only need to be useful.

This is how it works. McNeill reinterprets the story of Sodom, claiming that it does not condemn homosexuality, but gang rape. Orthodox theologians respond, in a commendable but naïve attempt to rebut him, naïve because these theologians presume that McNeill believes his own arguments, and is writing as a scholar, not as a propagandist. McNeill ignores the arguments of his critics, dismissing their objections as based on homophobia, and repeats his original position. The orthodox respond again as if they were really dealing with a theologian. And back and forth for a few more rounds. Until finally McNeill or someone like him stands up and announces, “You know, this is getting us nowhere. We have our exegesis and our theology. You have yours. Why can’t we just agree to disagree?” That sounds so reasonable, so ecumenical. And if the orthodox buy into it, they have lost, because the gay rights apologists have earned a place at the table from which they will never be dislodged. Getting at the truth about Sodom and Gomorrah, or correctly parsing the sexual ethics of St. Thomas, was never really the issue. Winning admittance to Holy Communion was the issue.

Even as a naïve young man, one aspect of The Church and the Homosexual struck me as odd. Given that McNeill was suggesting a radical revision of the traditional Catholic sexual ethic, there was almost nothing in it about sexual ethics. The Catholic sexual ethic is quite specific about the ends of human sexuality, and about the forms of behavior that are consistent with those ends. McNeill’s criticism of the traditional ethic occupied most of his book, but he left the reader with only the vaguest idea about what he proposed to put in its place. For that matter, there was almost nothing in it about the real lives of real homosexuals. Homosexuality was treated throughout the book as a kind of intellectual abstraction. But I was desperate to get some idea of what was waiting for me on the other side of the closet door. And with no one but Fr. McNeill for a guide, I was reduced to reading between the lines. There was a single passage that I interpreted as a clue. It was almost an aside, really. At one point, he commented that monogamous same-sex unions were consistent with the Church’s teaching, or at least consistent with the spirit of the renewed and renovated post-Vatican II Church. With nothing else to go on, I interpreted this in a prescriptive sense. I interpreted McNeill to be arguing that homogenital acts were only moral when performed in the context of a monogamous relationship. And furthermore, I leapt to what seemed like the reasonable conclusion that the author was aware of such relationships, and that I had a reasonable expectation of finding such a relationship myself. Otherwise, for whose benefit was he writing? I was not so naïve (although I was pretty naïve) as not to be aware of the existence of promiscuous homosexual men. But McNeill’s aside, which, I repeat, contained virtually his only stab at offering a gay sexual ethic, led me to believe that in addition to the promiscuous, there existed a contingent of gay men who were committed to living in monogamy. Otherwise, Fr. McNeill was implicitly defending promiscuity. And the very idea of a priest defending promiscuity was inconceivable to me. (Yes, that naïve.)

Several years ago, McNeill published an autobiography. In it, he makes no bones about his experiences as a sexually active Catholic priest — a promiscuous, sexually active, homosexual Catholic priest. He writes in an almost nostalgic fashion about his time spent hunting for sex in bars. Although he eventually did find a stable partner (while he was still a priest), he never apologizes for his years of promiscuity, or even so much as alludes to the disparity between his own life and the passage in The Church and the Homosexual that meant so much to me. It is possible that he doesn’t even remember suggesting that homosexuals were supposed to remain celibate until finding monogamous relationships. It is obvious that he never meant that passage to be taken seriously, except by those who would never do more than look in the window — in others words, gullible, well-meaning, non-homosexual Catholics, preferably those in positions of authority. Or, equally naïve and gullible young men such as me who were looking for a reason to act on their sexual desires, preferably one that did not do too much violence to their consciences, at least not at first. The latter, the writer presumed, would eventually find their way back to the porn section, where their complicity in the scam would render them indistinguishable from the rest of the regular customers. Clearly, there was a reason that in the earlier book he wrote so little about the real lives of real homosexuals, such as himself.

I don’t see how the contradiction between The Church and the Homosexual and the autobiography could be accidental. Why would McNeill pretend to believe that homosexuals should restrict themselves to sex within the context of monogamous relationships when his life demonstrates that he did not? I can think of only one reason. Because he knew that if he told the truth, his cause would be dead in the water. Although to this day McNeill, like all gay Christian propagandists, avoids the subject of sexual ethics as if it were some sort of plague, his life makes his real beliefs clear. He believes in unrestricted sexual freedom. He believes that men and women should have the right to couple, with whomever they want, whenever they want, however they want, and as often as they want. He would probably add some sort of meaningless bromide about no one getting hurt and both parties being treated with respect, but anyone familiar with the snake pit of modern sexual culture (both heterosexual and homosexual) will know how seriously to take that. And he knew perfectly well that if he were honest about his real aims, there would be no Dignity, there would be no gay Christian movement, at least not one with a snowball’s chance in Hell of succeeding. That would be like getting rid of the books and letting the casual window-shoppers see the porn. And we can’t have that now, can we? In other words, the ex-Fr. McNeill is a bad priest and a con man. And given the often lethal consequences of engaging in homosexual sex, a con man with blood on his hands.

Let me be clear. I believe that McNeill’s real beliefs, as deduced from his actual behavior, and distinguished from the arguments he puts forward for the benefit of the naïve and gullible, represent the real aims and objectives of the homosexual rights movement. They are the porn that the books are meant to conceal. In other words, if you support what is now described in euphemistic terms as “the blessing of same-sex unions,” in practice you are supporting the abolition of the entire Christian sexual ethic, and its substitution with an unrestricted, laissez faire, free sexual market. The reason that the homosexual rights movement has managed to pick up such a large contingent of heterosexual fellow-travelers is simple: Because once that taboo is abrogated, no taboos are left. I once heard a heterosexual Episcopalian put it this way: If I don’t want the church poking its nose into my bedroom, how can I condone it when it limits the sexual freedom of homosexuals? That might sound outrageous, but if you still believe that the debate is over the religious status of monogamous same-sex relationships, please be prepared to point out one church somewhere in the U.S. that has opened its doors to active homosexuals without also opening them to every other form of sexual coupling imaginable. I am too old to be taken in by “Father” McNeill and his abstractions anymore. Show me.

A few years ago, I subscribed to the Dignity Yahoo group on the Internet. There were at that time several hundred subscribers. At one point, a confused and troubled young man posted a question to the group: Did any of the subscribers attach any value to monogamy? I immediately wrote back that I did. A couple of days later the young man wrote back to me. He had received dozens of responses, some of them quite hostile and demeaning, and all but one — mine — telling him to go out and get laid because that was what being gay was all about. (This was a gay “Catholic” group.) He did not know what to make of it because none of the propaganda to which he was exposed before coming out prepared him for what was really on the other side of the closet door. I had no idea what to tell him, because at the time I was still caught up in the lie myself. Now, the solution seems obvious. What I should have written back to him was, “You have been lied to. Ask God for forgiveness and get back to Kansas as fast as you can. Auntie Em is waiting.”

In light of all the legitimate concern about Internet pornography, it might seem ironic to assert that the Internet helped rescue me from homosexuality. For twenty years, I thought there was something wrong with me. Dozens of well-meaning people assured me that there was a whole, different world of homosexual men out there, a world that for some reason I could never find, a world of God-fearing, straight-acting, monogamy-believing, and fidelity-practicing homosexuals. They assured me that they themselves knew personally (for a fact and for real) that such men existed. They themselves knew such men (or at least had heard tell of them from those who did). And I believed it, although as the years passed it got harder and harder. Then I got a personal computer and a subscription to AOL. “O.K.,” I reasoned, “morally conservative homosexuals are obviously shy and skittish and fearful of sudden movements. They don’t like bars and bathhouses. Neither do I. They don’t attend Dignity meetings or Metropolitan Community Church services because the gay ‘churches’ are really bathhouses masquerading as houses of worship. But there is no reason a morally conservative homosexual cannot subscribe to AOL and submit a profile. If I can do it, anyone can do it.” So I did it. I wrote a profile describing myself as a conservative Catholic (comme ci, comme ça) who loved classical music and theater and good books and scintillating conversation about all of the above. I said I wanted very much to meet other like-minded homosexuals for the purposes of friendship and romance. I tried to be as clear as I knew how. I was not interested in one night stands. And within minutes of placing the profile, I got my first response. It consisted of three words: “How many inches?” My experience of looking for love on AOL went downhill rapidly from there.

When I first came out in the 1980s, it was common for gay rights apologists to blame the promiscuity among gay men on “internalized homophobia.” Gay men, like African Americans, internalized and acted out the lies about themselves learned from mainstream American culture. Furthermore, homosexuals were forced to look for love in dimly lit bars, bathhouses, and public parks for fear of harassment at the hands of a homophobic mainstream. The solution to this problem, we were told, was permitting homosexuals to come out into the open, without fear of retribution. A variant of this argument is still put forward by activists such as Andrew Sullivan, in order to legitimate same-sex marriage. And it seemed reasonable enough twenty years ago. But thirty-five years have passed since the infamous Stonewall riots of 1969 in New York, the Lexington and Concord of the gay liberation movement. During that time, homosexuals have carved out for themselves public spaces in every major American city, and many of the minor ones as well. They have had the chance to create whatever they wanted in those spaces, and what have they created? New spaces for locating sexual partners.

There is another reason, apart from the propaganda value, that bookstores like Lobo’s peddle porn as well as poetry. Because without the porn, they would soon go out of business. And, in fact, most gay bookstores have gone out of business, despite the porn. Following an initial burst of enthusiasm in the 1970s and 80s, gay publishing went into steep decline, and shows no signs of coming out of it. Once the novelty wore off, gay men soon bored of reading about men having sex with one another, preferring to devote their time and disposable income to pursuing the real thing. Gay and lesbian community centers struggle to keep their doors open. Gay churches survive as places where worshippers can go to sleep it off and cleanse their soiled consciences after a Saturday night spent cruising for sex at the bars. And there is no danger of ever hearing a word from the pulpit suggesting that bar-hopping is inconsistent with believing in the Bible. When I lived in the United Kingdom, I was struck by the extent to which gay culture in London replicated gay culture in the U.S. The same was true in Paris, Amsterdam, and Berlin. Homosexuality is one of America’s most successful cultural exports. And the focus on gay social spaces in Europe is identical to their focus in America: sex. Cyberspace is now the latest conquest of that amazing modern Magellan: the male homosexual in pursuit of new sexual conquests.

But at this point, how is it possible to blame the promiscuity among homosexual men on homophobia, internalized or otherwise? On the basis of evidence no stronger than wishful thinking, Andrew Sullivan wants us to believe that legalizing same-sex “marriage” will domesticate gay men, that all that energy now devoted to building bars and bathhouses will be dedicated to erecting picket fences and two-car garages. What Sullivan refuses to face is that male homosexuals are not promiscuous because of “internalized homophobia,” or laws banning same-sex “marriage.” Homosexuals are promiscuous because when given the choice, homosexuals overwhelmingly choose to be promiscuous. And wrecking the fundamental social building block of our civilization, the family, is not going to change that.

I once read a disarmingly honest essay in which Sullivan as much as admitted his real reason for promoting the cause of same-sex “marriage.” He faced up to the sometimes sordid nature of his sexual life, which is more than most gay activists are prepared to do, and he regretted it. He wished he had led a different sort of life, and he apparently believes that if marriage were a legal option, he might have been able to do so. I have a lot more respect for Andrew Sullivan than I do for most gay activists. I believe that he would seriously like to reconcile his sexual desires with the demands of his conscience. But with all due respect, are the rest of us prepared to sacrifice the institution of the family in the unsubstantiated hope that doing so will make it easier for Sullivan to keep his trousers zipped?

But isn’t it theoretically possible that homosexuals could restrict themselves to something resembling the traditional Catholic sexual ethic, except for the part about procreation — in other words, monogamous lifelong relationships? Of course it is theoretically possible. It was also theoretically possible in 1968 that the use of contraceptives could be restricted to married couples, that the revolting downward slide into moral anarchy we have lived through could have been avoided. It is theoretically possible, but it is practically impossible. It is impossible because the whole notion of stable sexual orientation on which the gay rights movement is founded has no basis in fact.

René Girard, the French literary critic and sociologist of religion, argues that all human civilization is founded on desire. All civilizations have surrounded the objects of desire (including sexual desire) with an elaborate and unbreachable wall of taboos and restrictions. Until now. What we are seeing in the modern West is not the long overdue legitimization of hitherto despised but honorable forms of human love. What we are witnessing is the reduction of civilization to its lowest common denominator: unbridled and unrestricted desire. To assert that we have opened a Pandora’s Box would be a stunning understatement. Fasten your seatbelts, ladies and gentlemen, it looks to be a bumpy millennium.

When I was growing up, we were all presumed to be heterosexual. Then homosexuality was introduced as an alternative. That did not at first seem like a major revision because, apart from procreation, homosexuality, at least in theory, left the rest of the traditional sexual ethic in tact. Two people of the same gender could (in theory) fall in love and live a life of monogamous commitment. Then bisexuality was introduced, and the real implications of the sexual revolution became clear. Monogamy was out the window. Moral norms were out the window. Do-it-yourself sexuality became the norm. Anyone who wants to know what that looks like can do no better than go online. The Internet offers front row seats to the circus of a disintegrating civilization.

Take Yahoo, for example. Yahoo makes it possible for people sharing a common interest to create groups for the purpose of making contacts and sharing information. If that conjures up images of genealogists and stamp collectors, think again. There are now thousands of Yahoo groups catering to every kind of sexual perversion imaginable. Many of them would defy the imagination of the Marquis de Sade himself. People who until a few years ago could do nothing but fantasize now entertain serious hopes of acting out their fantasies. I met a man online whose fondest wish was to be spanked with a leather wallet. It had to be leather. And it had to be a wallet. And he needed to be spanked with it. Old-fashioned genital friction was optional. This man wanted a Gucci label tattooed across his backside. He could imagine no loftier pinnacle of passion. And he insisted that this desire was as fundamental to his sexual nature as the desire to go to bed with a man was for me. Furthermore, he had formed a Yahoo group that had more than three hundred members, all of whom shared the same passion. There is no object in the universe, no human or animal body part, that cannot be eroticized. So, is the desire to be spanked with a leather wallet a “sexual orientation”? If not, how is it different?

There was a time when I would have snorted, “Of course it is different. You can’t share a life with a leather wallet. You can’t love a leather wallet. What you are talking about is a fetish, not a sexual orientation. The two are completely different.” But the truth is that all the gay men I encountered had a fetish for naked male skin, with all the objectification and depersonalization that implies, that I now consider the distinction sophistical. Leather is skin too, after all. The only real difference between the fellow on the Internet and the average gay man is that he preferred his skin Italian, bovine, and tanned.

Over the years, I have attended various gay and gay-friendly church services. All of them shared one characteristic in common: a tacit agreement never to say a word from the pulpit — or from any other location for that matter — suggesting that there ought to be any restrictions on human sexual behavior. If anyone reading this is familiar with Dignity or Integrity or the Metropolitan Community churches or, for that matter, mainline Protestantism and most of post-Vatican II Catholicism, let me ask you one question: When was the last time you heard a sermon on sexual ethics? Have you ever heard a sermon on sexual ethics? I take it for granted that the answer is negative. Do our priests and pastors honestly believe that Christians in America are not in need of sermons on sexual ethics?

Here is the terrifying fact: If we as a nation and as a Church allow ourselves to be taken in by the scam of monogamous same-sex couples, we will be welcoming to our Communion rails (presuming that we still have Communion rails) not just the statistically insignificant number of same-sex couples who have lived together for more than a few years (most of whom purchased stability by jettisoning monogamy); we will also be legitimizing every kind of sexual taste, from old-fashioned masturbation and adultery to the most outlandish forms of sexual fetishism. We will, in other words, be giving our blessing to the suicide of Western civilization.

But what about all those images of loving same-sex couples dying to get hitched with which the media are awash these days? That used to confuse me too. It seems thatThe New York Times has no trouble finding successful same-sex partners to photograph and interview. But despite my best efforts, I was never able to meet the sorts of couples who show up regularly on Oprah. The media are biased and have no interest in telling the truth about homosexuality.

I met Wyatt (not his real name) online. For five years he was in a disastrous same-sex relationship. His partner was unfaithful, and an alcoholic with drug problems. The relationship was something that would give Strindberg nightmares. When Vermont legalized same-sex “marriage,” Wyatt saw it as one last chance to make their relationship work. He and his partner would fly to Vermont to get “married.” This came to the attention of the local newspaper in his area, which did a story with photos of the wedding reception. In it, Wyatt and his partner were depicted as a loving couple who finally had a chance to celebrate their commitment publicly. Nothing was said about the drugs or the alcoholism or the infidelity. But the marriage was a failure and ended in flames a few months later. And the newspaper did not do a follow-up. In other words, the leading daily of one of America’s largest cities printed a misleading story about a bad relationship, a story that probably persuaded more than one young man that someday he could be just as happy as Wyatt and his “partner.” And that is the sad part.

But one very seldom reads about people like my friend Harry. Harry (not his real name) was a balding, middle-aged man with a potbelly. He was married, and had a couple of grown daughters. And he was unhappy. Harry persuaded himself that he was unhappy because he was gay. He divorced his wife, who is now married to someone else, his daughters are not speaking to him, and he is discovering that pudgy, bald, middle-aged men are not all that popular in gay bars. Somehow, Oprah forgot to mention that. Now Harry is taking anti-depressants in order to keep from killing himself.

Then there was another acquaintance, who also happened to have the same name as the previous guy. Harry (not his real name) was about 30 (but could easily pass for 20), and from a Mormon background, with all the naïveté that suggests. Unlike the first Harry, he had no difficulty getting dates. Or relationships for that matter. The problem was that the relationships never lasted more than a couple of weeks. Harry was also rapidly developing a serious drinking problem. (So much for the Mormon words of wisdom.) If you happened to be at the bar around two in the morning, you could probably have Harry for the night if you were interested. He was so drunk he wouldn’t remember you the next day, and all he really wanted at that point was for someone to hold him.

Gay culture is a paradox. Most homosexuals tend to be liberal Democrats, or in the U.K., supporters of the Labour Party. They gravitate toward those Parties on the grounds that their policies are more compassionate and sensitive to the needs of the downtrodden and oppressed. But there is nothing compassionate about a gay bar. It represents a laissez faire free sexual market of the most Darwinian sort. There is no place in it for those who are not prepared to compete, and the rules of the game are ruthless and unforgiving. I remember once being in a gay pub in central London. Most of the men there were buff and toned and in their 20s or early 30s. An older gentleman walked in, who looked to be in his 70s. It was as if the Angel of Death himself had made an entrance. In that crowded bar, a space opened up around him that no one wanted to enter. His shadow transmitted contagion. It was obvious that his presence made the other customers nervous. He stood quietly at the bar and ordered a drink. He spoke to no one and no one spoke to him. When he eventually finished his drink and left, the sigh of relief from all those buff, toned pub crawlers was almost audible. Now all of them could go back to pretending that gay men were all young and beautiful forever. Gentle reader, do you know what a “bug chaser” is? A bug chaser is a young gay man who wants to contract HIV so that he will never grow old. And that is the world that Harry left his wife, and the other Harry his Church, to find happiness in.

I have known a lot of people like the two Harrys. But I have met precious few who bore more than a superficial resemblance to the idealized images we see in Oscar-winning movies such as Philadelphia, or in the magazine section of The New York Times. What I find suspicious is that the media ignore the existence of people like the two Harrys. The unhappiness so common among homosexuals is swept under the carpet, while fanciful and unrealistic “role models” are offered up for public consumption. There is at the very least grounds for a serious debate about the proposition that “gay is good,” but no such debate is taking place, because most of the mainstream media have already made up their (and our) minds.

But it is hard to hide the porn forever. When I was living in London, I had a wonderful friend named Maggie. Maggie (not her real name) was a liberal. Her big heart bled for the oppressed. Like most liberals, she was proud of her open-mindedness and wore it like a badge of honor. Maggie lived in a house as big as her heart and all of her children were grown up and had moved out. She had a couple of rooms to rent. It just so happened that both the young men who became her tenants were gay. Maggie’s first reaction was enthusiastic. She had never known many gay people, and thought the experience of renting to two homosexuals would confirm her in her open-mindedness. She believed it would be a learning experience. It was, but not the sort she had in mind. One day Maggie told me her troubles and confessed her doubts. She talked about what it was like to stumble each morning down to the breakfast table, finding two strangers seated there, the two strangers her tenants brought home the night before. It was seldom the same two strangers two mornings running. One of her tenants was in a long-distance relationship but, in the absence of his partner, felt at liberty to seek consolation elsewhere. She talked about what it was like to have to deal on a daily basis with the emotional turmoil of her tenants’ tumultuous lives. She told me what it was like to open the door one afternoon and find a policeman standing there, a policeman who was looking for one of her tenants, who was accused of trying to sell drugs to school children. That same tenant was also involved in prostitution. Maggie didn’t know what to make of it all. She desperately wanted to remain open-minded, to keep believing that gay men were no worse than anyone else, just different. But she couldn’t reconcile her experience with that “tolerant” assumption. The truth was that when the two finally moved out, an event to which she was looking forward with some enthusiasm, and it was time to place a new ad for rooms to let, she wanted to include the following proviso: Fags need not apply. I didn’t know what to tell Maggie because I was just as confused as she was. I wanted to hold on to my illusions too, in spite of all the evidence.

I am convinced that many, if not most, people who are familiar with the lives of homosexuals know the truth, but refuse to face it. My best friend got involved in the gay rights movement as a graduate student. He and a lesbian colleague sometimes counseled young men who were struggling with their sexuality. Once, the two of them met a young man who was seriously overweight and suffered from terrible acne. The young man waxed eloquent about the happiness he expected to find when he came out of the closet. He was going to find a partner, and the two of them would live happily ever after. The whole time my friend was thinking that if someone looking like this fat, pustulent young man ever walked into a bar, he would be folded, spindled, and mutilated before even taking a seat. Afterwards, the lesbian turned to him and said, “You know, sometimes it is better to stay in the closet.” My friend told me that for him this represented a decisive moment. This lesbian claimed to love and admire gay men. She never stopped praising their kindness and compassion and creativity. But with that one comment she in effect told my friend that she really knew what gay life was all about. It was about meat, and unless you were a good cut, don’t bother coming to the supermarket.

On another occasion, I was complaining to a lesbian about my disillusionment. She made a remarkable admission to me. She had a teenage son, who so far had not displayed signs of sexual interest in either gender. She knew as a lesbian she should not care which road he took. But she confessed to me that she did care. Based on the lives of the gay men she knew, she found herself secretly praying that her son would turn out to be straight. As a mother, she did not want to see her son living that life.

A popular definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing, while expecting a different result. That was me, the whole time I was laboring to become a happy homosexual. I was a lunatic. Several times I turned for advice to gay men who seemed better adjusted to their lot in life than I was. First, I wanted confirmation that my perceptions were accurate, that life as a male homosexual really was as awful as it seemed to be. And then I wanted to know what I was supposed to do about it. When was it going to get better? What could I do to make it better? I got two sorts of reactions to these questions, both of which left me feeling hurt and confused. The first sort of reaction was denial, often bitter denial, of what I was suggesting. I was told that there was something wrong with me, that most gay men were having a wonderful time, that I was generalizing on the basis of my own experience (whose experience was I supposed to generalize from?), and that I should shut up and stop bothering others with my “internalized homophobia.”

I began seeing a counselor when I was a graduate student. Matt (not his real name) was a happily married man with college-age children. All he knew about homosexuality he learned from the other members of his profession, who assured him that homosexuality was not a mental illness and that there were no good reasons that homosexuals could not lead happy, productive lives. When I first unloaded my tale of woe, Matt told me I had never really come out of the closet. (I still have no idea what he meant, but suspect it is like the “once saved, always saved” Baptist who responds to the lapsed by telling him that he was never really saved in the first place.) I needed to go back, he told me, try again, and continue to look for the positive experiences he was sure were available for me, on the basis of no other evidence than the rulings of the American Psychiatric Association. He had almost no personal experience of homosexuals, but his peers assured him that the book section at Lobo’s offered a true picture of homosexual life. I knew Matt was clueless, but I still wanted to believe he was right.

Matt and I developed a therapeutic relationship. During the year we spent together, he learned far more from me than I did from him. I tried to take his advice. I was sharing a house that year with another grad student who was in the process of coming out and experiencing his own disillusionment. Because I had been his only gay friend, and had encouraged him to come out, his bitterness came to be directed at me, and our relationship suffered for it. Meanwhile, I developed a close friendship with a member of the faculty who was openly gay. When I first informed Matt, he was ecstatic. He thought I was finally come out properly. The faculty member was just the sort of friend I needed. But the faculty member, as it turned out, despite his immaculate professional facade, was a deeply disturbed man who put all of his friends through emotional hell, which I of course shared with a shocked and silenced Matt. (I tried to date but, as usual, experienced the same pattern that characterized all my homosexual relationships. The friendship lasted as long as the sexual heat. Once that cooled, my partner’s interest in me as a person dissipated with it.) It was not a good year. At the end of it, I remember Matt staring at me, with glazed eyes and a shell-shocked look on his face, and admitting, “You know, being gay is a lot harder than I realized.”

Not everyone I spoke to over the years rejected what I had to say out of hand. I once corresponded with an English ex-Dominican. I was ecstatic to learn that he was gay, and was eventually kicked out of his order for refusing to remain in the closet. He included an e-mail address in one of his books, and I wrote him, wanting to know if his experience of life as a homosexual was significantly different from mine. I presumed it must be, since he had written a couple of books, passionately defending the right of homosexuals to a place in the Church. His response to me was one of the last nails in the coffin of my life as a gay man. To my astonishment, he admitted that his experiences were not unlike mine. All he could suggest was that I keep trying, and eventually everything would work out. In other words, this brilliant man, whose books had meant so much to me, had nothing to suggest except that I keep doing the same thing, while expecting a different result. There was only one reasonable conclusion. I would be nuts if I took his advice. It took me twenty years, but I finally reached the conclusion that I did not want to be insane.

So where am I now? I am attending a militantly orthodox parish in Houston that is one of God’s most spectacular gifts to me. My best friend Mark (not his real name) is, like me, a refugee from the homosexual insane asylum. He is also a devout believer, though a Presbyterian (no one is perfect). From Mark I have learned that two men can love each other profoundly while remaining clothed the entire time.

We are told that the Church opposes same-sex love. Not true. The Church opposes homogenital sex, which in my experience is not about love, but about obsession, addiction, and compensation for a compromised masculinity.

I am not proud of the life I have lived. In fact, I am profoundly ashamed of it. But if reading this prevents one naïve, gullible man from making the same mistakes, then perhaps with the assistance of Our Lady of Guadalupe; of St. Joseph, her chaste spouse; of my patron saint, Edmund Campion; of St. Josemaría Escrivá; of the blessed Carmelite martyrs of Compiégne; and, last but not least, of my special supernatural guide and mentor, the Venerable John Henry Newman, I can at least hope for a reprieve from some of the many centuries in Purgatory I have coming to me.

So, what do we as a Church and a culture need to do? Tear down the respectable façade and expose the pornography beneath. Start pressuring homosexuals to tell the truth about their lives. Stop debating the correct interpretation of Genesis 19. Leave the men of Sodom and Gomorrah buried in the brimstone where they belong. Sodom is hidden in plain view from us, here and now, today. Once, when preparing a lecture on Cardinal Newman, I summarized his classic Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine in this fashion: Truth ripens, error rots. The homosexual rights movement is rotten to the core. It has no future. There is no life in it. Sooner or later, those who are caught up in it are going to wake up from the dream of unbridled desire or else die. It is just a matter of time. The question is: how long? How many children are going to be sacrificed to this Moloch?

Until several months ago, there was a Lobo’s in Houston too. Not accidentally, I’m sure, its layout was identical to the one in Austin. It was just a few blocks from the gas station where I take my car for service. Recently, I was taking a walk through the neighborhood while my tires were being rotated. And I noticed something. There was a padlock on the door at Lobo’s. A sign on the door read, “The previous tenant was evicted for nonpayment of rent.” The books and the porn, the façade and what it conceals, are gone now. Praise God.

Ronald G. Lee is a librarian in Houston, Texas.

“© document.writeln(globalCopyrightNotice); 2006 New Oxford Review. All Rights Reserved. February 2006, Volume LXXIII, Number 2″.  “Reprinted with permission from NEW OXFORD REVIEW, www.newoxfordreview.org.”

 

 

To view title page (with graphic image of author-?-hit following link):

                     http://www.newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=0206-lee

 

 

 

PART 2 (COUNTERPOINT)

 

 

PART 2:

 

Lee v. Lobo

A short impression/rebuttal of one homosexual’s

Diatribe against the hypocrisy of

The “gay” movement:

A COUNTERPOINT ESSAY  By: Robert R. Schoch

CONCERNING:

The Truth About the Homosexual Rights Movement

New Oxford Review (Feb.  8,  2006)

By Ronald G. Lee

 

To borrow a phrase from Ronald Lee’s homosexual-movement-bashing article, here is “how I deconstruct” Lee’s claimed “deconstruction” of Lobo’s (gay-oriented) bookstore in Austin, Texas.  I wish we were all in a roundhouse discussion forum because this is a vital matter to the entire homosexual community and the world—both secular and clerical–in which it must co-exist.

 

The writer here is, in my opinion, writing a disturbingly provocative, but equally sad, “cry for help”. He suffers from spiritually-crippling shame from being what he was born- homosexual, but he seems to argue that most of his misery results from the hypocrisy and/or outright sham inherent in the homosexual rights movement.

Lee criticizes the “falseness” of the Lobo’s Book Store, which he casts as effigy of the gay movement, for their having put Oscar Wilde on the front shelves to create a venire of respectability while drawing their revenues and raison d’etre from the gay porn traded in the back rooms.  Shame, shame. And shame. It appears as though Lee took a long and studied look at the prurient products lining Lobo’s rear-roomed shelves, leaving the reader to wonder whether the instigators of Lee’s investigations were academic, or. . . endemic.

 

Lee proffers this revelation – his “Lobo Deconstruction”–as though he was  blowing the lid off Western society’s repression of sexuality when in reality the civilized, authoritarian and institutional suppression of our sexual natures was annealed long before it was conventionally canonized in Victoria’s reign (1837-1901) over perhaps the most sexually-repressed among our cultural forbears and progenitors of our prurient propensities.

 

The gay subculture has no monopoly on sexual repression, and the hypocrisies it fosters. Hugh Hefner’s seminal American  hetero-porn (Playboy Magazine) touted and traded on its “intellectual” offerings,  e.g., “the Playboy Advisor”, and encouraged its readership to claim they bought the magazine for its “written” features, fashion consulting, movie reviews, “ribald” classic short stories, etc… ad nudeum. (Private confession: my favorite part was the Vargas drawing of women. They’re so much more charmingly drawn than photographed…even with the live ones aided by airbrush.)

 

Alluding to the “proper” (a.k.a. phony, cosmetic, “bait and switch”) placement of Oscar Wilde up front was the best example of Lee’s hoisting himself on his own petard, as it was this very brilliant and tortured English wit who suffered most egregiously from essentially the same sort of oppressive and hypocritically-theocratic intolerance Lee delivers in his diatribe against Lobo and the gay lib movement as a micro/macrocosmic whole.  Wilde spent years in Redding Jail for “seducing” (loving)  an English nobleman’s son. Now that was truly an obscenity, I’d say…and yet, that story and author’s products are placed by Lobo’s Book Store in the front of the store.

 

Before we pass on what’s truly “porn”, let’s linger a moment with Oscar Wilde, one of the most prolific and accomplished literary artists of our enlightened era. He once said, insightfully, “There is no such thing as obscene writing; there is only good literature and bad literature.”  

 

To Lee, I’d simply remark in re his opening volleys at Lobo’s front window… The book store obviously put its best gay-related literature up front and put the rest in the back room.  Every day great newspapers circulate millions of pages of printed materials, but there is no way they can determine which of their subscribers bypass the op/ed page for the sports section, or the crossword puzzle, or the funny papers and other pulp product.   I’d simply suggest: put the smorgasborg  on the table and let the consumer choose his dish. How can you improve on freedom of choice? One man’s manifesto is another man’s porn. It will always be this way.

 

But let’s probe beneath Lee’s metaphor to his malady. My impression of Lee’s lament across his sad essay’s board is that he is simply miserable because he can’t personally find a steadfast lover to share his homosexual self. In the expression of his discontent, his forest is obfuscated by his many unfellable trees. He has so many blinding spots in his analytic peripheral vision.

 

Lee’s thesis is that the homosexual (gay) “movement” is fake. It’s fake, he suggests, because its leaders and their  shallow media reporters lead the world to believe that gay men predominantly seek and gay men commonly achieve “monogamous” relationships with other men. He offers no statistics which either gainsay this or compare the relative successes of heterosexuals and homosexuals in their seekings and achievings of monogamous (sexually exclusive) relational bondings.

 

He argues from the personally specific to the demonized general. He cites his own experience, personal and observed failures, where homosexuals seem  invariably to cheat on their partners sexually. He points to the fact that at gay bars, spas, etc., gay  men always have and perhaps always will partake in serial sex with. . . multiple partners.

 

Well, that’s what men are prone (genetically engineered) to do.  Where’s the shame?  There is nothing to  prevent two men of disparate tendencies and desires from becoming exceptions to the (claimed) predominating rule of homosexual behavior. That’s what “civilization” is about… acting contrarily to our “natural” inclinations. We don’t eat each other…any more. (No gay innuendo intended, as that particular entre’ is an equal-opportunity item on the gay/straight menu. We don’t copulate with…every opportunity presenting itself…any more, although there are thousands of fellow species out there who quite naturally still do.

 

I personally know of no heterosexual  marriage that endured for multiple decades wherein one of the partners didn’t “cheat” sexually on the other. The Bible (pardon me, but Lee cited that “authority” first) says in part that it’s just as wicked to sin in the heart as the flesh, and I’d risk hell in a Halliburton hand basket wagering no man has ever viewed (inadvertently or with puerility aforethought) one of Hefner’s centerfolds without sinning in his silly male heart.

 

I think Lee’s entire thesis is off course because of his personal frustration in not having found a male partner who will be sexually faithful to him.  He doesn’t know whom to punish for this personal state of affairs, so he projects the face of hypocrisy on the entire gay-liberation movement in which serial sexuality is overtly rampant. But should we term it “infidelity” as we do within the institution of heterosexual wedlock? Could or even should the same mores ever be co-mingled in cross-comparisons of relationships through which the species survives and relationships that exist solely to meet the personal, societal and sexual needs of those involved?

 

The gay movement was not begun to extol the virtues or export the gay lifestyle to the heterosexual world. The gay movement was begun as an project of affirmative action… to champion the rights of gay people to be gay, and being gay, to be free from the condemnation and loathing of their fellow (straight) communities.

 

Gays have been murdered by insecure and fanatically- fundamentalist “straights” simply for being gay. Now there’s some true obscenity.  There too is your only needed reason d’etre for a gay rights movement.  But there’s more:

 

Much more. By far the worst oppressions suffered by  innate (i.e. all) homosexuals are at the hands of their clerical brethren and their fundamentalist followers. The fundamentalists among Jewish, Christian and Muslims around the world condemn practicing homosexuals to their respective versions of Purgatory and hellish damnation. Very often (even today) fundamentalists murder homosexuals, some in the name of their god, or at least in accord with the alleged words and commandments of their god.  When the judgments and condemnations come to the Christian homosexual  from the pulpits of their own faiths, the damage to self-esteem, soul and spirit is often catastrophic…  almost as catastrophic as the theologically-imposed “remedies” prescribed by these clerical authorities.

 

Within the fundamental, “neo-conservative” Evangelical Christian community, homosexuality is viewed (and condemned) as a sin against the body of the Church. Those who fail to repent and become…”healed” of this perceived aberration  (through either celibacy or practicing unnatural heterosexuality) must miss out on salvation, the Rapture, and face the fate and eternal travails of Purgatory and Hell. This judgmental and condemnatory view of homosexuality is the prime element in the morally-driving force leading gay men and women into the institutional closets of the Priesthood and Catholic Sisterhood.

 

No one notices or counsels the Catholic aspirant for ordination to follow Abraham’s mandate to go forth, marry and multiply;  and,  novice Mary’s homosexual spinsterhood goes benevolently unquestioned in the nunnery wherein she can finally adore openly but never passionately embrace the sisterly objects of her natural affection.  The stealthy dormitory sequestrations and separations  are accomplished intuitively and rotely in the time-tutored tradition of Mother Superior’s expertly-trained oversight. The names and confessions of homosexually-repressed and liberated members of both repressive Catholic orders are now, in these days of homosexual and clerical “outings”  filling volumes on the library shelves, and not simply dockets on the criminal courthouse doors.

 

The hypocrisy of Lee’s judgment (relegation of all homosexuals to Purgatory and damnation as sinners) is exceeded only by its irony: His very diatribe against this defensive movement on part of homosexuals is in part and parcel the cause of the movement he decries. A convincing case can be made for the contention that without the institution and imposition of primarily-fundamentalist Christian, Judaic and Islamic taboos, proscriptions and sanctions of homosexual behavior, there would be no gay rights movement.

 

 It is clearly the fundamental mores and taboos that mandate the homosexual’s revealing (confessing) his sexual orientation (“coming out of the closet”) that drives homosexuals guilt- and shame-ridden into the killing confines of their closets.  It is clearly the unforgiving, intolerant clerical condemnation of the homosexual that foments the brutal gay-bashings and murders, such as the one depicted in the recently-acclaimed Brokeback Mountain cinematic saga, a 2005 movie based on the 1997 magazine short-story portrayed in Wyoming, which was coincidentally followed by a homosexual murder in the same area the following year.

 

Had it not been for the fundamentalist, Catholic/Christian-based condemnation of homosexuality the Brokeback Mountain story illustrates, the two men featured in the story might have been happily mated for a lifetime.  Their “token” wives and real children might have been spared the complex and catastrophically-cascading consequences of homosexual love crammed by clerical consensus and cruel condemnation into the hypocritical closets of our repressive Judeo-Christian culture. This was all but an isolated instance in our fundamental Christian dominated culture.

 

Recent studies aired and authorities cited on Oprah Winfrey’s show in January 2006 indicate that in excess of three million homosexual men are “closeted” in conventional marriages in the same way Ennis and Jack were in the heartbreaking tale of Brokeback Mountain. “Brokeback Mountain marriages”, then represent the tragic composition of about one marriage in 10 to 30 in our homosexually-tabooed culture.  According to Kinsey and more-recent sexual researchers, one in 8 to 12 humans is homosexual. Do your own math in extrapolating  the probable number of homosexuals who are husbands and fathers within “legitimate” but heterosexually-unilateral unions. But when your calculations become multiple 7 figures, don’t fret: Our Christian Community counselors assure us the affliction and aberration of homosexuality, within and without the matrimonial union, can be “prayed away”. 

 

If  a tortoise were to pray to God  to become a hare, I think God would listen. Then I think God might bless both the tortoise and the hare and conceivably say:

 

“I hear all your prayers and your yearnings to win,

But you seek to prevail through a changing of skin-

Go now  tortoise with tortoises and hare run with hares-

Your victories will find you in spite of your prayers.”

 

I personally grew up knowing that three of my closest friends were “in the closet” gay males. They have all been married and divorced with horrendously painful (for everyone) consequences such as portrayed in the award-winning movie (BBM), the movie everyone in the civilized world should see. And see again. Luckily no-one’s father-in-law killed any of my friends when the truth of his sexuality was finally revealed. The sad thing is that, in  most cases, gay men wait until their children are college age or older before revealing the truth of their sexuality to their families and the rest of the generally unforgiving world. 

 

More ironic still is the obvious fact that the priesthood and sisterhood of the Catholic Church provide the largest conventional closets of all for homosexually-born men and women. Robert Pirsig, in his “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” teaches that when civilized men collectively err in judgment, it is more common for their misjudgments to be 180 degrees off the truth line than, say 5 or 15 degrees. Such is clearly the case with the professed motives of men and women who enter the Catholic Clergy and other fundamentalist faiths where celibacy is mandated. 

 

When I was young, I used to think to myself when I learned of someone’s entering either this celibacy-bound seminary or that immaculate sisterly order, “Wow! Look at what they’re giving up for the Lord.”   One-Hundred and Eighty degrees of naivete’ I’d now, quite repentantly, maintain.

 

Today I’d say: “Looks like one of probably two things is going on here: There’s either a gay guy or gal entering the most convenient and confining closets on earth to hide his true nature from the outside world…or a gay guy or gal who’s ensconcing him or herself where she or he was truly born and bred…right there in the fundamentalist briar patch….with an endless supply of religious rabbits, just like themselves.  Or maybe with Einstein’s trumping wisdom, I’d opine (with the same swipe he ended the dispute over whether light was a particle or wave)… it’s probably both.

 

Say you I should be branded and banished from any church I’ve even taken communion in for such blasphemy? Sure;  OK, I’ll take that punishment after you run at least 75,000 pederasts and four times that number of homosexuals out of the priesthood and the nunneries of the world’s Christian Community closets where your dogmatic censorship of their shameful natures impels them to seek and hide within the only sane sanctuary left for the homosexual followers of Jesus Christ.

 

Once ironically and hypocritically-clad and ensconced in the Catholic costumes, monasteries, shrines, pulpits and confessionals, what do these repressed homosexuals do besides pray and lapse, lapse and molest, molest and deny, deny and be indicted, be indicted and excommunicated (finally!)?  What they do is form de-facto 12-step programs and institutions in the form of promulgating and chanting the  dogma of sin and repentance. They naively and self-hypnotically characterize their own homosexual natures as “sinful disorders of character” born of being somehow “wounded” by either abuse or homosexual “conversion” (as in “seduction”) ,  or general homosexual “contagion”. Homosexuality is characterized as the work product of “the devil”, that conveniently invisible entity whose alleged ritualistic exorcism will vanish and take away with him as he vaporizes his victim’s homosexuality…  As though homosexuality is other than an in-born and immutable state of sexual nature. It’s insidious. It’s false. It’s malignant. Often, much too often, it’s fatal. Invariably, in spiritual terms, it’s tragic.

 

Adding insult to injury, take the worst exemplar of Catholic homosexual hypocrisy in earth’s history…the one which likely caused 100 million more deaths than the  maniacal father-in-law in Brokeback Mountain, Wyoming. That many millions were in fact killed and a sizeable portion by way of Christian/Catholic-condoned aggression and anti-Semite genocide.

 

Here comes my central thesis—the subject title of which—“Mean Queens”–will  entitle a book I am in the process of  writing.  Fundamentalist suppression, ostracizing, excommunications and condemnations of homosexuals not only drives them into institutional closets (such as the Catholic nunneries, priesthood and conventional marriages, e.g. BBM marriages)…it drives them into a far deeper, far darker closet wherein the closeted captivity transmogrifies the homosexual into a monster.  

 

The “mean queen” is the homosexual so deeply repressed by the constrictive civilized forces around him that he climbs, wholly and obliviously into the closet of his own mind and spirit.  These are the Hitlers, the  Jeff Dahlmers, Charlie Mansons  and the Ted Bundy’s of the world’s very long list of completely-psychotic, narcissistically-psychopathic, in-the-self-closeted mean queens of the sociopathic world.  

 

Napoleon was probably one. We’ve all known mean queens… the bold and the beautiful actresses and actors of our own and recent eras.  The long list of historically-significant mean queens include the greatest overtly heterosexual, covertly homosexual lovers in history.  Sir Lawrence Olivier considered his own homosexuality to be “partial”, or even errantly “voluntary”.   This mean queen literally drove the women in his life insane. Rudolph Valentino, ditto. Rock Hudson made love to every woman he starred with…but seldom if ever managed to  muster more than a single carnal curtain call. 

 

Remember the opportunistic beating poor Ennis in Brokeback dealt the unfortunate truck driver who yelled at him?  Ennis at that point thought that it was his lover Jack’s charm which alone on earth, apart from any innate predisposition to be “queer”, made (i.e., seduced)  him to fall in carnal love with a cowboy.  Ennis was, when deprived of his beloved Jack, a substantially mean queen.  But let’s get back to Adolph…the Christian insult that, via his  Catholicism’s launching, became the  greatest injury the world has yet suffered at the hands of humanity’s perhaps meanest queen. 

 

And, regardless of what you may say or think—and I’m addressing you mean queens (i.e., you queens closeted to yourself…and so, if I’ve made you mad by now and you don’t think you’re gay, better think again) out there especially—I refuse to do your research for you. I’m going to—quite briefly—outline to you hereinafter the historic truth. You can Google and turn library pages yourself if you doubt my spin or suspect a  “revision” on my part of “true” history.

 

Here’s some of it: Catholicism incorporates Judaism in its Bible, creed, ethics and dogma. That includes the Old Testament accounts of Eden, Abraham and Moses. Abraham was allegedly deemed the father/progenitor of his God’s “chosen” people: Moses, for the purpose of taking control of the land promised by the same God to those chosen people killed entire ethnic tribes (including every man, woman, child, ass and chicken) in order to take possession of this designated real estate in the Middle East of today’s world.

 

This was genocide by anyone’s or any culture’s definition of the term. The Jewish, Christian (especially Catholic) “authorities” all endorse this ethnic cleansing as having been morally “right” and “justified” because it was commanded by their shared “God”. The commands were written, and as written in “the Bible”.

 

Consonant with the history and dogma of this same Bible, Adolph Hitler characterized himself a Christian and the rest of the enlightened world has since characterized (with compelling documentation) this same Hitler as a closeted homosexual.  He had two token female-linked relationships in his relatively long life and both were abusive. He was very clearly, and quite malignantly, a mean queen.

 

Because of the Christian dogma of his time, his formula for  the master-race (Herrenvolk) he would ensconce as sole masters of humanity required not just “Arianism” but heterosexual Arianism. This was of course because, to accord with Adam’s mandate and  Abraham’s manifesto from “God” , these Arians had to be both able and willing to “go forth and multiply” according to Old Testament ethic and edict.

 

Before he could accomplish the global ethnic cleansing to make all this possible,  he had to acquire the power. Having published his agenda for the Herrenvolk in Mein Kamph, he proceeded to vie in Germany for the power and authority to accomplish his agenda, and the door to that dream of world domination was the Reich chancellorship. Having full awareness of Hitler’s agenda of primarily anti-Semitic ethnic cleansing, the Catholic Church proceeded to engineer the former (Catholic) Chancellor’s stepping aside  and the supplying of  Adolph Hitler with the votes sufficient to fulfill his genocidal program.   In so doing, the Catholic Church installed as head of the Third Reich the world’s most efficient ethnic serial killer, and the world’s meanest queen (homosexual). His warring craft and conquering charisma seemingly had no rival in the course of human history, unless of course you include Abraham and Moses, and maybe Joshua. Bush came later and is, of course, in a class by himself wherein  both his fascistic prowess and Christian hypocrisy are yet to be determined. 

 

The fact that Hitler’s agenda of genetic cleansing included the eradication and even the internment of all homosexuals, it’s the descriptive norm, again, rather than the prescriptive norm of sociological machinations that counts… what was really happening instead of what the party in power said was happening. 

 

Being himself a homosexual, Hitler had to perform within his parameters and powers as Fuhrer  of the Herrenvolk… “in the closet” so to speak. It is not known whether Hitler “came out” and covertly indulged in homosexual acts. Everyone in his administration (out of fear) observed Adolph to surround himself with aids and personal administrative assistants who were apparently, reputedly, and often openly gay. Those whose “gayness” was publicly detected and published were sent to concentration camps…according to the prescriptive norms of national ethnic purification. But there  was one thing different about the concentration camp to which gays were inevitably dispatched (unless they also happened to be Jewish homosexuals, in which case they were mainstreamed to the camps with gas-powered shower stalls):  the internment camp in question somehow never became a “death camp”, but in fact and function remained merely a place of benevolent
”concentration”. 

 

This salutary sentencing of Nazi homosexuals was historically Hitler’s “excommunication” sanction. Reminiscent of what Vatican officials in past decades have done with their burgeoning roster of priestly pederasts— Hitler’s homosexual misfits were, after their homosexual “outings”, simply passed on to more remote, benign and anonymous quarters. Sending more B’re Rabbits to more Briar Patches. Burying the mean queens in smaller castles as it were, with lower parapets…and political profiles. 

 

The Catholic Church is still up to the same old tricks today. But why?  For the simple and clean-as-Occam’s razor answer, just look up(wards).   Not as far up as Heaven, maybe, but just high up as …Brokeback Mountain.  Where did the two gay co-protagonists go to hide in that future cinema classic?

 

Into holy Christian wedlock, of course. What better  cover for a homosexual could  exist?  When you put a gay man in a heterosexual marriage, and he has a wife and children, does that change anything?  Of course, no.    But what keeps them there is what is so sinister and insidiously dangerous.  Malignant. It’s the same thing that happens when a gay man enters the priesthood.  Christian wedlock and the priesthood accomplish the same thing. They create not just a convenient Christian hideout, but also a sort of conventional 12-step institution wherein priests and gay husbands can keep themselves “straight” by having each day to preach and perform a phony sermon and serial acts of heterosexual manhood. 

 

The phony sermon preached often enough becomes…somehow  more credible, to both pulpit and congregation. And for the therapist behind the pulpit, therapeutic.   If this proposition is  starting to sound like what Hitler’s Big Lie (the Herrenvolk, Arian, Master-race lie) was prescribed to do, then your discerning cerebral dendrites are doing their duty. 

 

The common thread in this Hitler/Catholic commentary?…The common thread is hypocrisy. The common thread is that this hypocrisy is as old as history and will, as history, continue to repeat itself over and over again until the lesson is learned. 

 

The lesson is not simply that the Catholic Church and its ally, the Third Reight of Germany, were/are empowered/administered at least substantially by the dysfunctional machinations of suppressed, “mean-queen” homosexuality. The lesson is that placing the matter of homosexuality’s morality or “sinfulness” in the hands of the Catholic Clergy or the fundamentalist clergy of any faith, is like putting a Christian serial killer named Adolph Hitler (as the Catholic church actually did 60-some years back) at the head of the strongest  military power in Europe. It’s having the fox on guard at a Christian House of Chickens.

 

Reformed smokers are the most “righteous” and vehement advocates of nicotine abstinence…Why? Because they are constantly aware that they  still want to smoke. Not a great analogy, because smoking’s an addiction (rather than an innate need) and is actually bad for humans. But it’ll serve: Like a reformed smoker, the repressed (mean queen) gay priest, or papal official, along with the heterosexually-married (mean-queen) will preach the most inspired, fire-and-brimstone diatribes against the homosexual lifestyle, not because Jesus or his Father in Heaven in any way ever condemned—or even took time to mention it—but because in preaching the sermon, the hypocriticial priest is repressing/surpressing his own innate, persisting and perennial urge to partake in the style of life he is condemning as sin.

 

 After hearing the sermons, one married or celibate homosexual member of the congregation will be inspired to preach a sermon of “repentance” or celibacy to his homosexual friend, and condemn him to hell if he doesn’t heed the message. How misery does love company…and sometimes, looking back  Brokeback Moountain way, occasionally loves its happier homosexual company to death.

 

Hitler sent his homosexual colleagues and comrades to stations of benign isolation. Today’s Catholic ministers, among many of whom are the meanest queens alive today, are damning gentle, loving and would-be monogamous homosexual souls to eternal hell. Taking devout Christians aboard the Peace-through-Christ train, and then telling them their innate and immutable sexual propensities are tickets to eternal damnation is a hell of a way to run a Christian railroad.

 

The Catholic condemnation, excommunication and damning to hell of their homosexual congregation or homosexuals outside the Faith is little different in kind or effect from Moses’ form of ethnic cleansing or Adolph Hitler’s.  And the victims of this hypocritical genetic cleansing are not just the homosexuals. The homosexual who is condemned by his Church until he relents , “repents” and retreats to the institutions of marriage or monasteries, wounds not only himself in the process but his nominal (but unnatural) spouse. And don’t forget the children: What do you suppose it’s like to be a 16-year old and watch your father exit his closet and run away with the plumber’s assistant?  Is anyone reminded of Simon’s plaintive lyrics on the subject of the closet in the Robinson home (movie: The Graduate)?

 

Hide it in a hiding place
Where no one ever goes.
Put it in your pantry with your cupcakes.
It’s a little secret,
Just the Robinsons’ affair.
Most of all, you’ve got to hide it
from the kids.

 

 Whenever the homosexual repents and seeks instead of marriage the shelter of the priesthood, then we can pick up any daily newspaper in the world and read the names of the latest victims of Catholic homosexual condemnation and repression. Shame. Shame.

 

And shame.

 

 Mr. Lee, you need look no further. The gay rights movement protects and even champions, as I do,  my gay friends’ right to…to be and to live as they were intelligently designed.  I personally go much further and insist they be permitted to live in love and in dignity. My indignation on their behalves incidentally, provides impetus for the present writing.

 

Lee and fundamentalist Catholics like him are anathema in their own monolithically-fundamentalist movement (the Christian gay-rights bashing movement) , because it’s evident they consider their own admitted gayness a sin in the eyes of their own God. I’m not going to take the time here to cite the portions of Lee’s piece that make it clear that he naively and masochistically anticipates spending an eternity in hell (or is it rather a finite period in Purgatory?) for leading his gay life. It’s too silly—and at the same time sad–a proposition to oppose.

 

But, since he apparently subscribes to that degrading religious dogma (that there is a Creator God out there who’s going to roast him in eternal hell for performing the sexual role he was “intelligently-designed” to play), I can rationally say that nothing else he says can have much significance.  Why debate the point of the existence or non-existence of gay monogamy when in the final analysis, all who are gay are damned, be they monogamous or sexually… lapin?

 

Being gay is not good. Being gay is not bad. Being gay is simply being gay. Same with being heterosexual: per se, neither good nor bad. It’s what you do with and because of your sexual propensities that culminates in good or bad. Are people hurt by your conduct?  If so, there’s cause for guilt and …change. If not…well, like dying 80-year old Maude says to 16-year-old Harold about his declared love for her: “That’s wonderful, Harold….Go and love  some more.”

 

Breaking the chain of this stream of considerations of Lee’s gay self-consciousness and flagellations, I have to say that, apart from being sad for his sadness, apparent loneliness (and shame), I learned something I’d never heard before: There are young men in gay bars that the frequenters thereof call “bug chasers”. These young men turn out to be lost little homosexual souls who seek an early demise through AIDS as an alternative preferable to growing old. It was, I gather,  Lee’s way of pointing out the “shallowness” of gay sexuality…i.e. that, as a culture, they are so superficially “into” being buff, young and beautiful…that there is no place for a horny, needful beer-gutted middle-ager in their whole community… at least in the up-scale “gay”-gathering venues.  So sad. So very, very sad. One could argue that at least part of the cause for the young homosexual’s suicidal anticipations might include the rejections. Condemnations, and excommunications he suffers throughout his life from his pious brothers in the church for acting in accordance with the natures God gave him.

 

Sad- (this fixation on physical youth and beauty) yes, but certainly not unique–as Lee clearly implies–to the “gay community”.  I don’t know which big-breasted blond Hollywood babe coined the quip that spoke its trendy truth to all the heterosexual narcissists of her day… “All I want to do is live fast, die young and leave a beautiful corpse.”  I’ve got plenty of hedonistic hetero-sexual friends who, as they are gaining wrinkles and losing their tee-shots and comeliness in t-shirts, are smoking and drinking themselves into early graves. I think from now on I’ll call them “Bud Chasers”.

 

Gays didn’t invent promiscuity. Gay’s didn’t invent divorce on the grounds of sexual infidelity. For Christ’s sake (allegedly only, mind you) they’re not even allowed to get married in most states, and never will if the Neo-Con phony Christian Bushites stay in control of Capitol Hill and our Supremes.

 

I now think I have reacted sufficiently to this pathetic display of sexual discontent and  dissonance.   While Lee believes his sexual nature is damned by his God, he has assigned himself to his own artificial (sinthesized)  hell. So long as  he  voluntarily pines in Purgatory, he’ll continue to need to assign the blame for his suffering to some cause beyond his control.  So he’s chosen this myth of “gay hypocrisy”.  He’s a pot shouting at a kettle for its communal blackness within the theocratic cauldron of neo-conservative Christian consensus and communion. 

 

He admits not understanding what his friend meant when he accused Lee of not really having come out of the closet. Lee has emerged only partially from the closet he entered early in life. He was born gay, but as a child crawled into the closet for…all the regular (socially-compelling, politically and theolocratically-correct)  reasons. As an adult,  he stepped only partially and tentatively out, treading tenderly barefoot and untutored, and always entirely against every contusing, dogmatically-splintering grain,  down the dark and daunting halls of his fundamentalist Catholic commune.    He admits he’s attracted to guys, but purports to be in effect, “monogamy” in search of “monogamy” in a culture (gay community) of  hedonistic  cheaters. 

 

Again, he’s hoisted on his own petard. He is not monogamous until he succeeds in living a monogamous life. He puts down the “gay culture” but apparently resorts to their common venues for consortium (such as the internet and the Church—the very theocratic authority that dogmatically provides him  his required curriculum in essential self-loathing). I personally know a gay couple who have been homosexually partnered up as long as I’ve been legally married…i.e. over 30 years. So I know the oxymoronic  institution (gay monogamy) exists. Whether my friends Steve and Neill cheat on one another in the bars–or  simply in their born-again Christian hearts–is their business, and nobody else’s…just as I consider my own sex life—actual and fantasized.

 

I say hurray for Barnes and Nobles; Hurray for Lobo’s book store. Hurray for porno and sex toys.   Hurray for any book, any picture, any …thing…. that brings a human animal pleasure in this world without causing another animal, human or otherwise (even the forbear of a leather wallet). . . pain. Especially the pain of exclusion… including excommunication.  (And by the final way, Mr. Lee, gays certainly have no corner on fetishes. Wanna see my feathered……oh, well, never mind.)

 

What Lee needs to face up to is the compelling likelihood that, with both homo- and hetero-sexuality, sex always was and always will be about desire for and seeking pleasure, and love will always be about a sharing and symbiosis of spirit. As for gay bars and gay lifestyle being more “errant” or serially non-monogamous, so what?  If heterosexual men could walk into a bar confident that within 15 minutes they will find a sexual partner for the evening (with something other than an expensive pro), I’ll dare say Christian monogamy would be in far greater jeopardy than it is today.

 

Men (males, not mankind) are capable of experiencing and forming a sexual urge and intent in a single N.Y. millisecond. This ability carries over from heterosexuality to homosexuality, unfortunately, and with the latter, there is simply no natural impediment to  two potential partners  saying yes…immediately…and as frequently as men are naturally disposed. If this were not the case, the so-called “she-males” (humans with male genitalia and female dress, appearance and behavior) in Indonesia would not be gaining and overtaking the marketing ground of female prostitutes and “contract marriage partners”.  With a she-male, says one of today’s most successful on-line marketers in this modern arena of evolved “sexploitation”, how can a man resist a woman who looks like Raquel Welch and “wants it” just as much…and just as often…as the man?  A natural woman is no competition. Can’t hold a candle, or so they say.

 

I have considerable compassion for Lee’s suffering, but I think it is unwise, and unkind at the same time, for him  publicly to proclaim that he, as a gay human,  and our Christian and extended communities at large, are the victims of a hoax in regard to the disparity between the descriptive and prescriptive norms comprising the Gay Rights and Liberation movements and agendas. Lobo’s places its more adult (albeit gay-oriented) offerings in the back of the store in the same way, and for the same reasons family video stores shelve their “X-rated” heterosexual videos and DVD’s in the room at the rear with the caveat: “For adults, 18 years and older only.”

 

If Lee were happily cohabiting with the man of his homosexual dreams, would he have penned this inordinately erudite and comprehensive diatribe against the gay rights movement and its leaders? I hope he hasn’t given up either his hope  or search for true love within the framework of his innately-unique human  constitution and biology.  I can only sympathize and commiserate with him over his sad decision to cast the blame for his unrequited search for a monogamous soul mate and sexual partner on his own gay community, and its collective desire to be permitted, within its shared civilized order, to survive, and thrive, as we are, with unrestrained liberty, tolerance and dignity.

 

In closing, a small parable and a humble suggestion… for the sake of tolerance and understanding among men. To those of you who have considered my words, and those of Lee, and notwithstanding those considerations, reflections and independent ancillary studies still believe that homosexuality is a sinful thing which  may and should be “prayed away”, please hear me patiently to inform you as follows: I’m a true believer in the fact that faith can move mountains. I just don’t believe it can move Brokeback Mountain. I just don’t believe there’s any reason to believe it can or that it should. In this regard, I invite the Christian/Catholic community to follow the ancient parable and  paradigm of Mohammed and the Mountain. If  Brokeback mountain will not come to the Catholic fundamentalist, let the Catholic fundamentalist go to Brokeback Mountain.

 

War is our only enemy.

 

 

Robert R. (Dusty) Schoch: March 7, 2006

 

Robert (“Dusty”) Schoch is an attorney, novelist and screenplay writer, living in High Point, N.C.  Other of his political/social essays may be found in the foreign-policy sections of the website of which he is co-editor, Democrats.write.com

 

FOOTNOTE AND ADDENDA:

After completing the first draft of  this essay, I rejoiced to read the essay of Leonard Pitts (Miami Herald’s Pulitzer prize columnist) on a similar subject, this week (Feb. 27).  Please seek out and  find this piece athttp://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/columnists/leonard_pitts/13970655.htm  or elsewhere with Google under the key words: “Leonard Pitts archives”. The title to this wonderful piece is “Fire, Brimstone The Surest Way to Say You’re Gay”,  and it has to do with Fred  Phelps, that pastor who with his followers showed up at the funeral of Matthew Shepard, the gay college student who was beaten to death in Wyoming 8 years back with signs saying “God Hates Fags”, and has since been showing up at funerals of soldiers who have died in Iraq preaching that they were killed by God as punishment for fighting for a country that condones homosexuality. (Incidentally, the original short story that inspired Brokeback Mountain was an account of this same Wyoming homicide.)  Has the world gone nuts? Or are we being beset mainly by a stampeding herd of very mean queens?  Pitts argues (as I argued about Ronald Lee’s and the Catholic condemnation of homosexuality in general) that Phelps’ fanaticism stems from repressed (closeted) homosexuality.  Beware of the mean queens in our midst, because what’s hidden in our closets can truly not only haunt, but hurt us.  Let’s never forget that, with a 99.9 percent of confidence,  we students of preventative history  realize that Adolph Hitler was a very mean queen. Who knows how many lives might have been spared if this petulant little paper hanger had been permitted to sashay outside his Aryan closet, paint his mediocre pictures and make love in lieu of war with his brave young soldiers?

 

We hope the preceding exchange serves to encourage and/or provoke more head-buttings of the same nature on further and future issues and essays.  It is the sincere  consensus of all of us who contribute to Democratswrite.com that our country is in a dire state both domestically and abroad.  We need some new cooks in our cognitive kitchens.  Those cooks will have to know that to make a better omelet we will have to crack some eggs.  So let’s keep cracking…

 

CONTACT AND COMMENT: We are in the process of building an on-site link for the submission of outside comment and submissions. In the interim, please communicate your wishes to post a reaction to the present article (debate) with our writer and foreign policy editor,  Robert R. (Dusty) Schoch, care of the “contact” link on this website. 

Posted in Political, Religion | Leave a comment by Editors

	Neo-Contentions Including… The Neo-Con Corporate Frankenstein Monster

INTRODUCTORY NOTE:

“Neo-Contentions”  is the caption for this seminal  and prototypical  format,  wherein Democratswrite.com contributors will share their website as a forum for debate between and among liberal and conservative minds, and minds machinating in between those politically polar opposites.

Typically the Column will begin with an article written or referred to us by either a regular contributor or outside source.  Responses from any and all correspondents on line will be considered by our editorial staff, and, when feasible, printed without re-editing (save for deletion of profane, or solely “ad hominem” remarks, i.e. offensive (insulting) attacks on people as opposed to criticisms–however severe–of issues, actions, opinions or attitudes taken or expressed by those people.

This first offering obtains lift-off from B.E.A. founder, Robert (Dusty) Schoch (incidentally, our foreign-policy editor).  What becomes the “Neo-Contentions”  bone of contention is a brief essay by Dusty reacting to Bush’s “not guilty” response to charges of violating Constitutional privacy protections.  “Repeat After Me” is followed by a curt, dismissive response penned by Steve Bryant, a Neo-Conservative columnist who writes for the High Point Enterprise (H.P., N.C.).

Steve’s response provides provocation for Schoch’s (and our) principal offering in this issue of “Neo-Contentions”, and we hope the exchange serves to encourage and/or provoke more head-buttings of the same nature on further and future issues and essays.  It is the sincere  consensus of all of us who contribute to Democratswrite.com that our country is in a dire state both domestically and abroad.  We need some new cooks in the kitchen. Those cooks will have to know that to make a better omelette, we will have to crack some eggs.  So let’s get cracking…

Repeat after me…

 “Emperor Bush is Nekkid”.     Garrison Keillor’s essay in today’s paper (Jan.24) on lying tells us the horrendous truth we’re not telling: It’s no longer Bush’s lies that are heading us to fiscal and foreign hell in a Halliburton handbasket woven in China- it’s  our feeble refusal to call him on the crimes and calamities he continues to commit…right under our nationally nincompoopic noses.

We’ve known for two years now there were no WMD’s and no Al Quaeda connections,  but our criminal occupation of-and killings in–Iraq continue.

On the domestic front, Bush has not lied to us about his felonious violation of Federal Law in tapping our phone and e-mail communications.   He readily admits  the Federal law requires a determination of probable cause before a Federal Judge and that he has directed the NSA to ignore the law, and then he says what he has done is “legal”.

It’s not-exactly–like the idiot in Keillor’s parable…driving his family into the afternoon sun swearing to his wife they’re headed East.  Bush is telling us the truth.  He’s admitting  the criminal acts but denying the criminal responsibility.  A wise man asks:  “Who’s the greater fool, the fool or the fool who follows the fool?”

We don’t have the defense of being “forced” as were the denizens of Orwell’s  1984 fictional extrapolation of corporate American Democracy. When “Big Brother” in that prophesy declared “black” was “white”, citizens who disagreed disappeared. We don’t have that excuse. We’re just fools, sheep…and cowards.

Please keep Keillor’s essays coming- He’s the Mark Twain prophet and poet laureate of our troubled times. And by the way- For those wanting to quit being fools: Letters and calls to our Congressmen’s local offices work. Communications to D.C. (especially e-mail) are pretty much a waste of time.

Steve Bryant’s (brief) response to Dusty’s essay . . .

“Yea, Dusty our liberties are almost gone. Fortunately there are still enough of them remaining for the Left to continue the self-refuting nature of it’s portrayal  of America as the base of all oppression.”\

DUSTY’S REBUTTAL. . .

The Neo-Con Corporate Frankenstein Monster

(A long liberal counterpoint to an impertinent Neo-Con Comment;
Dusty Schoch v. H.P. Enterprise columnist, Steve Bryant
Jan. 25, 2006)

What’s this “self-refuting” thing?   I’m still, in the old sense, an American.  In the new, Red-run U.S., I consider myself a resident alien.  You neo-cons have won. You’re at the helm. The ship’s going down. I don’t simply refute the fascists who rained down hell (euphemizing it “shock and awe”) on Iraqi civilians. Killing over 20,000 of them.  Without provocation.  This was naked aggression.  This was fascism.  I don’t “refute” myself and certainly don’t’ refute Bush, Cheney and their crowd of neo-con terrorists;  I absolutely condemn, renounce and deplore them.  Staying on board with Bush and his stinking sinking ship of state is sort of like that guy who climbed and jumped off the Empire State building wearing a replica of Da Vinci’s man-powered flying machine. He jumps, flaps wildly and confidently and plummets toward the sidewalk like Newton’s apple. As he nears the first floor, and as the cracks in the sidewalk come into close-up focus, he’s overheard by passers by on the street to delcare:  “So far so good. “

Look around you Steve.  Having it “your way”, there is mayhem going into its third year in the country we invaded and stole. Multi-billions in surplus are now trillions of national debt. America has exported its soul and the meal tickets of its masses to China via their (neo-cons’)  true God  (Wally-Mart); One day in the near future you’re likely to have the pleasure of seeing me and others arrested and jailed for printing the truth about what’s going on. You and those of your ilk and persuasion are now in control of the destiny of our once-great nation. In under 2 terms at governing bat, the team is dying.  If it weren’t for the TV-induced and seduced ignorance of the red-state voters there might be hope. But their mixture of ignorance and lock-step ditto-headed sheepishness insures that Bush and the neo-con Republicans will have what it takes to dismantle and pocket what little remains of the greatest country, the noblest ,  most idealistic and, when challenged, heroic democracy in the history of mankind.

But I’m through weeping. Almost through raging. If the Republicans win the next White House and Congress, with their now unchecked and unbalanced Supreme Court, I will no longer remain a resident alien.

Read “The Evolving Self” by Csikszentmihalyi.  He helped coin the term “meme”.  When Henry Ford conceived of his revolutionary and marvelous assembly line for the Model T, he might have–but didn’t–envision its future…in terms of its eventually covering  a third of the globe with concrete and asphalt and threatening global extinction with it’s CO2 exhaust spewed  by 2 billion derivative  “memes”.

When conservative legislators in Delaware conceived of the “corporation”, they created unknowingly the Frankenstein monster that would one day dominate its creators.  Eventually, I fear, kill them.   Corporations lobbying legislators and orchestrating the messages of the “free” press (e.g. Fox network) have enabled a mental dwarf to obtain the most important office on the globe. He’s a pathetic puppet of petrochemical and military industry who’s probably blind to most of the strings pulling him this way and that.  He “thinks” it was his decision to enter Afghanistan and Iraq. He never had a clue.  A man with no intellect, no true ideals, no sense or knowledge of history became a tool for corporate fascists.
Acting as corporations, men become like the anonymous mob in Twain’s Huck Finn. Quantum transmogrifying quality. The whole of the corporate clan is much less in terms of humanity  than the sum of its parts. Souls and consciences are lost in the conglomerate mix. Halliburton, Enron, Ford, GM—all of them have the same common denominator, the same god.  The buck.  The souls empowering the corporations (labor) are but intrinsic commodities in corporate trade.

The first Corporations bore some semblance of similarity to their human founders. GE once in fact brought some “good things to life”. Refrigerators, electric food mixers and stoves.   Their prime products now are nuclear triggers and guiding WMD munitions…all products ultimately designed to insure corporate continuity, through intimidation and domination of as opposed to competition with international counterpart corporations.  We champion and market and hence promote what we create. Corporations now own our churches by controlling their media mechanisms for garnering …the buck.  Corporations (e.g. Halliburton) draft and launch their own execs into 5-th column posts in the White House and Pentagon. They manufacture… and manipulate the missiles aimed at …”foreign” bearers of …bucks.

The sad…hopeless…part of it all is there are actually no old-style villains out there in your neo-con camps.  In the West, Cheney simply lost his humanity by climbing too high up, and staying too long in the belly of the petrochemical corporate beast.  You become what you serve and champion. In the East, Sharon lost his humanity in the process of Zion’s nuclear incorporation- where unstable theocratic Jewish statehood was unnaturally created in the cyclotron of Christian guilt in the heart of Islamic darkness. He had two impossible masters, Zionism and Capitalism, corporate siblings incestuously wed in the nightmare Armageddon-bound mythology of god promising land to a putatively-chosen few.   Though one is dying of a corporate-depleted  heart, and the other a Zionist-battered brain, they will have their under-study replacements the second they succumb in their quests. The corporate kings are dead, they’ll say;  Long live the corporations!

While we were growing up, Steve, we had Tom and Jerry, Donald Duck, John Wayne, Andy Griffith, Ozzie and Harriet, a president who wouldn’t use Oval Office stamps on personal mail, and our doors were unlocked at night. Sure it was a dream, but life always is. Today’s dreams (beat each other as “survivors”, get hurt and scared and …rain down shock and awe on …anyone; buy a house with 10,000 sq ft and 2 SUV’s in the drive…at any cost, including extinction of life on earth) are soulless. Today’s dreams are dictated by corporations.

We need, somehow,  to take our country back from the …corporations.  No, I don’t have the answers as to how.  But I’m searching.   My life has considerable and increasing  value, because the older I become, the rarer become my memories. Memories of how things used to work and be.  Days when lawyers treasured their “ethics”,  Congressmen kept some of their promises, and corporations were for the most part…responsible little robots, instead of mega-autonomous and malignant monsters who’ll reflexively trade human lives (yours and mine)  for increased shelf life for their cookies.

If you’re still awake, thanks for giving me a focal point at which to muster my thinking today.

One day we’ll meet and to at least one of us, it will become apparent that our essentials points of variance are superficial.  But skin, too, is superficial and without it, we’d lose precious water and die. I simply think that our political skins are less integral to our lives; more mutable. I’ve done some substantial traveling in Germany in the past few years. There I encountered many folks who sat around in tolerant (at least inertial) indifference while their fascist leadership was methodically exterminating a large and innocent ethnic sector of the German population. Since the 40’s, the attitudes of most of those Christian Conservative Germans has drastically changed.  If I couldn’t cling to the belief the same awakening is possible over here,  I’d leave America now.

See you in the funny papers (your neo-con column).

Dusty

Posted in Corporations, Political, Repubilcans, War, War On Terrorism | Leave a comment by Editors

SKIING IN DUBAI.TOWARDS THE ABYSS?
Two news events relating to Dubai,  the United Arab Emirates should awaken our concern.  One’s arguably funny and the other  frightening. Together they give cause for sober circumspection. The “funny” one is the story of the oil sheiks constructing that monstrously expensive and fiscally garish in-door ski resort in the desert. (view photos 1, 2,)  On the frightening front:  our government has just ceded control ( in a $6.8 billion corporate handoff from a British corporation) of the ports of New York, Jew Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia to a U.A.E. corporation (Dubai Ports World).  [see Wash. Post, 2/17/06 on line at:  <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/16/AR2006021602304.html?nav=rss_world&g=1&creative=topkeyword> ]

Why the concern?  First, the U.A.E., which boasts of owning ten percent of the world’s known oil reserves, before 9/11/01 was an open supporter of the Taliban in Afghanistan.   Second, although Dubai is reputed to be our staunchest ally in the alleged “war on terrorism”,  no one in the U.S. knows the details of our C.I.A.- machinated ties with the shieks of the U.A.E. (<http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1152AP_US_UAE.html> );
But we’ve sold them a huge number of F-16 fighters, have constructed our largest C.I.A. complex there, and seem to trust them  with both our geo-fiscal and physical lives.. just as we once did the Saudis and bin Laden who, in gratitude, gave us 9/11/01.
A friend sent me a website slide show of the indoor refrigerated ski slopes in the desert of Dubai, asking me what I made of it. “Is this indoor mountain ski slope real or something that should be reported to ‘Urban Legends’ on the net?”, he wanted to know.  I smiled and, then upon reflection, froze. Upon thawing out, I wrote him  the following response:
Sorry Al, (H.P. City Councilman Al Campbell)  but I’m afraid it’s real. The ecologically pornographic details can be perused on line at  <http://www.itp.net/business/features/details.php?id=3373&category>
This is what our SUV-guzzling petro dollars build and one of the many reasons why the non-sheiky Arabs (only 99.999999 percent) hate us so much. Oil sheiks and their royal entourage don’t fly to Swiss Alps because they’re better (richer) than Muhammed. When Muhammed prayed and Allah refused to move the mountain to him, Muhammed had to hike to  the mountain. When the sheiks of Dubai wanted the ski mountain to come to them, Allah said , ‘Sure, just fork out 8.4 Billion U.S. and thy ski mountain shall appear, all quarter million square  air-conditioned feet of it.and an un-shabby 1500-foot slope.’
The fact is, “Ski Dubai” is a minor fiscal frolic next other of our Arab ally’s mega-luxuries now under construction, including a half-trillion dollar “underwater hotel”, an artificial island resort paradise, the tallest building in the universe, Dubailand theme park, etc. (for details see <http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/theuae/2006/February/theuae_February390.xml§ion=theuae>) the collective cost of which could easily rebuild ruined Iraq several times over.  The Persian “peons” working on these construction projects will have to pay six months wages to spend a single night in the resort hotels they are building. These very sick Sheiks are Bush’s strongest allies in the Middle East.  The enemies they are making with their excesses of opulence in plain view of Persian poverty (Fundamentalist Sunni) will be our enemies.  These galactic excesses of conspicuous material consumption gone wild are perceived as “Western” only because. they are.
I don’t know the mechanics of it, and unless you’re an insider in our petro-chemical ruling class ( Google: “House of Bush, House of Saud”) you’ll really never know, but Dubai somehow functions as a neo-con “off shore” bank or holding company for the neo-con U.S. oil boys and their oilier Arab counterparts. The House of Saud and the House of Bush, metaphorically and paradigmatically, are a single corporate condo. We working stiffs,  tax payers and gasoline addicts are the maintenance crew.
I confidently conjure images of  interlocking, stock-optioned shareholding-directors skimming the top off all production, construction and “service” contracts.  Our world (not just U.S.) is presently ruled by a trans-national oligarchy of amoral corporate fascists.  We knew the democracy Jefferson engineered was dead when they (we)  let Cheney keep second chair when he had millions in Halliburton futures yet to rain down, and thereafter suffered him to steer the entire booty of Iraq’s conquest to his boss-not Bush, but Halliburton, his true master.
The obscenity of the Dubai ski slope is so over the top in its oblivious greed and ostentatious imbecility that it actually did make me smile. But  just for a while.  This Brokeback Mountain consortium of American corporate cowboys and Arabian sheiks makes the eternity-grabbing pyramid builders of ancient Egyptian infamy pale in comparison.  In the valley of the pharaohs probable thousands died laboring to erect those Narcissistic nipples in the desert.
In the third millennium  of Abraham’s on-going  and genocidal pursuit  of the promised petro-milk and honey, hundreds of thousands have died (since 1948) and  we could all become extinct when nuclear-armed Israel, Iran  or Pakistan launches the fist nuke by virtue of our earlier suicidal enabling.
The thing that rips me to the ranting point, and ended the smile, is this: These Pax-American neo-con Christians and Zionist Jews actually want this to happen (Google: “A Clean Break”, PNAC, A.E.I.). They are actively  trying to fulfill that rationally-ruptured Rapture (now incestuously wed to Jewish Zion) in the ever-growing faith that all us sinners (along  with Islam) are better left behind in the beautiful and purging  holocaust (code-name: Armageddon)  they’re quite candidly kindling.
And while we’re waiting to see if the Skiing Sheiks of Dubai are worthy of our trust, or whether they’ll be funneling our petro-dollars under their thobes again to fundamentalists like the Taliban or the Saudi 9/11 airline crews, why don’t we just put them in charge of every major port authority in our country’s northern harbors?  Talking about skiing on the brink of the abyss!  The Bush administration is not just putting the fox simply in charge, but rather is deeding him the whole hen house.
Hello: We’ve only recently found we know zip about what’s going on within the closed boardrooms and treasuries of America’s own domestic corporations (e.g. Enron).  So suddenly  we should trust the management of our most strategic and vulnerable (to Islamic terrorism) maritime ports to corporations owned by and based in the heart of Islamic darkness? Dubai is an Islamic nation (96 percent Sunni).  If half of what Craig Unger writes in House of Bush House of Saud is true, then the sale of six U.S. port authorities to Arab corporations is no big deal, as by virtue of the covert alliance between those families (Bush, Saud and the  skiing shieks of Dubai),  they already own us.
As a final consolation, we can thank Jon Stewart (TV’s comic commentator) for the insight assuaging all concern for ceding our ports to the Arabs:  “I really can’t see the logic in Bush’s switching control of our ports from organized crime to these scattered Arabs!”
Best,

Dusty Schoch

War is our only enemy.
2/23/06
9PM

Posted in Oil, Political | Leave a comment ← Older posts Newer posts →