Saturday, June 25, 2011

THE BEATEN GENERATION , Part 1: The Politically Incorrect Future

I mentioned it here before. The talk in the last World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland was that come 2030, the gross national product of China will be more than $70 trillion but the US will only have half of that, just more than $30 trillion. It is predicted that within the decade, China will surpass the US in wealth. Let's just bury our heads in the sand, go on with the party & pretend it won't come true? Or is it even politically incorrect to ask that?

The ignorant may say things will be the same. Western democracy, the champion of individual human rights, will survive. But will it? Wouldn't its defeat be the ultimate proof that perhaps the system inherently overreached, that it developed the tendency to overfantasize so much that it's now imploding? Could any system really soar if it's dragged down by the lowering of standards to its components due to so-&-so political vagaries, while all these are fighting for an equal berth in the control seat? Why should it be beaten when earlier generations, supposed to be primitive, uninformed & not modern, made it fly high?

It's my current preoccupation. All throughout history, you read about changes of civilization. Probably as hubris of the moment, falsely believing their time will infinitely march on in an irreversible linear forward trajectory, every citizen of each lost civilization fought for their moment in the sun believing they at last could control their destiny. But alas, there were forces greater than their delusions.

What about today?

Poor who remain poor anyway (even after millions have died & are dying from numerous economic equality struggles).

Blacks who should be joyous now that they have a Black President but most are poor- they are the poorest ethnic group by color, beaten by late arrivals- & at a time when the country is beaten economically, & in danger of being clobbered totally, the economic Messiah, who should inspire the collective confidence, must come from the least economically successful group .

Whites who prefer to wallow in their guilt for creating wealthy civilizations & pretend it's high-minded to be the reverse snub, the new elitism is to care for anybody you think are less fortunate so you'll feel you are really fortunate & they are really unfortunate. If you don't care you are not fortunate because you don't care for the unfortunate, then you are really unfortunate.

Malignant gays who want to be treated equal - the impossible dream (really, will Greg stop from vomiting if he drops his straight boyfriend & suck a fag?)- & so generalized behavior repression must be the politically correct thing to do, the nauseous must be acceptable because, they say it's the 21st century thing to do. Of course, no fear, the great military machine will attack China. Who knows, the Chinese soldiers will die laughing upon seeing the gay soldiers attacking them?

Yep, there is equality when everybody drops down to the pit.

Or is it politically incorrrect to even hint a warning?

Saturday, June 18, 2011

FIRST MENAGE A TROIS (& The Likeliest Motive Why They Killed JFK)




I was suddenly curious one day why Jackie Onassis seemed to be very "cavalier" in shucking the Kennedy name despite the royalty reverence given to it by most Americans & the world, especially in the 1960's. The Greek money was too convenient to explain things. They were supposed to be this beautiful couple representing the New Frontier of America, but you get the feeling something wasn't worth the trouble of perpetual glorification.

Thus, I suddenly found myself reading 5 books on the former President John F Kennedy in one single week. I only planned to read Seymour Hersh's The Dark Side of Camelot in the beginning, but what I read only stoked my curiosity. At first I was surprised & intrigued by the "reckless womanizing" ("he does no foreplay, he comes easily then sleeps", he loves trios, etc.). Then I read the fourth book & I began to be baffled as I discovered something "tender" hidden camouflaged by the frenetic "reckless womanizing". Almost like the calm & eternal beneath the storm. In 2007, a book (Jack & Lem, by David Pitts) came out which revealed that the best friend of JFK, Lem Billings, was gay. They met when they were still teenagers in a male boarding school, were roommates & the gay friend was so frequent a visitor to the Kennedy's compound that Ted Kennedy revealed he only learned that the gay friend wasn't his brother when he was already a teenager. The book made it clear that JFK rebuffed the sexual advances of his gay friend but it didn't give any convincing proof to back up that assertion: it mentioned only about a toilet paper note of solicitation which was rejected with a tart "I'm not that kind of a boy". The toilet paper note was never produced. Think about it: no matter if the tissue paper use was a "trend" then, they were roommates, what's the value of using notes with a boy you're giggling with in the same room everyday? Especially that he knew already that you were called a 'fairy' by other boys & was accused of going down on somebody, which he knew was true, a fact which apparently didn't make him uncomfortable because he's still giggling with you in your room & he even took you home for more giggling apparently (in the boarding school, the teacher staying in the next room complained that the two roommates were always giggling in their room). Actually, as it turned out, those questions were immaterial, as I'll show shortly below (just reading the notes between the two friends, you can actually read between the lines the scope of their relationship in all its aspects but we won't go into them in this post, I got a more telling situation below).



In the book GRACE & POWER by Sally Bedell Smith, it was mentioned that Jackie O commented that the friend which turned out to be gay was at their house on weekends since she got married to JFK (above photo, Georgetown, when JFK was still a Congressman. The gay friend is the tall one standing). From Georgetown, up to the White House, he was a constant weekend presence. In fact, he was even given his own room- not a guest room, mind you- in the White House. In 1982, long before David Pitts discovered that the best friend of JFK was gay in 2007, the driver of JFK's parents came out with his own memoirs, Torn Lace Curtain. No political homophobia hysteria yet at that time. The sexual orientation of Lem Billings was not yet known. There was this innocent paragraph in the book wherein the driver was waiting to meet the President but the latter was sleeping in a certain room.

Then there was some talk about my having stayed up until after one to meet the president. I made the mistake of asking who this friend Lem Billings was. "Oh, him! He's always here," Dora Lawrence said. "I think he sleeps with Jack more than Jacqueline does," she said.

This was all so new to me, I did not know what the maid was talking about. And evidently I showed it. The maid laughed, a kind of half laugh. "President Kennedy doesn't like to sleep alone, Frank. Lem Billings is an old school chum, and he's always with him," she said. (Torn Lace Curtain, Frank Saunders).

That was written in 1982, it was only in 2007 that Lem Billings was publicly identified as gay.

Could it be some very powerful people saw through the smokescreen of "reckless womanizing" even then?

Seymour Hersh mentioned in a magazine interview that from his interviews with the Secret Service agents for his book (The Dark Side of Camelot), he only included in the book those related to policy (reckless personal life like reckless womanizing could lead to reckless policy) but he suppressed a "million things that were more damaging". If the maids noticed something, surely the Secret Service saw more? It's a long way from the days of toilet paper notes already. Perhaps one was not a certain kind of a boy, but a boy could grow into a certain kind of a man.

The above only shows the complexity of human emotions, psychology, sexuality, everything, if you may. What is surprising is they succeeded in whatever they were up to even without shouting slogans in the streets. One became the President of a land, one was welcome by the man he loved even to the White House. In their middle age. Not exactly the age for adolescent experimentation anymore. But who says they weren't fulfilled & happy in their own way even without joining parades & believing in delusions? Perhaps, we're still waiting for better taxonomic labels to describe all the dynamics involved & the ones we're using now are simply inadequate & irrelevant, especially the expedient but simplistic mantras of sectoral politics. I hate to reduce the sexual & emotional realities I described above into the hackneyed dichotomy used nowadays. Gore Vidal said homosexual is an adjective, not a noun. Just last year I was scouring the world for the most delicious straight guys. Now, I'm in love with a straight girl. I was homosexual last year, I'm heterosexual now. Have I ever really been a gay man?

In the film JFK, the new evidence unearthed by Jim Garrison was about a group of characters in New Orleans which allegedly plotted a "homosexual thrill killing". There was the gay New Orleans businessman who turned out to be a CIA operative, Clay Shaw. All the main characters like David Petrie & Jack Ruby were gay. The hired killer, Lee Oswald, was "socializing" with known New Orleans gays & was apparently a Jack Kerouac character who did it with girls but did men at the same time. They say almost all the angles about the Kennedys have been exhausted. Not yet. What is the probability that JFK might have been killed because he was seen as gay & some very powerful people couldn't accept a gay President, especially during the heat of the Vietnam War & the Cuban missile crisis? Very probable. The ultimate ideological catharsis: manipulating gay plotters to use a gay gunman to kill a gay target. I thought the motive was clearly telegraphed in the circumstances of the crime. To any budding investigative writer, there's a very plausible plot there. Connect the dots & you'll hit a windfall. Good for you, I don't have the time to write a bestseller.

I finally got Jackie O's drift.

Surprisingly, after reading the 5 books, I suddenly lost complete interest on the JFK saga altogether. My strict quality control on sexuality & things kicking in. Some may say the authors have their own agenda. Actually, you can look for your truth in the innocent scenes, you get their meanings if you extrapolate them with those other innocent scenes in the other books written by different personalities of varying credibility & time.

The 5 books I read in chronological order (which turned out to be a perfect discovery thread, from the reckless womanizing to the tender "friendship" beneath):

1. The Dark Side of Camelot, Seymour Hersh
2. Grace & Power, Sally Bedell Smith
3. Jack: A Life Like No Other, Geoffrey Perret
4. Jack & Lem, David Pitts, 2007
5. Torn Lace Curtain, Francis Saunder, 1982



Friday, June 3, 2011

GODS OF BULLFIGHTING: Sebastian Castella of France





Life sure works steadfastly in its mysterious ways. I will be a father soon. No, not with my present girl friend. In my last trip to Paris early this year, my French friend Yves introduced me to a classy sweet girl, & the four of us (with Yves & his wife) drank off till the wee hours of the morning. Me & my partner ended up having sex without protection. The girl didn't want to bother me with the news, but Yves learned of it eventually. I will have a child with a French pout soon.

Mysterious the ways of life. But I fell in love already with my present girl friend, & it's a little sad I can't give my first child a normal family. More baffling is that I even have to wrestle with these kinds of dilemma today. Just a year ago, I was single-mindedly hunting straight guys in the most delicious cities of the world, & here I am now, on a completely different trajectory. & I couldn't be happier, I've escaped the rut.

I haven't sucked a boy this year, & I have no more desire to do so. My previous sex life is behind me. I may find a little guilt because, there I was enjoying all the spectacular straight guys who could only be fantasized by most gays who have to grit their teeth & make do with types who would make me nauseous to even just whiff, but here I am, leaving all that & reinventing myself as your usual heterosexual Joe- doing it only with girls, having kids, enjoying my heterosexual friends who have no idea at all of my previous deviations. Clean slate. Curiously, a part of me sees it as now a shameful part of my past, but I am now really getting into the right groove, & here lies the value of this blog- without me intending it to be, it has become a journal of my renewal. I started it out as a prank out of boredom in a rained out manhunt vacation- who would have thought, that while it celebrated the sexiest heterosexual men in the world, it would chronicle my sexual renewal instead? It took two years of publishing naked straight men before I saw the way out. But at least, I saw it.

I removed the email ad in my Profile for the meantime. Many tried to send more pictures, probably to try to convince me to be more regular with the blog. I have enough drafts waiting. I just haven't made a decision what to do next after the recent developments in my sexual life. I'm not in a gender propaganda war here. I don't have to because things are moving out of the hands of everybody anyway. One good thing about writing a blog is you can explore things before they become trendy issues. Because that has become the main drawback in Western thought progress- you have to gather enough critical mass of opinion before anything gets seriously tackled. & it may be too late then. When Bush started the Iraq war, you could hardly hear a dissenting opinion because nobody wanted to expose himself to prevailing sentiments (which could be manipulated easily btw). Everybody was waiting for everybody else before they could make the first move though they knew things weren't like what the event manipulators wanted them to believe. Until the bodybags started arriving, & everybody was hypocritically lambasting anybody else before fingers of blame started pointing at them for being complicit, for their cowardice. This blog touched the implications on the gay movement of the likely replacement of Western economic supremacy by the emerging economies before the decade is through. Three things: 1) the politics of the likely economic overlords emphasize communal rights over those of the individual- what is best for Joe may not be good for the society, & as you can see from their present communities, homosexuality is seen not good for the society, 2) you can hear some British "intellectuals" gloat that as long as all the democratic rights written in English are read, democracy is safe. Wrong. If you read communist literature, you can't help but yearn for a communist Utopia, but after the fall of communism, is anybody even interested to long for communism? If the present Western control of civilization falls, all the democratic literature written in English will go the same way. Who would believe losers? 3) the economic arena will be tighter- the lesser marketability of gay men will ultimately bring them back to the start of the historical cycle. Most likely, all the Western human rights movements will become mere romantic footnotes? What do you think?

We often hear that phrase being in the 21st century, the current delusional mantra you often hear spouted by wishful thinkers about how blurring the lines of what is beautiful from what is nauseous is the natural path of evolution (contrary to what is happening in nature, btw). My reaction? LOL! First, prevent the above civilization change scenario, but how, aside from the war drums of NATO which can't seem to win in Afghanistan or even to dislodge Khadaffi. It was hilarious then, but I'm beginning to give credence to the American general who said the Dutch lost Srebrenica because of the gays in the Dutch military who didn't have the balls to defend the refugees.

My German friend Hans told me I'm the first to look at the gay movement in terms of the likely change of civilizations. Right, you read it first here.

I would like to thank the friendship of our poster. His views on politics started me to include politics in my readings, he's deeper than most of the paid hacks in the media nowadays. So you thought he earned from the ads in this blog (whose rights I gave to him lock, stock & barrel)? He sent me the checks, I flushed them down the toilet. All I could do for his integrity. To think, his girl friend Delilah, our erstwhile writer, just broke up with him. Reason? It was the poster himself who told me: erectile dysfunction. He can't form lasting relationships with women, not because he's gay. There are other things sexual that takes its toll to relationships.

Mysteries of life. At least, he's straight. Be joyful of the crumbs.







































celebrating straight boy Sebastian:

video frontal












POP-ARAZZI