US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC :
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
News ::
Article Says Gays, Martin Luther King Jr, Jesus, Extremists Who Should've Waited (english)
03 Mar 2003
A local gay magazine, traditionally known to be quite "radical", published an article recently which was quite superficial in its negative analysis of the militant behavior of gay "extremists", Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, and Moses.
A local gay magazine, traditionally known to be quite "radical", published an article recently which was quite superficial in its negative analysis of the militant behavior of gay "extremists", Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, and Moses.
I want to make some challenges to an otherwise insightful article that recently appeared in the Gay press (Guide Magazine, March '03), "Think First Before Coming Out" by Lester Grube. I see that this article has points to make which this community should *carefully analyze*, even though many may feel that they've already adequately gone through this issue before. See the article at:

I agree on the first point Lester makes, per allowing the alleged effectiveness of closeted gay persons, but his other points need thought-through challenge.

Working with the establishment:
Let's not forget how persons who "work with" the establishment often end up having their alleged original principles *compromised* once they begin "making compromises" with a system that is quite completely against serious challenge.

We see this clearly with "our" politicians, over and over again. Need I give examples?

As for the militant challenges that Martin Luther King, Jr. posed in daring to help lead the civil 'rights' movement, if you actually care to read Dr.King in his own words, such as in his interview with Playboy, you'll realize that there was much more at play in his decisions than some "kamikaze" mentality which the Grube's of the world would reduce him to. Read the book: _A testament of hope : the essential writings of Martin Luther King, Jr._ by James M. Washington, for starters. Especially the chapter with the Playboy interview.

In this book, you'll find King talking about the games which go on behind the often closed doors of "common" peoples seeking sanity. For example, in the chapter of the Playboy interview, note King's anger towards even the black's own establishment (re: in the Church) right near the beginnings of the movement. Basically, blacks whom had gotten a place for themselves in the heavily racist South seemed to parrot the white establishment in telling those who sought root change to "wait."

Where would the gay movement be if some of similar fear had convinced the Stonewall rebels to "wait"? We might well be still playing closet games and have hardly made any serious developments in the mentality of the many.

This truth is most provacatively evident in the direct action by homophile militants of a certain national psychiatric conference in the early 1970s. The institutionally despised "radicals" (who much more directly represented the hated mass of homophiles than any elite-stuck closet group ever could) crashed the conference and militantly challenged the conferees to stop their fascist "science" towards gay people, or continue to be plagued.

From there, the closeted pro-gay psychiatrists were suddenly given (by the radical challenge) an opening in which they could more openly pursue an alternative that the institution of psychiatry could better "relate" to.

(to note: I see that the militants of the 1970s were apparently naive about the war mindset of institutions and their so-called "well educated" believers; this is perhaps the biggest reason why the original dream of gay challengers was so watered down to our current *assimilationist*-oriented situation today. capiche?)

Basically, the "well-educated" homophle implementers of social policy called psychiatrists knew how to "work within the system", as trained, yet could not take the crucial initiative that the despised "radicals" could.

As for "extremist agenda" there is obvious truth to this; still, we mustn't fool ourselves that there is *no* "extremist agenda" pushed by the Grube's of the world.

In my view, those who identify with non-establishment ways of doing things have much to learn and understand about the psychology of their "leaders", the institutions their leaders purport to "attack", and how human beings subordinating their individuality into the status of "elite" systematically work in the most aggressive nation on Earth.

Mostly, "radicals" today are not very "radical" at all; it's more of a game they play, and they DO have quite articulate "agendas" just beneath their emotionally-potent rhetoric. (I say rhetoric, because, their "solidarity with the oppressed" is usually completely contingent upon the perceived needs of their propaganda. (understand propaganda better: )

In fact, most of what is pointedly called "radical" in our thought-control-oriented society is really only another form of quite superficial changing of the old tyranny with a new tyranny. This is true of Communism, Socialism, Anarchism, and so on. There is no true *liberation* in these ideologies, only a *continual* method of hyping up you, the allegedly "stupid masses" to carry out the perceived needs and value systems of quite unaccountable "leaders".

Phew, there's a lot to think about there. If the cynics are right, your attention span wouldn't even have made it this far.

Alienating the entire establishment:
Let's understand what exactly this "establishment" is. They are human beings like us whom have been coerced to subordinate their excellently diverse individualities into a severely reduced idea (created by unknown others) of *How To Go About Social Interaction*, period. They are doing *work*. They often hate doing it, once they understand its insanity.

Not that the 'Us vs. Them' dichotimist games of the "radical alternative" is much better. Here, also, "radicals" are coerced to subordinate themselves into yet another, yet allegedly "more sane" narrow idea, designed by another set of unknown others, of How To Interact, period.

I suspect that this *PERPETUAL*, instutionalized belief of how to "make progress", as such has been organized, is the REAL CONTEXT for the situations which allegedly blocked the more excellent possibilities of King, Moses, and Jesus, as well as the *Gay Movement* as it has been up to this point.

Obtaining Chief Priesthood/Congress vs. remaining outside and beyond such a value system:
Read the anarchist viewpoint of *hierarchy* and you may understand why both Jesus and Martin Luther King, Jr. refused to *play the imposed meta game* and so hold onto their lives in this reality.

Being sensitive to the concerns of those in power:
What exactly are those "concerns"? We have the Public Relations ones openly stated which sound sane enough. And then we have the meta reality, the truths not shared with the public, and only brought ought by things like "The Pentagon Papers" or those who exposed the f.b.i.'s illegal Counter Intelligence Program ("COINTELPRO").

On the one hand, it's crucial that human beings become *more sensitive* to the humanity of those who make up the *control cartels* of our society; after all, they are confined, themselves. They aren't "devils", even when the severely alienated behavior of their "mandate" proves quite evil.

On the other hand, it's also crucial that we understand the pattern of manipulation (re: via propaganda and "reputable" information) which tool these same human beings. They are accepted and they gain so-called "higher status" due to their *internalization* of the values of the established perception. They are at *perpetual war*. And we, collectively, gay or straight or bi (etc.) are viewed as *resources*--units of value in which the "capable" owners may utilize with impunity.

So, what can we do about this? One thing you might dare to do is look into *seriously* alternative ideas and possible contexts, further. Here you might find value in the following sources: Bob Black, Raoul Vaneigem (_The Revolution of Everyday Life_), John Trudell, (deep, but quite imperfect), Hans Askenasy (_Are We All Nazis?_, Aldous Huxley (Brave New World--Revisited_), R.D. Laing (_The Politics of Experience_) and even the much despised Noam Chosmky (see: ;see especially his analysis of *internalized values* and *policy makers*, and the "stupid masses").

Finally, Grube makes a valid point about the nazi situation and one individual's decision to deal with it. This man, Kurt Waldheim, chose to *play along* with the system from an apparently key position (while still avoiding being attacked after the war in the highly manipulative Nuremburg Trials). Still, I think a better example would be found in the industrialist by the name of Schindler, re: "Schindler's List". He *strategically* stuck out his neck, and made a difference to hundreds of persons persecuted by yet another example of what institutional evils bring over and over again.

While Waldheim one day gained mainstream "prestige" and "influence", one is forced to wonder just how valuable that was compared to the depth of meaning Schindler surely received from the many Jews that he saved by daring to act strategically.
See also:
Add a quick comment
Your name Your email


Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.