.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;} Note: This website has no control over the ads placed on it. Caveat emptor.

Friday, June 03, 2016

 

Appeal to Gay Militants: Would You Like to Send a Joint Message to Attack "Transgender/ed" Madness?


[Note: I initially conceived of this as an email to a friend and ally of DECADES, but realized he might be too busy to devote much time to the project I outline below. So I recast it as an appeal to other gay militants.]
+
I have wanted, for weeks, since the world erupted in lunatic indignation about North Carolina's perfectly sensible and absolutely defensible law about people having to use the lavatory and locker room of their actual gender, to attack the insane reaction to that law, showing how good hearts have created appallingly bad public policy. But I get so ANGRY that I can't develop calm, reasoned argumentation. I thought perhaps you [the particular gay activist I originally had in mind] — of calmer head and more dispassionate editorial disposition — and I together could generate cogent points that will show dopy people the actually vicious nature of their insistence that crazy people should be left insane rather than encouraged to get help.
+
We [my long-term activist friend and I] are very well positioned, thru our distinguished history in the gay-rights movement, to show people that there is a big difference between accepting that men can be powerfully attracted sexually, emotionally, and esthetically to men, and women could be similarly attracted to women, and the astonishingly insane notion that a woman can be a man or a man can be a woman — just because they want to be.
+
I'd like to make points such as that people are wildly mistaken if they think that if only society adjusts to lunatics' delusions, deluded people would be happy, because good people want people to be happy. But lunacy does NOT equate with happiness. Rather, all lunatics are UNHAPPY, usually abysmally unhappy, and in many cases, nearly suicidally unhappy. If we want people to be happy, then, we must help free them from insane delusions that cannot ever make them happy but will always keep them MISERABLE. It is not society's rejection that makes them unhappy, but their own rejection of their own nature. At end, it really doesn't matter if all the world accepts you as something you are not if YOU don't accept yourself as what you ARE.
+
That is where the organization I founded on April 1st, 1969 differed from EVERY OTHER "gay" organization during that turbulent time. I founded Homosexuals Intransigent! ("HI!"), as a single-sex, gay-male organization, not so much to change straight people's attitudes toward gay people as to change gay people's attitudes toward themselves and, crucially, each other. It was obvious to me that gay men's happiness depended upon each other, and upon accepting our nature and exulting in it. So when other organizations were demonstrating in the streets and sitting-in at newspaper or magazine offices, HI! was publishing materials (many of them still available today, online, and still enormously important, esp. for young gay men) that helped gay men accept themselves, appreciate each other, and come to realize that they had a FUTURE, if only they accepted it, with hope and optimism.
+
We who are long-time gay activists need to show how a mistake we should have corrected decades ago, in accepting the bizarre notion that gay men and lesbian women are the same, and that we have to be "tolerant" of other "sexual minorities" — because we "are", after all, all "perverts" — resulted in the legitimacy of gay men's feelings spilling over to people who were never legitimate. We felt alone in the world, and cast about for allies who might work with us to do us some good. Alas, we chose our alliances badly, and the whole world, gay and straight alike, is suffering now from our refusal in the 1960s to disown "transsexuals" and "transgendered" people. Nostra culpa. Well, it's not exactly our fault, because neither I nor my organization, Homosexuals Intransigent!, ever bought into the nonsense. But we didn't fite to end it either. That would have been rude, and gay men in those days wouldn't want to be seen as rude toward people who were willing to ally with us.
+
I have always seriously doubted (no: actually and actively DISBELIEVED) that ANYONE really believes that they are of the opposite gender, because if they really believed something so insane they probably could not function in the real world in any regard. It would be like someone seeing the entire universe backwards, and trying to navigate, in such a thru-the-looking-glass universe, complicated further by its being upside-down, among the rest of us, who see everything right. But it might even be worse, as tho colors were reversed, and red traffic lites were blue, green were fuchsia, and on and on thru one distortion of reality after another. (I did not choose those colors at random but created hilited text in those initial colors, then hilited those texts again and thus actually saw their colors reversed in my word-processing program.)
+
Madness is rarely self-limiting.
+
I think we need to bring home to people the abusive nature of misguided laws and executive actions that now mandate that a locker room full of 30 men in various states of undress, and many of them completely naked, should have to tolerate a woman's walking into their midst as of right! The idea that men have to permit their sexual privacy to be DESTROYED and themselves to be sexually violated and humiliated, is absolutely unacceptable to any sane society, and only psychological castrati would tolerate that. Alas, the United States has become a completely castrated society. It seems to me that in the entire heterosexual-male population of the United States, there aren't THREE working balls. Do straight men enjoy being psychosexually castrated? Or would they like to feel themselves real men again?
+
These are the kinds of arguments I think that we as gay men need to make to end the insane confusion among straight people about gender. It is bizarre that WE used to be confused, but now THEY are.
+
I think someone, if not me alone or you [my friend] alone or both of us together, MUST send out such messages to places like the Letters columns of The New York Times, Washington Post, Psychology Today, and other major media. Or we could send a press release announcing our indignant opposition to the current politically-correct lunacy, electronically to dozens, or even hundreds, of major media, a list of which we could easily, but not necessarily in mere hours, generate, focusing first on the most prestigious and influential mass media (newspapers, intellectual magazines, television networks and news channels), and then moving on to include the newspapers of the WORLD'S best-regarded colleges, learned societies in the social sciences, etc.
+
I am very indignant that gay men are being used by lunatics, in the form of absolutely invalid comparison, to justify self-destructive madness. I want crazy people to get help to free themselves from their mad delusions, which are assuredly (almost?) always sprung from gender confusion caused by gay and lesbian people's being raised to be the opposite of what they are.
+
The astounding madness we see now is an unanticipated consequence of The Movement's refusal to tell gender-confused losers thru the many years since the very start of The Movement in 1950, that they are out of their minds and need help. We didn't tell them to put the hormone treatments aside. We didn't tell them forcefully enuf that there is no such thing as "sex-change" — or, more recently, "sexual reassignment" — surgery. We can take upon ourselves some of the blame for not helping enuf (tho of course I never accepted any of that crap, and always refused identification even with lesbians, whom we might regard as the mirror opposite of gay men; but opposites are not the same. Black is not white; left is not right; north is not south; and day is not night. I always understood that, and asserted it no matter how unpopular that made me among the sad, damaged losers who comprised the bulk of gay (and lesbian) people when we started our agitation for change.
+
We need society to understand that the preponderance of gay people were always "damaged goods", people who were severely distorted, even twisted, just by being raised in what appeared to them to be an entirely heterosexual 'world', even universe, in which they could not ever have a "proper place". So the only way they could fit in was by reconceiving themselves as "women", and finding simpletons enuf who would accept, at least to their face, their insane delusions, as to "enable" them to "believe" the utterly unbelievable. Even when these "transsexuals" — or whatever fad term popped up — knew full well that they were NOT what they would have preferred to be; and even when they knew, in their "heart", that they would ACTUALLY much prefer to be who and what they were but with the right to seek relationships (if only one nite) with the men they wanted, without having to pretend to be women, they didn't have the integrity or "intestinal fortitude" to face down the bigots to be themselves.
+
The further problem, of course, is that they understood that straight people did not mean to be mean in assuming that everybody was straight, and thus, out of consideration for straight people's tender sensibities, these sad, damaged gay men deformed themselves in preference to confronting straight people.
+
It's like a comedy of errors, except that there is no laughter. Gay men didn't want to hurt the feelings of their parents, siblings, schoolmates, etc., etc., etc., so tried to jimmy their way into the affections of everyone around them by pretending to be, or pretending to believe themselves to be, what would make it easier for everyone around them to accept: that they were "really" women. I do not for an instant believe that they really believed that. It was always a knowing lie they hoped OTHER people would believe, tho they knew, themselves, that it was always and only a lie.
+
In any case, you can see from the points I make above, the kinds of points I think SOMEBODY needs to make. We need to make straight people understand that their sympathies are seriously and hugely-destructively misplaced, and that when they sympathize with men who have been taught to hate their manhood, they are not helping but ATTACKING those men's quintessence, and "dissing" their manhood. The bulk of these simpletons never intended to attack and demean those sad, damaged people. But well-meaning but actually hugely destructive straight people need to be shown that what they SHOULD be doing is helping men who have been almost entirely stripped of their manhood, find it anew, assert it with pride, and, if they can't do that on their own, find the help they need to come to terms with their actual nature, and BE the men they ARE, biologically.
+
What say you? Would you find it congenial to work together to try to SMASH the madness? This is an appeal to all sane gay people but esp. to distinguished personages in The Movement of the 1960's and 70's, to see if we can form a working group to undo the terrible damage that has been done by people's generalizing away from sane extensions of logic to INSANE extensions of ILlogic. Let me know your thinking.

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

 

Pernicious "Transgender" Idiocy

(The following text comprises a discussion I just had by email with three gay friends in the New York/Newark Metropolitan Area.)
+
THERE is no such thing as a "transgendered" person. I seriously doubt that the gender-CONFUSED losers who PRETEND to think themselves as being of the opposite gender, believe for so much as a tenth of a second that they are REALLY of the opposite gender. If they really DO believe it, they are out of their minds (NOT out of their natural bodies) and need to be committed to a mental institution, to receive counseling, probably medication, and possibly even psychosurgery to shatter their insane delusions and enter the real world, in which gender is not optional nor self-selected, but something you are just plain stuck with, for having been irrefutably and unchangeably assigned before birth, just as is species. You can't choose your species; you can't choose your gender. Deal with it.
+
What has happened in this all-too-permissive and credulous country is that seriously disordered FAGGOTS, who were driven out of their minds by being raised from infancy in a society that did not make allowances for them, were driven out of their minds, to the point where they could not make any sense of the world, so allowed themselves to be persuaded by outsiders that any "deviation" from the heterosexual norm is both wrong and sensible, a logical absurdity, but who says that people driven out of their mind by intolerance of their essential nature are logical?
+
Making this all worse is the human tendency to generalize. Alas, people often lump together things that do NOT belong together. It is very difficult to comprehend a world of myriad differences, in which many things are unique, that is, not like anything else. Lumping things together reduces the number of things you have to deal with on their own terms, which makes it easier to comprehend the world, because once you group together bunches of individual things, you need no longer understand each to itself, but only as part of a broad category, and the number of such broad categories is immensely smaller than the number of things that cannot reasonably be lumped in with others (but are).
+
Unfortunately, many people lump together things that bear only specious resemblance to the other things they lump together in the same category. Drawing needful distinctions is more difficult than either accepting that many things they encounter have nothing to do with each other, or being careless as to what different things they choose to lump together. Making sensible distinctions when creating categories is a function of intelligence. The smarter the person, the more rationally s/he retains sensible distinctions when creating groups (and, more than incidentally, the more individual things they can accept as unique). In the process of creating groups / drawing group boundaries, a person must always be guided by the truism that the fact that one thing may be true does NOT in itself mean that anything in the same general vicinity — or way far away — is also true.
+
In this context, the fact that there are in reality men attracted sexually (and, by extension, if not immediately, emotionally) to men and women attracted similarly to women, in no way means that there are really people who are 'in the wrong body', an absolute impossibility, nor that "bisexuality" is an actual, healthy, courageous, and adult orientation.
+
To begin with, gay men and lesbians do not belong together, so there is no natural "community" that embraces the two utterly different groups, who start out intrinsically different and look in opposite directions. Bisexuals, infantile losers who must know that they are really homosexual but refuse to accept and commit to their actual nature, do not belong with either gay men or lesbians. And there is no such thing as a "transsexual" or "transgendered" person. It's all part of the same absurd tendency to generalize, which causes people to smash together things that just plain do not belong together. Making it all worse is the tendency of people who have been excluded from society to feel sorry for other people who have been excluded from acceptance by "normal" society, and thus tend to include people who just do not belong in their group. This can easily go wildly astray, as by identifying with criminals rather than their victims, because those 'poor people' (criminals) must have been treated badly, or they wouldn't treat others badly.
+
Gay activist Dan Savage was on Monday's Late Show with Stephen Colbert. and the stupid bastard at once ridiculed the inclusion of all kinds of incompatible groups in the "LGBTQ...[and many more groups] community" as a single entity, including sado-masochists, as tho they were all normal, healthy, and naturally related, if not even exactly the same(!), and also making fun of this all-inclusive "community" of people, who have essentially nothing to do with each other, either socially or logically. He ended up accepting the propriety of including them all in a single, hugely artificial "community"..
+
Dan Savage is a perfect example of a seriously damaged human being who, thru many years of being surrounded by a society that did not accept him, lost the ability to distinguish between things that ARE the same as against things that are NOT the same.
+

Wednesday, April 06, 2016

 

Correcting Ignorant Use of 'Queer' by Two Newark Art Venues


I created a post today in my "Newark USA" blog to correct two art galleries that have recently thrown around the word "queer" as tho that's just fine to do. Rather than reproduce that very long post (about 3,450 words, with 26 fotos) here, let me just link to it.

Friday, April 01, 2016

 

47th Anniversary


This post was extensively revised on April 3rd.

On April 1st, 1969, I founded Homosexuals Intransigent! as a recognized student organization at City College of New York. No fooling.
+
(CCNY was still the more common term then for what was soon to be known formally as the City College of the City University of New York. In any case, that was the oldests unit of the City University and, due to me, the first unit to have a gay-rights organization.)
+
As President of HI!, I attended the meeting of ERCHO, the Eastern Regional Conference of Homophile Organizations in Philadelphia the following autumn, at which we decided to create an annual commemoration of the Stonewall Riots of the prior summer. We established an interorganizational committee (the Christopher Street Liberation Day Umbrella Committee), comprising mainly New York City organizations, but also at least one Philadelphia group. I was the regular representative of Homosexuals Intransigent! to all those meetings, tho Robben Borrero also attended at least one.
+
The Committee decided to hold an annual march in Manhattan on the last Sunday in June, in that the Riots occurred on the last weekend of June. We worked out the logistics (e.g., the parade permit), and arranged for a Quaker group to train marshals to ensure that the march didn't turn into a violent demonstration. Then we addressed the issue of publicity. During that discussion, we decided to ask NY-based organizations to hold other events that weekend, to bring in as many people as possible from out-of-town to participate in the march. Then we decided to provide a unifying name for that group of events.
+
The first suggestion was "Gay Power Weekend". I didn't like that, so suggested, instead, "Gay Pride Weekend", which, to my astonishment was seconded immediately by Jerry Hoose of the NY Gay Liberation front and then approved unanimously without discussion. And that is how the phrase "Gay Power" entered the public consciousness, spreading from the weekend to the march to other events far and wide, making a huge change in people's thinking as regards homosexuality, first, their own, then to everyone's, everywhere on Earth.
+
I felt that "Gay Power" could raise hackles on the part of much, or even most, of straight society, and as a matter of simple fact, not only did gay people NOT have any power but they couldn't even ASPIRE to power almost anywhere. But pride was within the control of the individual, pride in himself. No one else had to know, until self-esteem forced people to become more accepting of themselves and pretty much burst out when people were ready to assert themselves. The pursuit of gay power was bound to fail in the short run, but hearing the phrase "Gay Pride" in one's own head made an impression immediately, whereupon it could start to produce effects immediately, and ultimately lead people to the openness that would change social attitudes, as people "came out" to family and friends, and celebrities also came out, which gradually changed society's perceptions and encouraged even more people to come out, as caused ever more people to change their perceptions.
+
It took a long time for the phrase "Gay Pride" to work its magic in society, because it took a long time for significant numbers of people to feel enuf better about themselves as to be willing to go public, and then only to family, good friends, strangers, and then to the more dangerous groups, employers, police, and local government. Once a few people did become open about their orientation to everyone, many more people heard about their becoming open without being destroyed, which emboldened them to become open themselves. But as the numbers of fully-open people increased, the numbers of people who heard about their openness hugely increased, as then further enormously increased the number of other people willing to be known as gay. On and on it went, until society in general had to admit that homosexuality was very common, and said nothing about a person's worth or morality, only about their sexual orientation, and it became very difficult for bigotry born or ignorance to maintain itself in the presence of knowledge of the reality.
+
So here we are, 46 years after the organizing committee for the weekend of events around the first march celebrating Stonewall, and society has found that variation in sexual orientation is just another form of "diversity", no more significant than race or language. Older forms of discrimination, such as against left-handedness (the word "sinister" derived from the Latin term for left(-handedness, and a lot of people in days or yore thought that there was indeed something sinister about left-handed people, and even when society abandoned that association, schools continued for decades to try to retrain left-handed people to write and do other things with their right hand, putting forward the rationale that they would have an easier time in life if they could switch hands. It was for their own good, you see, to try to change them. Sure it was.
+
Sentiment about left-handedness has changed drastically within my lifetime (I am now 71 years old), so much so that in 2008, both major-party candidates for President, Barack Obama and John McCain, were left-handed. Let's see how long it is until a gay man can be taken seriously as a candidate for President. From at latest age 11, I always wanted to be President, but knew that such an aspiration was impossible until social attitudes toward homosexuals changed. So I changed them. Unfortunately, changing those attitudes took so long in terms of a single person's lifetime that I am now too old to run, in that when, for instance, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton were racking up political experience, I was still occupied in fiting for a change in perceptions of gay people. Ah, well, there may be somebody out there who would like to be the first openly-gay President who is now free to pursue his own political ambitions for not having to fite a battle that we who were active in the "homophile" movement of the 1950s thru 1970s fought for them.
+
(Some of the writings of Homosexuals Intransigent! from the Sixties and Seventies are available online at the "Mr. Gay Pride" website. They still have much to say to gay people, esp. kids who are just beginning to accept that they are gay.)

Wednesday, June 24, 2015

 

Jenner and Dolezal, Liars Pure and Simple

This is a copy of a post to my political blog.

Bruce Jenner Is a Man, Rachel Dolezal Is White — and the Truth Will Out

I do not for an instant believe that Bruce Jenner truly believes that he is a woman. He is just playing some kind of demented game with reality, all the while he knows full well that it is not possible that he could have been 'born in the wrong body', have become an Olympic Gold Medalist in the MEN'S Decathlon, and have fathered SIX children if he had 'really' been a woman. It is not possible that he could have reached the age of 65 while maintaining an insane delusion. He CANNOT really believe he is a woman. So why does anyone on Earth treat HIM as a WOMAN?
+
Media that call Bruce Jenner a woman are guilty of a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY, and should be held to account. They are encouraging a lunatic to have himself surgically mutilated in a grotesque, irreversible operation. They are little better than the Nazi concentration-camp doctor Josef Mengele, who performed medically unnecessary surgeries upon prisoners that had no scientific basis. Mengele killed uncounted numbers of helpless people. The neo-Nazis of today's cheering section for mutilation of gender-confused lunatics have not as yet killed anyone, but it is decidedly true that if a loon who has himself castrated during a period of delusion should fall into profound depression over his terrible mistake, and what was done to him by people who should have known better, he might very well commit suicide. Indeed, I would be very surprised if NO post-operative "transgendered" "woman" has NOT killed himself. Perhaps people who find themselves in such a position should instead kill the people who castrated him, and others who first worked to induce him to have himself castrated and even more invasively and thoroughly mutilated by "doctors" unworthy of the name. That would shake things up, wouldn't it?.
+
When I heard all the clamor encouraging, indeed INCITING Bruce Jenner to have himself castrated, I was livid. As the man who in 1970 offered the term "Gay Pride" as it is now used, I knew the horrendous pressures that some of these men were subjected to, esp. in some ethnic and religious communities in which they were told that only a woman could properly have sex with a man, and which were willing to play an appalling game with reality whereby a castrated man could be accepted as a woman. I once had sex with a very cute gay man who was actually thinking of having "sex-change" surgery performed upon him, despite the MANifest fact that he was sexually very manly. How do people get so crazy? (I hope he did not go thru with such mutilation, and want to believe he came to his senses before he caused something awful to be done to him, but I did not keep in touch. Let's say he woke up in time.
+
Well, some people are just not intellectually rigorous nor psychologically tuf. They let themselves be twisted around other people's little finger, and bullied into things they should never permit but fite with every bit of strength they can bring to the battle. But they don't, because they defeat themselves in going over to the enemy — THEIR enemies — before they could even begin to fite. I have never understood people who allow themselves to be bullied. My father taught me never to put up with such crap, and my older brother Alan gave me good advice about how to fite back against a physical bully. Today. however, we hear of young people so utterly gutless and useless that they allow themselves to be "bullied" over the Internet, not even in person; by mere evanescent words, not even physical attack. How appallingly stupid some people are! That does not mean they deserve to be terrorized into having themselves castrated, or into killing themselves. But I learned decades ago that people who feel useless go out of their way to PROVE they are useless, and so buy into all the crap that others try to inflict on them. There's not much that people who feel worthless can do about their feelings of worthlessness. It is for outsiders, esp. but not just in helping professions, to slice thru their negativity, as THO with a scalpel, but not REALLY with a scalpel.
+
I have, for DECADES, been hugely indignant about the Castration Conspiracy that has worked to have gay men castrated and surgically camouflaged as to misrepresent them as 'women'
+
When I heard of this Bruce Jenner lunacy, and other media conspiracies in recent weeks, in several major media that one would have THOUGHT legitimate, I was so agitated and furious that I couldn't write straight, so had to put the issue aside while I considered what I could say without foaming at the mouth.
+
One of the points that I knew I needed to stress was, what other insane delusions would society foster? What, I most relevantly considered, would society think of someone who wanted to change his or her RACE? Would society be as understanding, and supportive? Would society urge people who wanted to be of a different race to have their skin stripped from every part of their body and replaced with skin more appropriate to another race? Would society encourage black people to slice off the scalp that produced offending "kinky" hair and replace it with straight hair? I had thought it likely that the typical self-despising loser who wanted to change his or her race would be a black person who was tired of being treated as a second-class citizen and consigned to a more difficult life because of residual racism — even tho, we must ALWAYS remember, the current President of the United States is black, and won TWO terms in office, so racism is actually more a problem within the mind of black people with a race problem than a problem of real disadvantages imposed upon blacks by whites, Latinos, and Orientals. A relative few very-lite-skinned black people have "passed" as white for well over a century. Without surgery.
+
Then, within the past few weeks, a race-change issue actually did arise —a veritable "godsend" for my case, tho of course I don't believe in God, because I'm not retarded — when a bizarre, self-denying white woman was exposed as misrepresenting herself as black! Once her deception was revealed, and one of her black adoptive brothers blew the lid wide open in telling media that she asked him to go along with her deception, she did not back down but upped the stakes and claimed to be "transracial", a clear misapproprration of that term, which theretofore had been used only to refer to adoption of a child of one race by a family of another race. Plainly, Ms. Dolezal (whose last name is apparently to be pronounced dóe.la.zhàal, tho I can't imagine in what language that would be the proper pronunciation; I know quite a lot about the sound systems of major European languages, and in NONE of them is Z pronounced as ZH) was trying to make herself sound 'legitimate', because we are supposed to accept that a "transgendered" person is legitimate and thus entitled to make the preposterous and disgraceful assertion that they are not what their genetics plainly say they are. But, you see, it's not what one IS, biologically! No, it's whatever one wants to BE that matters. So Ms. Dolezal is 100% Caucasian? So what? If she "identifies" as black, she IS black, right? Wrong.
+
Race is not optional. Gender is not optional. Species is not optional. And REALITY is not optional.
+
If someone says he is a werewolf, do we accept that? Or do we assume he is playing some stupid game with reality? Or that he is seriously insane if he really believes it?
+
What if someone asserts that he is a flying squirrel? Do we then surgically connect, permanently, one of those gliding suits that daredevils who do not value their life use to glide for long distances after jumping off a clifftop?
+
If someone claimed to be a refrigerator, would we install a little lite at the back of their throat that goes on every time he opens his mouth and off every time it closes?
+
How much ridiculous nonsense do we accept, and when do we say NO! NO MORE NONSENSE. NO MORE LIES, and then strip away all the shams, all the pretenses, all the delusions to force people to deal with REALITY?
+
Fortunately, society has partially redeemed itself in refusing to take Ms. Dolezal's lies seriously, but rejected them out of hand. Why won't society do that with Bruce Jenner's lies?
+
I'm actually a little surprised that Ms. Dolezal's scam has produced so little discussion of "passing" as a person of a different race. I have seen only one commentary, by "guest commentator" Carmelo Rivera in the Orlando Sentinel, which completely misses the mark and makes the contemptible assertion that everyone who abandons a narrow cultural or racial identity instead to participate in the Nation's melting pot is "passing". That laffable dopy column contains this prize drivel:
[Ms. Dolezal] transcended her white origins, as millions of Latinos and African-Americans and other Americans of other ethnicities have transcended their own cultures by becoming immersed in new behaviors and cultural traits.
+
What Dolezal did is an American phenomenon, and in so many ways, we are all passing and internalizing the American way.
That is not just ridiculous, but contemptible, idiotic dishonesty. No reputable publication should have published such off-the-wall-nuts nonsense. Ms. Dolezal did not "transcend" her "white origins". And she did not make a CULTURAL claim but a RACIAL claim. She LIED. And got caught. Mr. Rivera would have us believe that when a kid of Irish or German ancestry eats pizza or General Tso's chicken, he is "passing" for Italian or Chinese!
+
Gender (or perhaps we should, for the moment, write that Jennder) is not subject to change. It is intrinsic to the person, marked by a specific chromosomal configuration in each and every one of the billions of cells in his or her body. XX = female. XY = male. PERIOD. It doesn't matter whether you wear clothes intended for the opposite sex, or makeup, or long hair, or have surgery performed to lie to people. If your chromosomal configuration is XY, you are MALE. End of discussion. There are no "subtleties" or allowances to be made to what people WANT. You ARE what you ARE. Period.
+
"Transgendered" people are all LIARS, pure and simple. They know full well that they are NOT what they WISH they were, but what their chromosomes say they are. So when they demand that society "recognize" that their "reality" is nonbiological, society has the obligation to say NO! Sex is chromosomal, PERIOD. No ifs, ands, or buts. RACE is biological. You don't have the genetic markers for a particular race? Then you are NOT of that race. PERIOD.
+
Let's talk for a moment about lies being taken as truths, and a heterosexual man being dragged into a homosexual relationship against his will because he was fooled by a "transgendered" person who induced him to think that he was a "woman". How is that fair? "False advertising" doesn't cover it. A straight man who learns he has been having homosexual sex with a surgical "drag queen" can be permanently damaged, psychologically, not just by the experience but also by the feeling that a monster has made a FOOL of him. How readily can a man fooled in such a shocking way, recover? Frankly, I don't think there is a single jury in the Nation that would convict him if he KILLED that "transgendered" liar who humiliated him. I sure wouldn't vote to convict if I were on that jury.
+
Reality matters. Sanity matters. Honesty matters. Gender matters. And yes, even race matters, tho less by far than gender. People should be proud of who and what they are. That's why I offered the motto "Gay Pride", because it is important for gay men to be proud of being men who love men, want men, and want to spend time with men, and not just sexually. Gay men's manhood is always under assault, by simpleminded and intolerant people who need a translator. Yes, that's what they need, a translator that allows them to see other people's lives as being pretty much the same as theirs. Just as a speaker of English cannot make much sense from the speech and literature of, say, the Hispanic world, if it is translated into good English, they can immediately appreciate it.
+
Strip away all the anxiety around sexual orientation, and let straight people see gay people as, for almost all intents and purposes, exactly the same as they are, and everything will be fine. It won't be necessary for straight people to play moronic games in which cross-dressing, or surgical cross-dressing, is necessary to permit men to have intimate contact, even long-term love relationships with men. That in turn will allow "transgendered" men to accept that the reason they are attracted to men is that they are HOMOSEXUAL, not "women". Everything falls into place once a sexual-orientation-translator is put into operation.
+
Let us now return to the incredibly sad case of the terribly confused loser, Bruce Jenner, who said this, in an exchange with Diane Sawyer of ABC News:
"I am not gay. As far as I know, I am heterosexual. I've never been with a guy, I've always been married, raising kids."

But Sawyer pressed on, asking, "If you're assigned male and you become a female, but you like women, are you a lesbian?"

"You're going back to the sex thing and it's apples and oranges," Jenner responded. "Sexuality is who you're attracted to, but gender identity is about who you identify with."

"So much confusion," added Jenner.

Sawyer later said {via] voiceover that ABC News spoke to both ["]transgender["] people and experts who explained that "sexual desire and gender are two different things."

"Right now," says Jenner, "let's just say I'm asexual."

"There’s two different things here," Jenner explained. “Sexuality is who you personally are attracted to — who turns you on — male or female. But gender identity has to do with who you are as a person and your soul, and who you identify with inside.
"So much confusion"? For you, maybe, you stupid, stupid loser. So much BULLSH* is what it really comes down to for everyone who is NOT a stupid, stupid loser and liar. NONE of this insane confusion would exist if it were not directly tied into sexual desire. No other force could impel people to confusion about what they are and what they want. It IS all about sex, and to deny it persuades NO ONE. Bruce Jenner wants men, DESPERATELY. HOW he wants to TAKE men, sexually, is of less consequence than the simple reality that he wants to be craved, desired, wanted, TAKEN by men. NOTHING but sexual desire could overwhelm his sense of reality. NOTHING. There is NOTHING unique about Bruce Jenner's sexual desires. Hundreds of millions of men all around this planet want sex with men. Given the right to do so, ALL of them WILL have sex with men,and LOVE IT. Essentially all "straight" men know that there IS some man out there somewhere, that they would gladly have sex with. It is because legal and religious authorities KNOW that EVERY man could happily have sex with another man that they are so defensive and adamant that it must never happen. The hitcom Everybody Loves Raymond even devoted much of an episode to Raymond's having a powerful sexual reaction to a FedEx (or similar) deliveryman. As a gay man, I definitely share the producers' suspicions that EVERY man could be happy in a sexual encounter with another man. It wouldn't have to be an ongoing relationship. Just once might do, for each man they are (literally) irresistibly drawn to. But of course heterosexual society will not test that hypothesis, because if it turns out to be correct, society will not know what to do.
+
Bruce Jenner needs to be put out of his misery. More to the point, he needs to be put out of OUR misery, the confusion foisted upon us by irresponsible media who know full well that there is no such thing as a "transgendered" person but that, for reasons beyond my comprehension — after all, I'm only an IQ-certified genius; how could I possibly understand anything? — media insist on pretending exist. WHY? I really don't understand. And if a genius cannot understand, how can anyone else? You can't understand insanity, and that's all there is to it.
+
Is it some kind of misguided sympathy, in which instead of helping people cope with reality, media deny reality to accommodate them? Let's make a comparison to death. Should media, in dealing with people who have just experienced the loss of someone close to them — say, the nine people murdered in the Charleston massacre earlier this week — tell the people they seek to comfort that the people they lost are still alive? Of COURSE not. You don't LIE about reality. You help people COPE with reality. That is what decent people do.
+
The media of the United States are not decent. The fact that "the usual suspects" in Radical Right propaganda have been absolutely silent and accepting of the Transgender Lie shows that rhetorically, psychologically, and surgically castrating gay men is congenial to the worst people in this country. So while Left-leaning media may think they are being supportive and sympathetic to gender-confused gay people, what they are really doing is enlisting in the Castration Conspiracy in which the Radical Right is an extremely active participant.
+
Altho "bleeding-heart" Liberals may think, "OK, we know full well that there is no such thing as a 'transgendered' person, but that everyone's gender is marked by an unalterable chromosomal configuration, and the only way there could BE a sex-change is if the chromosomes in every single cell of a person's body were to change. But where's the harm in speaking softly and reassuringly to gender-confused people? Don't they have a hard enuf life that we shouldn't demand they face reality, but play into their delusion?"
+
Where's the harm? HERE: brutal, drastic, monstrous surgical mutilation that slices off a man's external genitalia and slashes a slit in his crotch, then pumps him full of hormones that, for being inappropriate to his body, can produce LETHAL CANCER. And if the gender-confused person wakes up AFTER such appalling surgery and realizes it was all a crazy DREAM — nitemare — it's too late, and cannot be undone. THAT'S where the harm is, for the people worst affected.
+
But there is lots of less-direct and less-catastrophic harm too, in telling little boys who are just beginning to realize that they want to be close, for the rest of their lives, to boys and then men, not to girls and then women, and thus leading them to think that there is something WRONG with them, because Nature permits only heterosexuality, so if they want a boy or man, they are NOT a boy or man themselves, but must have themselves "fixed", by psychotherapy, hormone injections, or "sex-reassignment" surgery. THAT'S where the harm is.
+
Bruce Jenner is telling everyone on planet Earth that a man is a woman; that gender is optional; and that if you find yourself to be of "the wrong gender", you should have yourself "fixed". Bruce Jenner is an enemy of humanity, and should be treated as such.
+
There is nothing humane nor decent nor fair about allowing people who commit crimes against humanity to get away with them.
+
What is most appalling about all the rallying to Bruce Jenner is that so many people call him "courageous" for going public with his confusions. No, there is NOTHING courageous about giving in to madness rather than fiting for sanity. Facing realities that make you unhappy is courageous. Denying reality is cowardice. Would society praise Bruce Jenner if he were to tell the world that death is a lie, and anyone who wants to live forever need merely resolve not to die, and they will live forever? What if he were to say that you can smoke 12 packs of cigarets a day and not suffer any health consequences? Would that be courageous? No.
+
What would be courageous of Bruce Jenner is to admit that he cannot cope with reality, but needs professional help, and then SEEK professional help. Tell people that no matter how troubled you are, there are people who want to help, and might actually be able to help. Don't cave in to delusions but fite for sanity. Accept reality and find ways to adjust to it.
+
Bruce Jenner — there is no such person as "Caitlyn Jenner" — needs to be put out of his misery. Perhaps powerful prescription drugs can break thru his delusion castle. Perhaps electroshock therapy can zap him sane. Perhaps brain surgery, such as a lobotomy, can "fix" him. Or perhaps he is too far gone, and must be encouraged to kill himself. If the death of one enemy of society will wake SOCIETY up, that is a very, very small price to pay.
+
Life is temporary, NOT permanent. If Bruce Jenner is miserable and unable to accept reality, he can take the "Final Exit" that will end his misery. Other societies, less "civilized" than ours, might take care of that for him, in order to save other people from the monstrous and agonizing confusions that Bruce Jenner promotes. Why would someone as appallingly unhappy as Bruce Jenner want to continue to live? He and everyone in media who are promoting gender madness should be punished. I repeat: life is temporary. Egregious crimes against humanity warrant egregious punishments. Bye-BYE!

Monday, June 15, 2015

 

Recognized as Sole Originator of 'Gay Pride'


This is a copy of a post to my "Newark USA" blog today, including its fotos and discussion of racially segregated Gay Pride events in different parts of Essex County, NJ.


The first few of today's illustrations are screenprints (or screen captures, or screenshots) of the website of the British podcast "The Allusionist".

For decades, my enemies in the "lesbigay" Movement have tried to deny me credit for coining the term "Gay Pride" as it is now used. They have just been dealt a severe setback: a British podcast about language issues recognizes my role without reservation. Will Wikipedia finally surrender to the truth, or will cowardly liars hide behind anonymity to continue to deny credit where credit is due?



The podcast is "The Allusionist". The particular episode is #12: "Pride", which was placed on the Internet on June 3d and remains current until two weeks from the 3d, the 17th. Even after that, if you scroll down at the podcast's website, you should be able to listen to #12, which is about 18 minutes long. I speak during about 13 of those minutes. The sound is a little garbled at times because we were conversing on a trans-Atlantic fone call.


View of the website scrolled slitely lower to include all of the descriptive text about the "Pride" episode.

Documentary proof of my role can be seen at the Second Anniversary Special Issue of the newsletter of the organization Homosexuals Intransigent!, April-May 1971: a scan of a paragraf from that mimeograffed publication that can be found in gay archives in various universities and standalone gay archives. If I can find time to alter the HTML code on that page to allow a link directly to that graffic, I will do so. But considering how backed-up I am in my various computer tasks, this must wait. If you'd like to see that scanned paragraf online, in context, just use your vertical scrollbar to go about 40% down the page and look for a paragraf of text on a white background in a lavender-bordered box. For your convenience, I show a screen capture of that area below.



Who, you might wonder, are the "enemies" who want to deny me credit for what I obviously did do? "Enemies" is a strong word, but it fits this situation. At different times, I as a gay activist and writer/"propagandist" have had various enemies. Early on, they included Communist-influenced people in organizations with names like "Gay Liberation Front", because I knew well and stated aloud that Communists were not our friends, but sought only to use gay people to promote internal conflict in the United States, to weaken this country as part of the drive to carry out worldwide Communist Revolution. I had no hesitancy to point out that Communist Cuba had an internment camp for gay men on the Isle of Pines, which proved handily that Communists didn't want to liberate gay people.
+
There were other organizations, not Communist-influenced, that took stances and adopted tactics not shared by the group I founded two months before Stonewall, Homosexuals Intransigent!. In NY, Gay Activists Alliance staged demonstrations and sit-ins at, for instance, the offices of publications that issued antihomosexual materials. I did not participate in such things, only in the first several marches each June to commemorate the Stonewall Riots. My worst enemies, however, were always the people who tried to confuse gay men and make them identify with and lend their legitimacy and power to people unlike us, especially lesbians, so-called "bisexuals", and what came to be called the mythical "transgendered" people. You see, I and my organization rejected all suggestions that gay men must identify as women or confused losers and cowards who refused to 'fess up to their homosexual reality. It was obvious to me that gay men needed to demand respect for their MANHOOD, and their right to be men oriented to and concerned primarily with, men. Let lesbians take care of lesbians, not parasitize gay men's organizations and misdirect gay men's numbers and money away from men's concerns to, instead, women's issues, and esp. that most heterosexual of women's issues, murder of the unborn, which would, statistically, mean the murder of more boys than girls, because more boys are conceived. I knew full well that that was not just NOT a gay-men's issue but actually murderously antagonistic to gay boys.
+
Rather than argue the merits of particular issues — for instance, whether "bisexuals" are just, shall we say, 'homos in hiding', and "transgendered" people don't have the courage to be openly gay, so pretend to be women so they can "properly" lust after men — these enemies have worked to prevent me from receiving any recognition by society, for instance, being credited in Wikipedia as coiner of "Gay Pride". I think they keep waiting for me to die so they can rewrite history and erase all evidence that I or my stances ever existed. But the more time that goes by, while I am still alive to speak out on a podcast or in print, the more doomed their cause. I WILL be recognized as coiner of "Gay Pride", whether they like it or not.
+
Uniting Suburban and City Gay-Pride Events. Again this year, anti-Newark activists have held a "North Jersey Pride Festival" in Maplewood, dividing the suburbs from the City. Altho the pretense is that that event is inclusive of all types of people from the entire state of New Jersey, it is plain to me that racial animus is a large part of, if not THE primary motivation, behind this suburban event. Disgraceful. Newarkers, fortunately, have not given up their own Pride events, but will again this year celebrate their own Gay Pride Week next month, including a "Sounds of the City" dance party outside NJPAC on Tuesday, July 16th from 5-6pm. When will the "lesbigay" community end the racial segregation in Essex County "Gay Pride" events?


The last two pix today show the gathering before Gay Pride Parade 2014, Downtown Newark.

Unfortunately, the gay movement in this area is as crazy and destructive as all of the groups absurdly thrown together now were in the worst, benited days of the 1950s. "Newark Gay Pride" proclaims on its website "A Celebration of Newark's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Community!" There IS NO SUCH COMMUNITY. These groups rarely get together for any reason, and most of the time have no interest in each other, or, if the truth be told, much use for each other. Gay men are not lesbians, not "bisexual", and most emphatically NOT "transgender"."Queer" is an INSULT that cannot be rehabilitated. It will remain, ALWAYS, the exact equivalent of "the N-word" WITH the R. Gay men outnumber lesbians, but are always relegated to SECOND in the various names of this nonexistent "community". Lesbians who would be indignant at men opening a door (while saying "Ladies first!") or pulling out a chair for them at a table in a restaurant have no hesitancy to sell out their Radical Feminist principles to insist that L always go before G.



It's one thing to form an alliance between groups all of which know that they are separate and distinct. It is quite another to try to force all the groups of an alliance to IDENTIFY as each other, as confuses their own identities. It is SHAMEFUL that so many gay men and lesbian women are still so CRAZY, self-denying, and self-despising after all these years. I put forward the term "Gay Pride" in spring 1970, 45 YEARS ago. What is TAKING so long for these people to sort themselves out?

Tuesday, April 01, 2014

 

45 Today

On April 1st, 1969, I secured recognition for the organization Homosexuals Intransigent! ("HI!") by the student government of the City College of the City University of New York in Upper Manhattan. All that that required, once I had secured a faculty/staff advisor, was the signature of the student-government president on the application. I encountered him in a hallway of Finley Student Center and he signed it right there, on the spot. Thus began an organization that, tho never larger than perhaps 60 members, achieved outsize influence on the course of the gay-rights movement. We emboldened the timid. We were the shock troops that took the most advanced and militant stance. We didn't care to curry favor with intolerant heterosexuals by pretending to be heterosexual ourselves, by organizing ourselves in hetero fashion, men-and-women-together-now! No, ours was the ONLY organization for gay men only. We let it be known that if lesbians wanted to form a 'Lesbians Intransigent!' group, by any name, we would take their information and put them in touch with each other, but they would have to operate as a separate entity, in which we did not interfere and which did not interfere with us. The women we put in touch with each other did not, in fact, form an organization, and we did not have to compromise our stances to accommodate lesbians.
+
As founder and first president, I attended the autumn 1969 meeting, in Philadelphia, of ERCHO (the Eastern Regional Conference of Homophile Organizations) that accomplished one significant thing, then disappeared into history: it created an annual march to commemorate the Stonewall Riots. I offered an amendment to the resolution to bar a dress code, which was adopted. In historical context, that made sense, because the 'respectable' organizational demonstrations by gay men and lesbians theretofore had required 'proper' clothing, which meant, as we thought of it, shorthand, "jacket-and-tie" for the men and "skirts-and-sweaters" for the women. HI! was an organization of college students many of whom might not even have owned a sports jacket and tie, much less a suit, and this was the end of the Sixties, a time of tumult and rebellion among youth, so we were not about to adhere to some stuffy, outdated clothing standard.
+
We did not even think — who would? — that allowing people to wear shirtsleeves and jeans would be taken by some degenerates as warrant to march absolutely naked or wearing nothing but a codpiece or leather bikini-bottom. Had I known that the absence of any dress code would produce such hideous results, as caused many media, and esp. hostile media, to focus on the freakish attire (including drag, men in women's clothes) of a tiny number of participants, and thus trivialize and misrepresent the serious purpose of the march, I would have phrased my amendment as to include language such as "appropriate to a dignified and serious demonstration or celebration, and not likely to throw the event into disrepute".
+
I also participated in, and may have hosted in my apartment at least one of the meetings of, the organizing committee for the first march, which was held in June 1970. Robben Borrero of HI! also participated in at least one. During one of those meetings, I put forward the suggestion that the weekend of events designed to draw into NYC people from out-of-town, be called and advertised as "Gay Pride Weekend", rather than the first thought, which was "Gay Power Weekend". I do not for an instant think that "Gay Power" would have stood the test of time and achieved the universality of acceptance that "Gay Pride" achieved, influencing the attitudes of people of all sexual orientations. Billions of people have now come to associate the words "gay" and "pride", which is a very far cry indeed from the general feeling in 1970 that "gay" was laffably inapt for people who were thought sad, even miserable, and shame is what was actually expected of homosexuals.
+
Is it 'prideful' to suggest that never in the history of the world has a different two-word phrase produced such massive change in public attitudes? "Human rights" is a powerful phrase too, of course, but it means different things to different people, and human rights as the West means the term have not been even remotely achieved in much of the world. "Gay Pride" is unambiguous, specific.
+
HI! published a number of newsletters and flyers, which we distributed widely. We handed out flyers on campus and elsewhere, and posted them to bulletin boards (that is, actual, physical billboards, the only kind that then existed). We sent out, by mail (postal mail, that is, which was also the only kind there was in those days), copies of our mimeograffed newsletter to many other organizations and library special collections on sexual rights and social justice around the Nation. Many of those publications are still held in archives. In 1998, I put many of them online, where they have remained, most recently at a free website on Tripod.com. To the extent that young people just coming to terms with their feelings for their own sex can benefit from reading those materials, HI! is still helping people, even tho the organization as such dissolved in the early 1970s.
+
At least the opening paragraf of the first issue of our newsletter, then called Homosexual Renaissance, was quoted in (the late) Randy Shilts's bestselling book, Conduct Unbecoming. I don't have a copy of that book to check how much was quoted, but here are the first three paragrafs of the first edition of our newsletter.
Homosexuals can effectively demand respect from others only if we first respect ourself — as homosexuals. That requires that we admit to ourselves that we are homosexual; that we affirm it, understand it, realize it in all its implications: I am homosexual. Say it! aloud: "I am homosexual." Shout it, whisper it. Laugh it, cry it. State it, proclaim it, confess it in sobs, but say it: "I am homosexual." Say it today, say it tomorrow, say it the day after that. Say it when you wake up, when you go to bed, when you find yourself thinking of someone of your own sex. Say it as often as you need to until you realize that it is true and that the fact that it is true forces you to adjust your attitudes and actions to make the very best of your life as a homosexual. "I am a homosexual."

Not "Leonardo da Vinci was homosexual", but "I am homosexual." Not "Gore Vidal is homosexual", but "I am homosexual." Not "One man of every six, one woman of every eight is homosexual", but "I am homosexual." Not even, "Some of the finest, most beautiful, and most talented people in the world are homosexual", but "I am homosexual."

Your homosexuality affects you, not Leonardo da Vinci.You are the one who must come to terms with your homosexuality, not Gore Vidal. You need not justify yourself or console yourself in the homosexuality of others. Others don't have to respect and live with you —you do, and unless you adjust to your homosexuality, it doesn't matter if all the rest of the world is homosexual: you will still be uncomfortable.
That was pretty heady stuff in those days. It still packs a wallop for some people. It encapsulates the approach of HI!, which was always concerned mainly with how gay men felt about themselves and treated each other, and only subsidiarily with the law or hetero society or anything else. If we felt good about ourselves, each other, and our orientation, everything else would fall into place, in time. We never put the cart before the horse. We could not and should not wait for society to accept us, but had to accept ourselves. If we did, what outsiders thought wouldn't matter much. And if we asserted ourselves and cared about each other, that would be enuf, even if we continued to be held in contempt by the larger society.
+
I wrote those first three paragrafs of HI!'s first newsletter, and typed that text onto mimeo stencil, but it wouldn't have made its way to Randy Shilts and the wider world had it not been run by the student-services department of City College as part of the rights of an on-campus student organization, and mailed out by the members of Homosexuals Intransigent! I'm picturing a sight I had when I went to see if the newsletter was ready for pickup. A student member of that department was sitting there, reading what they had reproduced. I have no idea what he thought on reading it, but I knew for d*d sure that he had never seen anything like it! Nobody had, anywhere on Earth.
+
I just reread much of the text of that first edition of our newsletter. Some of it was dated, and expressed viewpoints then commonplace that I would no longer endorse. But most of it is astonishing in its depth, and breadth, and scope. Some of the language is nearly poetic, as I poured my feelings into what could otherwise have been all-too-"soul"less verbiage. What I produced instead is not verbiage, but expression of that combination of intellect and feeling that I always wanted the publications of Homosexuals Intransigent! to be. Homosexual Renaissance No. 1 is not just a historical artifact. It speaks to the feelings and needs of young gay men everywhere.
+
The Romans had a concept of "genius" that allows us who dare to think ourselves geniuses, to cover our arrogance in humility. The Roman concept was that there is, outside of us, a creative agent or agency that acts THRU us. It is the genius outside, not us, that produces "our" works of genius. We are merely, even insignificantly, the medium or intermediary thru which that genius creates works of genius — in essence, no more important than the telefone by which the outer genius conveys to our body the instructions to create a work of genius. I suspect that every creative person on Earth has done something so extraordinary that he or she looks in awe upon it and says to him- or herself, "Where did THAT come from?"
+
So here we are, 45 years from the founding of HI! at City College. Happy birthday, HI!. I don't know how many of the original members of that organization are still alive, given that our average age was probably about 20. I was 24, in that I "stopped out" for several years after high school before attending college. I am thus probably the oldest surviving member of the group, but not everyone lives to even 65, so I don't know how many of my colleagues from HI! are still around. I hope most are, but know that not every last one is. Robben Borrero was found dead, floating in the Hudson River, at a time in the 1970s or 80s when some serial killer was murdering gay men. As far as I know, Robben's murder, if it was murder, was never solved; nor was it definitively ruled a suicide. I seriously doubt it was a suicide. He had, shortly before his death, been my roommate for a time, and he was involved in a love relationship that, despite being bumpy, was not so unhappy as to have impelled him to kill himself.
+
I'd love to hear from any and all surviving members of Homosexuals Intransigent!, and can be reached at mrgaypride @ aol . com (minus the spaces, of course).
____________________

* Both "Homosexuals Intransigent!" and its abbreviation, "HI!" were always intended to be italicized or underscored. This explanation appeared in the first issue of Homosexual Renaissance:
Underscoring — Homosexuals Intransigent! is an organization apart composed of people apart. We want to be set apart, noted as distinct, standing out in any printed matter. So our name is to be underscored or italicized at all times. ***

And our abbreviation: HI! — welcome to the Homosexual Renaissance, brother!

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?