Some clubs are very "inclusive." My brother got some free tickets once to a popular club in Downtown Detroit. It was a great place, all kinds of people there: gay, straight, white, colored. I believe this was also the place where a woman called "Brutal Betty" hung out -- she was a 300 pound, 63 year-old dominatrix.
I didn't see Ms. Betty that night, but I enjoyed being out on the floor with my hands up in the air like everyone else. I have circulation problems. My hands feel better when I hold them up.
At one point, a very pretty young woman came up to me, all sparkly-eyed and smiling, and asked if I was having a good time. On my way out, another young woman put her hand on me. I put my hand on her bare midriff and smiled at her. Maybe things could have gone a little farther, but they didn't. Anyway, it was a nice gesture, the kind of thing an old guy like me tends to remember.
What would have happened if I went back the next week with another old guy, and then four old guys showed up the week after that, and then, after a few months, the place had become 50 percent old guys? The young people, instead of being tolerant and inclusive, would start thinking, "Too many old people here. I'm going to find some other club to hang out in." Then, after a few more months, the place would look like a House Music Regiment from the AARP.
The point of this being: sometimes nightclubs need to discriminate. They need the power to manage the "diversity" (or lack of it) of their clientele as they see fit. In other words, they need freedom of association.
Freedom of association is a pillar of pro-white politics. White people, in general, need that freedom. Gay white people, in particular, need it too.
Unfortunately, pro-gay politics, in the late '60s, took most of its clues from the left. A big thing on the left has been "linking the struggles." That means a committed leftist has to be pro-black, pro-gay, pro-feminist, pro-immigrant and so on. That is why universities, dominated as they are by leftists, are so consistently anti-white-straight-male. That is the one antagonist all of the "linked" struggles have in common.
Pro-gay politics patterned itself, in many ways, after the pro-black civil rights movement. Marches and demands, etc., are part of any political movement, but assertions of equivalence, a major factor in black politics, have, in my opinion, become a poison pill for gay politics. These days a key demand of gay people is to be able to form "marriages" and have these "marriages" treated by the state and by society as exactly equivalent to marriages of a man and a woman. That silly demand might be the main reason George W. Bush is still President of the United States.
To any gay people willing to entertain suggestions from one who is not gay, I offer this: What you really need is gay divorce. Gay people need to divorce themselves from the left! To begin with, why struggle for something that mainstream society is never going to give you? But more importantly, why remain "linked" to causes that actually harm you? Why support mass immigration when many Mexicans are virulently anti-gay? Why support anti-discrimination laws when many of the institutions and social structures you have created to serve your interests require discrimination? In particular, if you are white, why support the anti-white politics of academic leftism? Sure, they toss a few nice perqs your way, but their continued dominance of social thinking is a guarantee that society will collapse. Then there will be no perquisites for anyone.
A pro-gay movement that emphasized freedom of association along with other basic rights, like freedom from violence, would, in my opinion, also help forward legitimate goals of pro-white politics without being explicitly pro-white. Freedom of association, by the way, isn't just a goal of the pro-white movement, it is also a part of the movement. There are a number of groups which I admit are "pro-white," but I won't have anything to do with them. All kinds of reasons, some fairly obvious. I almost never spend any time arguing against their positions. I simply state my own and let it go at that. As far as working with other people, I won't pick associates according to rigid ideological criteria. Instead, I'm looking for good working relationships. But no one tells me who I have to work with. I decide. Freedom of association is great stuff!
I know many pro-white people are deeply conservative and would disagree with me on this point, but I believe an openly gay segment of the pro-white movement would be an asset. It would provide intellectual and cultural diversity for a movement that gives serious thought to issues of mind and culture. It would help at least parts of the movement present themselves as positive, forward-thinking and progressive. It would infuse into the movement people with long experience in flouting convention and in "coming out" in the face of hostility. It would totally undermine the premises of "politically correct" types.
Gay white people would also find advantages in being openly pro-white. It would provide avenues for opportunistic individuals to rise to prominence. It would free you from the profound intellectual bankruptcy of the "diversity" crowd. And, most importantly, it might help you express and act on a feeling you were born with, but which you have been taught all your life to suppress. Your orientation significantly reduces your chances for direct reproduction, but that allows you to act on a desire that is deeper and more subtle: the desire to contribute to the survival of your race.
(The above was written in response to a thread on American Renaissance discussing an Associated Press report about a gay nightclub in San Francisco accused of discriminating against black people.)
Copyright © 2005
If you wish to link to this article, try copying and pasting:
<a href="http://m3peeps.org/02/wag.htm">White and Gay: Nightclub Liberation </a>
[Go to index for Web Log, Volume Two]
[Go to m3peeps.org home page]