Note: This website has no control over the ads placed on it. Caveat emptor.
IS anyone interested in participating in a membership organization for homosexual men only, based in Newark, New Jersey, but providing outreach to gay men worldwide who want a community of like-minded individuals who despise the present course of the "gay world" and want to free men from all impositions upon them to be straight (or at least pretend to be straight)?
Gay men in the New York Tristate Metropolitan Area have seen opportunities for men to meet and mate drop steeply over the past few decades, to the point where the New York gay scene isn't so much as a TENTH what it used to be, and almost everywhere you go you are forced to accept the notion that men have no right to be alone with men but must always be surrounded by women and pretend to enjoy that. It's as tho society has changed its paradigm from "Men must never, ever have sex with men" to "Men can have sex with men anytime they want, as long as a woman is always present, always staring, always commenting and giggling and applying heterosexual forms upon homosexual activity."
Altho gay men aren't yet required by law or social pressure to take women into the bedroom when they have sex with men, they are required to tolerate women staring at them, as tho they were zoo animals, in bars when they are trying to "hook up"; women wondering what they want to do for sex; women speculating about who is the "top" and who the "bottom" (because sex must always have a "man" and a "woman"); and women mentally putting themselves into your sexual scene as avid observers.
Never are men to be free to look at a man's crotch, butt, face, or arms without a woman watching where their eyes go. Never are men to be free to kiss men, hug men, caress and fondle men without women watching, and interfering. The suggestion, express or implied, is that we shouldn't pay any attention to them, and shouldn't be inhibited just because a woman is watching. But carry this to its logical conclusion that there would be no harm and should be no inhibition if a woman really were in the room with us when we were having sex, watching every movement and you see that society really is just again imposing upon men the obligation to include women in their sex lives.
You can be gay only if you are also straight. Exclusive homosexuality is forbidden. Men-only is against the law, and anyone who wants to be alone with men is "sick". Where have we heard that before?
Oh, right. That's what the straight world has ALWAYS said about homosexuality.
Now, gay men are allowed to be gay as long as they aren't TOO gay. As long as they pretend to love women and want them to watch while they get intimate with men, and thus make homosexuality into heterosexuality via female voyeurism, it's okay. But if men want to be alone with men, they are to be ridiculed and held in contempt as sickos, haters, and losers.
Men and women must always be together, whether the men involved want to be or not. This is the "New Homosexuality", which looks almost exactly like the Old Heterosexuality. Men must, necessarily and compulsorily, accept that men and women BELONG TOGETHER and, by extension, that men do NOT belong together, unless women are also present. The New Homosexuality includes heterosexuality, is a mere variant on heterosexuality, and converts something pure, and beautiful, and private to men, into perverted heterosexuality instead.
If that's not what you want from life, you need to throw off this new paradigm and refuse to permit women to invade your emotional and sex life, ruin our places by destroying the dynamics of an all-male situation, and refuse all suggestions that there is something wrong with men even wanting to be alone with men.
No other organization will suit you, because essentially all the others are adamantly working for compelled sexual mixing in all "public" places as tho a gay bar is really a public place. This odious trend is part and parcel of a larger assault upon all privacy outside the home that has seized Western society in the past few decades. Thousands of years of devotion to the right of privacy and freedom of association (which is necessarily also freedom from association) has recently been replaced by a militant insistence that no one has the right to be alone except maybe in his home and don't be surprised if attempts are made to destroy that right too. Instead, everyone must always be with everyone, everywhere, whether they want to be or not. "Birds of a feather must not flock together." This insane, new, social commandment is not the Western tradition. Where did it come from? Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, that's where. And that is not the slightest overstated.
Communists in universities and media have worked quietly and patiently over most of a century to destroy Western civilization and replace it with their own version of utopia. The more education our governmental and media "leaders" have received, from Communized universities, the more militantly hostile to the right of group privacy they have become.
In the 1920s, the Communist worldwide revolution targeted universities and media as the means to persuade people generally of the rightness of their cause. The international Communist movement is not a paranoid fantasy, as over a hundred million people in Eastern Europe, 200 million in the former Soviet Union, and over 100 million in North Korea, Indochina, and Cuba, not to mention over a BILLION people in China, can tell you. You don't take over a fourth of the world without cooperation from one place to another. Yes, there was a worldwide movement; it was unified, and it compelled obedience to doctrine. That doctrine taught that individualism is wrong and individual difference must be stamped out.
Over the next several decades, the Communist movement gradually infiltrated more and more true believers into universities, who then taught the Communist message to impressionable young people and created a culture of intolerance for non-Communist notions on campus. Do this for more than 80 years, and you create real change in the mindset of college-educated people.
In the same period, leadership in politics and media passed from high-school-educated to college-educated people, most of whom have accepted at least part of the Communist message. Now the entire top of society, all college-educated, is so thoroughly Communized that they think that destroying the right of freedom of association is a traditional, conservative value!
No differences between people are to be respected or tolerated, because the individual is not only not important but is actually nonexistent, in the Communist worldview. Each individual has no significance in him- or herself. All "individuals" are just cogs in a great social machine, cells in a great social organism. And just as no cog or cell has a right of privacy, no individual has a right of privacy either. Individualism is to be crushed, and everyone is to be compelled to be just like everybody else, no matter how different in essence he might think himself to be.
Thus have we arrived at the mad new social order in much of the United States, and especially in New York City (Never Never Land), where rhetorical sleight of hand has changed private property into "public accommodations" in which "the public interest" and "public policy" must be adhered to. No one can be alone with anyone.
"Never Never Land" is defined as "A utopia promised in the place of a real benefit." The term comes from British author J. M. Barrie's Peter Pan. (Source: The Phrase Finder) Conformity to government mandates is somehow some magical, never-explained somehow supposed to confer benefits upon us, but no one can seem to find any real benefit from this ever-more-pervasive government attempt to control our minds and make us think what government wants us to think. Never understood is that these things can never, never BE. Human nature cannot be changed. People will always prefer their own kind to others. And gay men will always be gay, no matter how hard government tries to change us.
That doesn't stop government from trying to control what we think. Controlling what we do is assumed to change what we think. So everyone must always be with everyone, until we all 'accept' that 'we're really all the same'.
Were bars regarded as the private property they really are, government would have no right to impose Communist conformity on them. But call them "public accommodations" and suddenly they are no longer private property, and people no longer have a right of privacy in them -- or so our Communized "leaders" seem to think. They are of course wrong, and government has no right to tell private persons on private property what to do or think. But society has not yet wakened to this linguistic sham, nor the need to rebel against the ongoing attempt to crush all individuality out of everyone.
Government also started distributing public funds to private entities, and with public funds comes public control. Just as "The power to tax is the power to destroy", so too the power to fund is the power to control. Tho this may not seem to apply to privately owned bars, its 'logical' extensions do apply. You see, bars are businesses, and so pay tax on profits. They are granted legally permitted business expenses deductible under tax laws. By a convoluted process of 'reasoning', the fact that private businesses get the 'benefit' from government of being able to deduct business expenses makes them subject to government control over their business operations
By this 'reasoning', there is no such thing as a private business, because all legitimate businesses operate under business licenses and receive government 'benefits' in the form of exemption of some costs from taxation. Thus all businesses receive public funds for not having to pay 'their fair share' of government's outlays by getting tax deductions. So all businesses must obey government mandates on matters such as "non-discrimination". Never mind that this turns the Constitution on its head, granting government the right to redefine everything private as public and apply restrictions meant for government only to private entities instead.
Bars are also licensed by the state. The power to license is also the power to destroy, because lifting a liquor license destroys a bar. And there is almost NO control over what a state liquor licensing agency can require of bars. No control at all. New York's State Liquor Authority, for instance, is not elected by anybody and not controlled by any elected official. It is a power unto itself, and has absolute power over bars. The observation that "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" is absolutely true. Communized "public servants" in liquor-licensing authorities have imposed an almost Stalinist control over bars, and imposed Communist notions of compelled association on all private premises that hold liquor licenses.
Think about this: if you own a home, you receive extensive tax benefits from government too. Is it really too much to expect that government will someday say that by accepting government benefits, you have given up your right of privacy in the home the government effectively subsidizes? Apartment dwellers aren't exempt from this 'reasoning' either: the landlord receives tax benefits from his ownership of that property, which he passes along to you in the form of a lower rent. Thus everyone receives government benefits for his housing, and it would be 'wrong' for someone whose home is partly paid for with public funds to refuse government mandates as to behavior and public access to every single home in this country. Far-fetched? I'm afraid it is not one whit more far-fetched than government insisting that a gay bar is a public accommodation and must admit women, fawn over women, even hire women.
All too few people understand the U.S. Constitution. First, and most important, is that the Constitution is the legal charter of GOVERNMENT, not of society. It sets out the form and powers of GOVERNMENT, not of society. Society is hugely greater than government, and government is supposed to be subordinate to society. That doesn't sound like American society today, does it? Just as government has grabbed an ever larger chunk of the economy over time, but the private economy is still hugely greater, so is society vastly greater than just its government. People are accustomed to saying, and thinking, that 'The President runs the country.' No he doesn't. He really doesn't. He doesn't even run the entire federal government, but only most (and not even all) of the Executive Branch. Unelected agencies and quasi-governmental corporations run the rest. And the federal government is only one of many governments, state, county, and local. Still, people have accepted the facile but fraudulent notion that government IS society, and the rules for government ARE the rules for society. They are not.
The Constitution says that GOVERNMENT may not discriminate against citizens but must hold everyone equal UNDER LAW. It doesn't say that no one may discriminate in his home or property or attitudes or mind against anyone else. All citizens are equal under the law, and so have rights against GOVERNMENT. They don't have any rights to anyone else's private property or companionship or sex or anything else. Government may not discriminate. Private persons can. THAT is what the Constitution actually says.
As intended, the Constitution establishes not an infinite, unrestricted, all-powerful government that has the right to intrude into everything in the world and into every citizen's private life and thoughts, forbidden to act only if the Constitution expressly forbids a given action. Exactly the contrary. The Constitution was intended to establish an EXTREMELY limited government that was FORBIDDEN to act unless EXPRESSLY authorized to act. Any right not expressly granted to government was REFUSED to government, and instead reserved to the people. You'd never know that by the pervasive dictatorship we now suffer in social matters. Government doesn't just lecture; it outlaws deviation from approved thought.
The insistence of government (including its servants in public education) and of media on pushing together people who want to be apart has made us all very angry with each other. It has promoted not peaceful coexistence but intergroup hatred and mutual loathing as one group invades another's space, and all groups are under assault by government. The traditional Western understanding that "Good fences make good neighbors" has been replaced by the Communist commandment that there must never be fences between people, ever, for any reason. Ever. Stripped of privacy and a place where they can "let down their hair", people have become ever more palpably oppressed. Society has become a pressure-cooker that occasionally explodes in riots and "hate crimes". But these little releases of steam don't stop the pressure-cooker from burning away our rights. And people resent each other when their wrath should be turned instead against a government that tells them they have to associate with people they want no part of. If only we all accepted that we all resent being told that we HAVE to associate with people we want nothing to do with, we could ALL UNITE to destroy government attempts to dictate private conscience.
Gay men are the worst victims of this constant assault upon the right of collective privacy. The races are still largely self-segregated, despite the best efforts of government and media to compel them to mix, but places for gay-men-only have almost vanished under the assault of governmental imposition and constant media suggestions that "the New Homosexual" LOVES women and can't stand to be away from them for thirty seconds. He identifies heart and soul with lesbians, adores faghags, and thinks of himself as "Queer", akin to "quaint" or "eccentric" a harmless, sexless, useless eunuch dominated by others.
The head of the "Gay MEN'S Health Crisis" is a WOMAN (tho that fact is carefully concealed on its website, which nonetheless reveals that nearly half its officers and board of directors are women). Isn't that astonishing? (For this discussion, we'll pass over the fact that this organization is an enemy of the world, and a special enemy of gay men because it insists that AIDS is a major concern for gay men, when it fact it has nothing to do with gay men. See "Everything Government Says About AIDS is False".)
Let me repeat that, because it's so astoundingly CRAZY! The director of the Gay MEN'S Health Crisis, dealing with homosexual men's most intimate sexual activities, is a WOMAN! Its website is filled with pictures of and information for women. The top right of the website has a form for information that reads "I am", followed by a dropdown menu in which appears AS THE DEFAULT, "a woman". If you call for information on "safer sex" (which you should NOT, because sex IS safe; "AIDS" is a drug injury, not a disease at all), you might very well have to speak to a WOMAN about your sexual activities with MEN. And the voice, to the world, of the "Gay MEN'S Health Crisis", its press officer, is a WOMAN! How on EARTH did this happen?
Well, gay men have been made to feel that they must always give women everything they want if they won't give them their bodies and lives. Women want to take over men's organizations? Fine. Just hand over your own organizations to women. What does it matter that there is noplace you can be alone with men? What does it matter that you are required to expose the most intimate parts of your life to women? You're SUPPOSED to do that if you're a man, because you're SUPPOSED to be heterosexual. If you won't live up to your responsibility to love women, you might at least support them financially and give them everything else they demand, right?
Wrong! Gay men have NO obligations to women whatsoever. None. We owe them NOTHING. And we have every right to tell them to get out of our lives, get off our backs, and stay AWAY from us. We don't WANT them. We don't NEED them. We want and need MEN, and there's no reason for us either to pretend we don't or to permit women to impose upon us in any way.
It shouldn't be necessary for us to push people out of our private lives and thoughts who don't belong there. We should be able to think only of people we want to think of, and not have to constantly push away people we don't want who keep pushing into our privacy. But it is necessary, and no one is on our side. All the other "gay" organizations are pushing women at us. Amazing, appalling, but true. To them, "homosexuality" means "lesbian and gay", and gay men must always be surrounded by women (altho of course lesbians are always to be allowed space to themselves, paid for by gay men). Any man who simply wants to be left alone with men is a lesbian enemy, to be destroyed -- humiliated, ridiculed, called "sick", "misogynistic", a "hater". If that's not you at all but you just want to be left alone with men, refuse to take this misrepresentation and abuse. It's not possible to think just happy, positive thoughts when you are constantly under assault. The first necessity is to win your right of privacy as a gay man. FIGHT BACK.
If this is the way you feel, you should join Homosexuals Intransigent! If you live in the New York area, and especially if you live in the Newark area, you can help us establish a comfortable, all-male situation for gay men, free from heterosexual constructs and impositions. A place where you don't have to think about women but can just think about men and a happy life with a man you love who loves you.
Perhaps we can establish a gay MEN'S center, where you can find MEN, ONLY, when you want to BE with men, only.
If this appeals to you, contact me at MrGayPride@aol.com. Let me know what you're interested in as regards an organizational structure, gay men's center, publications, whatever. Suggest membership types, dues amounts, and anything else that concerns you. I look forward to hearing from you.
Cordially, L. Craig Schoonmaker, President, Homosexuals Intransigent!; Webmaster, Mr. Gay Pride Website, Newark, New Jersey
(This is the end of this section.) [Go to the home page of the Mr. Gay Pride Website.]