THE DISLOYAL

Gay male conservatives bring hope. Chadwick Moore, former columnist for Leftist LGBTQI press.
Photo credit: N.Y. Post

The history of homosexual men is stained with the blood and ashes of mob violence against us. And our lives among heterosexuals is still endangered every day at present all around the world. Our greatest enemies have always been religion and aggression from men who feel threatened by other men on a deep psychic level. Among these violent aggressors are men with repressed sexual attraction to men.

These pusillanimous cowards, among whom those who claim to be bisexual often hide, cheered as homosexual men and lesbians burned at the stake. They participated in stoning and beheading. They attend public hangings in Iran today. The polite modern term, "closet case", does not apply to these cowards. They are collaborators in our ongoing oppression. They have helped postpone our liberation for centuries.

Those who are disloyal to their homosexual brothers often hide among the political and religious. A glaring example is the case of Oscar Wilde's persecution in England. Wilde was an unintentional homosexual liberator in many ways. He was a class-conscious fiend when he exploited the trafficked slum boys of London brothels. And it is apparent that he did not believe he would be condemned and persecuted for his homosexuality by his own class. But he was.

Wilde's disloyalty by way of sexual exploitation of his poorer homosexual brethren on the basis of class could be seen as put in balance by his abandonment by his own homosexual class in the face of Crown prosecution. How different a life from that of Walt Whitman, whom Wilde admired to the extent of making a pilgrimage to the aging Whitman's rooms in New Jersey. Whitman, always the bard of the natural and mundane, chose a lowly workman as his longstanding partner. They lived quietly without notable oppression.

The American Stonewall movement, starting in 1969 with a Manhattan riot by lower-class drag queens and drunk gay men, was as much a class struggle as a struggle for homosexual liberation from legal and cultural oppression by heterosexual society. And this became obvious when the middle class Mattachine Society, perhaps equivalent to today's Log Cabin Republicans or Human Rights Campaign, were slow to take up the new cause.

But evolution entails increased complexity. As the Gay Rights Movement progressed through the 1970's, a minor class conflict emerged within it. Ivy League pundits, like Eric Rofes, were showered with media interest while grass roots organizers like Harvey Milk went unsupported by national press until he achieved an electoral victory. Within the rank and file, Milk's legacy will always outshine that of Rofes and other intellectuals for the simple reason that Milk was 'of the people' while Rofes and his ilk were elitists.

Today's LGBTQI movement is even more complex. The lines of loyalty have shifted. A case can be made that today's LGBTQI movement is actually betraying homosexual men as part of its dismissal of the reality of natural sex differences. If men are not really men, then their attraction to each other on the basis if that sexual reality is somehow deemed irrelevant. And if those men are White, they are also diminished in value by that LGBTQI ideology.

This is tremendously disloyal to homosexual men. And it would certainly not be happening to this degree if the AIDS epidemic had not killed off a huge segment of the older homosexual male population. The morphing of the Gay Rights Movement into the LGBTQI movement occurred when lesbian feminists filled the void left by dead and dying gay men. In fact, the so-called LGBTQI movement is a radical lesbian-feminist movement, not inclusive of most gay men.

One gay male diaspora exists now in suburbs where married middle-class gay couples network quietly among their heterosexual counterparts. Another, less prosperous and visible, consists of single gay men in cities. They can no longer afford to live in their own apartments in the wealthier coastal cities which once held their booming communities. Those gentrified areas are now predominantly populated by young heterosexual couples and small children. Perhaps a model for the eventual displacement of other populations in The West. 

Young gay men who once were able to rent a studio apartment in urban centers as part of coming of age often share their living quarters. Perhaps this holds the advantage of domestic socialization between homosexual men from different backgrounds. However, it impedes the development of the kind of confident and counter-dependent autonomy which marked earlier generations of gay men. 

The loyalty displayed during the onset of the AIDS epidemic by some in the gay male community will stand for some time as an unsurpassed model of generosity, courage and compassion. Other gay men displayed cowardly disloyalty to their brothers which left those infected feeling like lepers. 

The irony of life is that those who were most loyal and commendable were often stricken by the disease. This has left a sizable proportion of the older gay male population comprised of the disloyal, many of whom have edited their personal stories to disguise their former disloyalty during the pre-digital age of AIDS decimation. 

The support some homosexual men give to the current LGBTQI movement may be given from the perspective of attempted loyalty to their brethren. I do not question this. However, that support, in my opinion, is unwisely given. 

I believe the mavericks of today's intelligent conversations on politics and economics represent the best of the homosexual gay population. David Rubin, Douglas Murray, Chadwick Moore, Brad Polumbo, Chad Felix Greene, Rob Smith, to name a few. These men are loyal to the independent spirit of gay men which brought about Gay Liberation and its benefits today. It is my sincere hope they will eventually inspire a new generation of truly proud gay men to overshadow the Leftist, man-hating ideology of the LGBTQI machine.