GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Continue Gayly Forward

by

The first gay-topic book I ever read was titled, The Homo Handbook: Getting in Touch with Your Inner Homo: A Survival Guide for Lesbians and Gay Men, 1996 by Judy Carter. It was a humorous book, typical of the era, that approached the reality of being gay in the late 90’s with optimistic charm and energy. One of the memorable passages which today would read as proto-woke humor was about changing everyday language to be more gay and fun.

‘When giving directions, instead of saying, ‘Go straight ahead,’ say, ‘Continue gayly forward!’

25 years later the message seems more relevant than ever. When I think on what it means to be a gay person on the right, conservative, Republican, libertarian or wherever one finds themselves on the spectrum, it has become the very nature of gay identity itself that has become necessary to reaffirm. Long past are the days of American Dad style Log Cabin Republican ubiquity with the larger gay world, separated only by views on taxes and gun rights. Today we find ourselves considering an entirely new kind of gay rights movement.

Gender Identity has overtaken the LGBT world to such an extent they can no longer remember what being gay means. Being gay for modern privileged gays seems to mean activism for trans identity and rights, mixed in with a healthy dollop of intersectional racial identity. To be gay is to be a progressive activist and to be anything other than a progressive activist is to be guilty of bigotry, self-hatred and community shame.

Of course, that has always been an aspect of the gay community, long before it became the LGBT community and longer still before it deformed itself into the LGBTQQIAAP+ Federation of Identities. However, being progressive in 1996, as Carter lovingly described, was about personal acceptance and using that inner sense of love to encourage creative tolerance in those around you. It wasn’t about ideological domination, but merely a seat at the table.

Today we have the whole table and have mean girled everyone else away, as long as the BLM kids don’t need it to stand on for a protest.

Somewhere along the way being gay on the right moved from ‘I’m gay but that isn’t why I’m here’ to the last place in American society a person can freely and proudly be gay without judgment. Ironically its the conservatives who seem to be holding up the last remnants of 90’s gay flamboyance, drag culture and the golden rule of individuality and freedom of expression. The gay movement has come to rely on the conservative movement for survival.

In many ways I think we have mutually benefited one another. When looking across the conservative spectrum, we see many more prominent gay people than you’d otherwise expect, several trans people too. Many of the most vocal rightwing voices are gay voices. We offer access to the contemporary world in a way conservatives have struggled to sustain, even if that world is becoming less and less hospitable.

So when I begin to wonder what purpose gay conservatives have any longer, considering every policy goal from the early Log Cabin movement well into the 2000’s has been accomplished, it comes down to the idea of survival of the individual. In many ways there is no gay community any longer. Only gay people exiled from the Cyber Punk 2077 dystopian wasteland of LGBTQIAP/BIPOC misery and fear. There is no conservative movement either, only what’s left of humanity that still believes individuality and freedom mean something more than symbolic equality or positive statistical social outcomes.

We find ourselves stranded outside the city together, not wishing to return, but having nowhere else to go. Our ‘movement’ is one of personal liberation from Puritan progressive authoritarianism and it doesn’t matter who we are married to any longer. We just want to be free and we need each other to rebuild a society that values freedom over safety and superficial social equality.

My message for all of us has come down to ‘Continue Gayly Forward,’ as we all must refuse to be personally or publicly forced back into a closet of hiding who we really are. Whether that means feeling safe to homeschool your child to attending church to declining to participate in gender identity madness, we are all fighting for our right to free expression and independence, together.

Continue Gayly Forward, my friends. If I have to put on a wig and heels and march down the street waving the new flag of freedom to get us there, I’ve already got the perfect dress for the occasion.

It must suck to be Out

by

Is “Out Magazine” the home of depressed, dour scolds? They’ve been popping that way lately, but you be the judge.

First, they laid it on thick about Milo’s supposed low book sales:

Nobody is Buying Milo Yiannopoulos’ Memoir, Dangerous…

In today’s fake news, alt-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos is claiming his book, Dangerous, has sold more than 100,000 copies.

The problem with that number is that it’s not real. Nielsen Bookscan, which monitors book sales through almost all outlets, has reported book sales for the former Breitbart editor are much, much lower. Since launching on July 4, Dangerous has sold 18,268 copies in the US and 152 in the UK…

A google search shows other left-wing outlets, like Salon and The Guardian, joining in the schadenfreude.

The problem is, their numbers are shaky. Milo is selling fine. He’s entering the best-seller lists at anywhere from #5 to #1; the first 100k run is spoken for and they’re printing more; Amazon has to ship his book slow (when they even have it). As to the 152 UK copies, the book isn’t even on sale there; a minimum of 152 UK buyers paid for international shipping. Fake News, indeed.

Next, via Breitbart, Out Magazine Encourages Readers to ‘Drop’ Gay Republican Friends

“We drop friends all the time for a whole variety of reasons—they messed with our loves lives, they lied, they weren’t supportive—so why do some people think it’s such an outlandish idea to dump them for their political views?” asked actor, singer, and writer Michael Musto in his column for OUT Magazine…

Musto goes on to admit that his social media experience has been more “gratifying” since he’s decided to block any user who disagrees with him…

Here’s a clue for you, Out: By all means, drop us. Here on the liberty-loving Right, we do believe in freedom of association – and we won’t miss you in the least 😉

OMG!

by

On a fun note…Milo had a Coming Out Conservative event in New York.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-l-imvfZwY[/youtube]

I’m sure GP readers can relate to idea that nowadays, it is MUCH harder to come out as conservative than as gay.

Europe will be speaking German

by

…at some point, I predict. For now, they’re simply abandoning English.

The more that countries leave the EU (except Germany), the larger Germany looms in it.

Different subject (via Instapundit and Betsy Newmark): It seems that al Qaeda has gone politically-correct, or rather, what the Left would consider racially-correct:

Lone wolf jihadists should target white Americans so no one mistakes their terror attacks for hate crimes unrelated to the cause of radical Islam, Al Qaeda writes in the latest edition of its online magazine.

Sadly, we must consider what this portends for future tragic massacres by ISIS / al Qaeda of the U.S. gay community.

  • Will they again target gays? (from their Islamist gay-hatred and/or the tendency of ‘visible’ gays to be white)
  • Or grant us a sort of ‘exemption’? (so that the meaning of their next attack can’t be obscured, as the Gay Left obscured the Islamist nature of Omar Mateen’s attack)

Discuss.

Things We Condemn – and expect our opponents to condemn

by

So, this post is written by Jeff; but I may say we/us/our in the following, meaning that I’m pretty sure that other GP authors would agree with me.

From time to time, trolls show up in GayPatriot’s comments section: people who are here not to provide new info or discuss anything for real, but only to throw accusations. They are usually left-wing. It’s fun, because they so often provide evidence for our points about how the Left thinks (or rather, doesn’t think).

You can tell a troll because his accusations are illogical. He usually shows little understanding of our viewpoints as the writers of GP, which may differ among us on some issues, but which are always rooted in our respect for human life including liberty (human freedom).

For example, if you understood anything about our viewpoints, you would know that we condemn violence^^ against gays and lesbians. And against women. And against black people or any minority. We condemn physical violence against anybody who isn’t a perpetrator of physical violence, because we condemn all physical violence that isn’t necessary for self-defense. No peaceful citizen should have to live in fear for his or her physical safety.

Likewise, we condemn anyone who -calls for- violence^^ against gays and lesbians, against women, or against anybody else who hasn’t committed criminal violence. To our way of thinking, we shouldn’t have to say the preceding, because it should be SO OBVIOUS that it flows from our principles. But if it’s important to you that we say it: there it is. Easy to say. Done.

It’s an example of something so basic that we would expect any commenter on GP who wants to be taken seriously to feel the same way. A similar example of something basic would be condemning violence against children – including the sexual exploitation of minors, such as child pornography or pedophilia**.

Rejecting the sexual exploitation of minors is so obvious and basic to being a decent human being that a person should not normally be asked to condemn pedophilia – but, if she is asked to, it should be quite easy for her to say “Of course I condemn it – Done.”

The thing is: When it comes to the Gay Left, and because the Gay Left sometimes tolerates NAMBLA or promotes certain individuals who do condone sex with minors, it may be legitimate to ask the person to condemn it. And when they condemn it, that’s good. You got your answer, and you move on to other topics.

At this point, a gay leftie might say “But then we’re right to ask you if you condemn violence against gays!! Because you tolerate or associate with Christians, and Christians promote or condone violence against gays!!!1!11!1!”

And the answer is: No, Christians don’t. Of course you can find some crazy/fringe person who happens to call themselves “Christian” and calls for violence against lesbians or gays; but the key words there are “crazy” and “fringe”. The words apply because the real world is different. In the real world, all major denominations of Christianity reject violence against gays.

But, sadly, it is not equally true that all major Gay Left groups, Pride parades, etc. shun NAMBLA and condemn anyone who has sex with teenage boys. Sadly, no.

All this came up in a recent GP thread. A leftie commenter asked me if I condemn violence against gays, and/or anyone calling for violence against gays. I replied readily that I do.

Thinking that I was throwing the guy a softball, I said, now you can reciprocate my example by condemning pedophilia, right? He couldn’t or wouldn’t. Instead, he claimed that Christian leaders typically call for violence against gays. I demanded contemporary examples – and the one example that he provided (after some stalling and further hand-waving) was just a fringe nutcase, a worthless example.

To summarize.

  1. We (authors at Gay Patriot) condemn violence^^ against gays. (and always have)
  2. We condemn anyone who promotes or calls for violence^^ against gays. (and we always have)
  3. We condemn pedophilia**. (and always have)
  4. We find these things easy to say, when we are challenged about it.
  5. We think that any decent person should find these things easy to say, if they are challenged.
  6. We do NOT normally want people to be challenged on these things, in GP comments. (Why not? For staying on topic, for goodwill / presumption of innocence, etc.)
  7. But, if a troll is going to make challenges on these things, then he or she may expect to be challenged back – and had better come up with the right answers. As we do.
  8. In the future, when we are challenged, we may simply refer the troll back to this post.

(^^Violence meaning: real violence, which of course is physical violence.)

(**Pedophilia broadly also including hebephilia/ephebophilia, the sexual exploitation of teenagers or of any/all minors.)

More on hoaxers, the Knockout Game, and self-inflicted HIV

by

John Hayward at Human Events reviews all three. Here’s the state of play:

  • Persecution of lesbian NJ server still a hoax
  • Knockout Game still all too real
  • and the World Health Organization (WHO) still muddying the waters about people who self-inflict HIV, as there have indeed been some cases (just nothing like half of all new HIV cases in Greece, as the WHO had originally told people).

As to the Knockout Game, Hayward links Thomas Sowell, who says:

The New York authorities describe a recent series of such attacks and, because Jews have been singled out in these attacks, are considering prosecuting these assaults as “hate crimes.” …this “knockout game” has been played for years by young black gangs in other cities and other states, against people besides Jews — the victims being either whites in general or people of Asian ancestry. Attacks of this sort have been rampant in St. Louis. But they have also occurred in Massachusetts, Wisconsin and elsewhere. In Illinois the game has often been called “Polar Bear Hunting” by the young thugs, presumably because the targets are white…

“White Girl Bleed A Lot”…a book by Colin Flaherty…documents both the racial attacks across the nation and the media attempts to cover them up, as well as the local political and police officials who try to say that race had nothing to do with these attacks. Chapter 2 of the 2013 edition is titled, “The Knockout Game, St. Louis Style.” So this is nothing new, however new it may be to some in New York, thanks to the media’s political correctness.

Sounds like a ‘social phenomenon’, to me. At any rate, many of the attacks are on video (and/or documented in police reports) and, as such, are facts that can’t be wished away.

Now it’s Greek bug-chasers

by

UPDATE: (thanks Peter in the comments): The WHO has reversed itself on this:

“The [offending] sentence should read, ‘Half of the new HIV cases are self-injecting and out of them few are deliberately inflicting the virus’.”

“This was just a gross editing error for which the WHO apologises,” said its spokesman, Gregory Hartl.

Good for the Greeks! Now, if the other reports about bug chasers in the UK and the US have been retracted or disproved, that would also be interesting and please let us know in the comments.

As if to follow-on to my earlier post, “UK bug chasers: America’s future?”, comes this sad report from the World Health Organization, page 112:

Case study: countries’ experiences of financial crisis – Greece

Suicides rose by 17% between 2007 and 2009 and to 25% in 2010, according to unofficial 2010 data (398). The Minister of Health reported a further 40% rise in the first half of 2011…Homicide and theft rates have doubled. HIV rates and heroin use have risen significantly, with *about half of new HIV infections being self-inflicted to enable people to receive benefits of €700 per month* and faster admission on to drug-substitution programmes. Prostitution has also risen…

Emphasis added. In pursuing the cradle-to-grave Welfare State, Europe has created a society of smothering government regulation, taxes, “benefits” and controls where:

  • People can no longer get ahead, or even survive, in the private economy.
  • People can survive if they qualify for government-paid benefits.

Is it any wonder that economic crisis results? And that, in the midst of the crisis, some people will do anything to qualify for government-paid benefits?

To escape the trap, Europe must do the opposite. It must dismantle the Welfare State, creating a society of freedom where most people can’t get money from government, and can survive, or even get ahead, in the private economy.

Via New Scientist and ZH.

UK bug chasers: America’s future?

by

A commentor (thanks V) points us to this July 2013 article from the UK, on the practice of deliberate self-infection with HIV:

The reckless practice, known as bug chasing, started in the US as a bizarre means of getting a ­sexual high from risk-taking.

Now, according to one man who willingly caught the virus, hundreds of men in the UK are introducing themselves on online forums, Face­book groups and Twitter.

Many then meet up and try to transmit the potentially life-threatening virus, which attacks the ­immune system weakening the body’s ability to fight disease.

Some bug-chasers actually claim the virus gives them a better quality of life because of the medication they subsequently have to take.

Nick, 30, an admin worker from the Midlands, said: “I feel fit as a fiddle. I feel full of energy and healthier as a result of being on my medication.

“I get my liver function tests every three months, my cholesterol tested regularly and I get loads of general health checks so if there are any underlying conditions I know straight away. Even better, I get it all on the NHS.”

Last year, 73,659 people in the UK were treated for HIV – 43 per cent of them gay or bisexual men – a rise of 58 per cent over the last 10 years.

You can read the rest.

Needless to say, such behavior is deplorable for its nihilism. It embodies contempt for self and society alike. It is anti-life.

But for these men, having their behavior deplored is part of the thrill. In thrall to sex addiction as well as their nihilism, they ‘get off’ on doing and being the worst things that their society will peaceably reward (pay) them to do and to be.

What enables their behavior is the payment: the socialized medicine. These men are partly rational. Not completely; for instance, the one man’s supposition that HIV medications are healthy is not rational. But these men have seen that a socialized (and still somewhat wealthy or ‘First World’) society will give them lots of medical care that they have not earned and do not merit.

These men have gauged, correctly, that their society will give them the best care possible, if they inflict some sort of manageable and tolerable medical condition on themselves. Consciously or not, they are ‘playing’ the socialized medical system. That is partly (not entirely) the fault of the system itself: socialized systems for private goods always warp a society’s incentives in some way, and should not exist to begin with.

Morally speaking, these men have a suicide-like ‘right’ to get HIV if they really want to; but no right to have government forcing the rest of their society to pay their way. Yet their government does force the rest of society to pay their way. And so there are enough of these men around to start making a social phenomenon of it.

(NB: Spelling fixes, phrase/wording edits, etc. after initial publication.)

The Dawn Davenport Presidency

by

By way of Michelle Malkin’s excellent website Twitchy, I’ve learned of two great hashtag nicknames for Obama and his administration in the past few days: #PresidentStompyFoot and #SpiteHouse.  As appropriate and amusing as those are, in thinking about his behavior, I’ve come up with another one lately which I like to imagine is just as good: President Cha-Cha Heels.

The reference, for those who don’t recognize it, is to Dawn Davenport, the spoiled teenager in John Waters’ 1974 film Female Trouble.  Although the film is one of Waters’ earlier efforts and is therefore full of the sort of rude, crude, and just plain gross humor and incidents which assured it an NC-17 rating, in some respects it is a useful parable about the evils of modern liberalism.

Here’s a brief synopsis: Dawn Davenport wants nothing more than a pair of “cha-cha heels” for Christmas, but when her parents refuse to get her any on the grounds that “nice girls don’t wear cha-cha heels,” she throws her mother into the Christmas tree, runs away from home, gets pregnant, and eventually becomes a criminal before being discovered by Donald and Donna Dasher, a couple who loves to photograph women committing crimes.  They make her famous, and she becomes even more notorious as a result.  The Dashers are the sort of liberals who embrace transgression as art and dysfunction as beauty, until Dawn goes berserk and then they try to pretend that they had nothing to do with it.

So what does this have to do with Obama?  Well, our petulant President seems rather like Dawn Davenport throwing a tantrum because he didn’t get any cha-cha heels to wear with his Mom jeans.

As Thomas Sowell wrote in an excellent article that appeared last Friday: “You cannot blame other people for not giving you everything you want. And it is a fraud to blame them when you refuse to use the money they did vote, even when it is ample to pay for everything else in the government.”

In any case, Obama doesn’t care.  He didn’t get his cha-cha heels, and so he’s determined to “walk all over you,” in the words of this catchy tune inspired by the story of Dawn Davenport and performed by Eartha Kitt and Bronski Beat:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vGAa4Fdww8[/youtube]

Unfortunately, like the Dashers, his enablers in the press and the liberals who voted for him are rallying around him as though there’s nothing offensive, disturbing, or troubling about his dishonest and spiteful behavior.