Human Evolution - Cheap Sex and Homosexuality?

Dear friends,

Have you ever been asked the super dumb question, " Do you believe in evolution?". After all, if we hadn't evolved as a species, then one wouldn't be able to ask that question, because s/he would still be only grunting, as our earliest ancestors did.

Moreover, just as there is a biological mechanism/drive to make us eat for self-preservation, for reproduction we have a sexual drive for heterosexual sex (i.e., between the opposite sexes of our species). In other words, there cannot possibly be a "natural" gene or any kind of mechanism for homosexual sex, because that would have meant that we would have ceased to exist as a species long ago.

To be sure, at this point of the discourse there will be some reader who attacks me with a kind of moral terrorism by calling me "homophobic". However, my response to that is: that person is being "heterophobic" - afraid that s/he is really not a homosexual at all.

Finally, sex has been so cheapened in our advanced corporate capitalist political economy or process of social reproduction that far too many people are willing to relinquish their humanity, just as some folks do when they have sex with cows, horses, dogs, and chickens (called "zoo"), in order to have a cheap thrill, then argue that what they are doing is "natural".

One Love!

G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post

NBA's so-called "gay" player Jason Collins is a Fraud!!!

Dear friends,

NBA player Jason Collins is getting far more publicity by announcing that he is a homosexual than he ever did on the basketball court. He is even parading around the number 98 on his uniform that represents the year of the tragic murder of a European American boy, Matthew Shepard, in Wyoming. His "gay" activism, at least to me, is fraudulent, since he has no history of acting against the centuries of exploitation and oppression that continue to be committed against African American people… Not a peep!!!

Nor does he seem to have any energy, regarding what happened to Trayvon Martin (Whose parents he didn't visit for a photo op as he did the parents of Matthew Shepard) or any of the other constant murders of African American youth that happen in this country almost daily… To be sure, the market is responsible for this. After all, the greed of the market is insatiable… Therefore, since the 80s, the market construct called "homosexuality" has found its place in the worthless, uninformative, mind-manipulating US mainstream media.

Besides, how can any honest human being, much less a same one, claim an identity with something as random, short-lived, and precarious, if not frivolous, as an impulse/the human sexual appetite? And why would Jason Collins be so uncaring about Black youngsters to promote behavior that goes on in the bathrooms of places like movie theaters, airports, and bus terminals every single minute of the day in this country?

And tonight Ellen DeGeneres will be hosting the Oscars. European Americans, so-called "whites", are just as racist towards us, no matter with whom they claim to be having sex. Besides, the asinine argument that many people make about not having a choice about being "gay" is totally contradicted by the reality that no one needs another person to relieve himself or herself of sexual frustration. Any person can do/does that every second of every minute of every hour of every day, everywhere on this planet.

Let's keep it real!

G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post

The latest claim that is en vogue: Being "Gay"

Dear friends,

On the en vogue claim of being "gay": It's interesting that with such a lack of people being able to relate to each other (especially by skin color and sex/gender, much less employer/employee), in this market- driven country of ours, the "market" currently thrives upon its insatiable greed, since the 80s, with the latest commodities: gay night clubs, gay magazines, gay marriage, gay this, gay that.

So many people find their purpose by informing their identity through an impulse/the human sexual appetite, as opposed to informing identity through their connection to familial generations/humanity.

What a meaningful way to look at life. What is the future for America?

G. Djata Bumpus Read full post

Bradley Manning and his ilk are Psychotic Sexists!!!

Dear friends,

Psychotics like Bradley Manning who claim to be a woman in a man’s body have no idea of what it is to be a woman!. For example, beginning at a very early age in life, she is often forced to adhere to expectations with which her male counterparts, little boys, never have to contend.

And the older she gets, from how she is dealt with by school teachers, sports coaches, and, later, employers, gas station attendants and auto repair shops the feelings, and other emotions remain stored in her mind. This also means that her conscious actions are directly tied to her female unconsciousness in a way that no male could possibly fathom. Worse yet, it is even more sexist than ever for a male to claim that he is a woman in a man’s body, so all that he needs to do is put on a long wig, get some big boobs, put on a dress, or even have cosmetic surgery that makes it look like he has a vagina, to then declare that he is woman...what a piece of sick scum!

Finally, in a socially-stratified society su ch as ours, women are not treated as equals. Yet, when Bradley Manning and others ignore the reality that they live in an equal society, by saying that all you need to do is claim a certain identity, since we are all the same otherwise, totally denies both sexism and racism. Liberation!

G. Djata Bumpus Read full post

Bradley is a Wpman and Obama is a Man?

Dear friends,

 Bradley Manning a seriously, mentally ill person. Moreover, his objectifying women is incredibly sexist!...why do so many women who consider themselves "progressive" justify such behavior?

After all, since when does being a woman defined as having long hair and wearing makeup?. He needs help - not confinement. The Obama administration, I am told, has charged more people with espionage than all other past presidents combined. Yet, African American people still foolishly support him!. It's a damn shame!

G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57599677/bradley-manning-i-want-to-live-as-a-woman-named-chelsea/ Read full post

Gay Marriage is a Human Right!

"...no one but the parties involved know  what happens, in private, sexually – if anything at all, unless s/he is a witness. Therefore, it is no one’s business what two consenting adults do, regardless of gender, as it pertains to their sexual behavior, much less the type of erotic relationship in which they choose to commit themselves, married or otherwise."

Dear friends,

The right to marry someone is a human right NOT a civil one. This is where much of the confusion starts with the issue of “gay” marriage.

The ever-reactionary US government has, conveniently, diminished all movements, along with their activists, that oppose the actions of the aforementioned government to being in the same league as the sterile movement of the Sixties that died with Martin Luther King. For example, today, ridiculous media and other endorsed spokespeople, call the great revolutionary and Black Nationalist Malcolm X, a “civil tights” leader. Huh? To be sure, about that, Malcolm is rolling around in his grave.

But this lessening of human rights just mentioned above can be seen in the ability of African Americans to rink from certain water fountains down South as being called a “civil right”. Being seated fairly on a bus may be a civil right. After all, at least you can get on the bus – or walk. However,  when, in fact, all humans must consume water/fluids in periodic intervals or they will succumb, it is a violation of one’s rights as a human being to not be able to drink from any particular public fountain. . This also applies to public toilets. 

In any case, and unfortunately, the original Gay Liberation Movement that started in the late-Sixties, due to the market, not “sexual”, orientation of so many American citizens has deteriorated into the so-called Gay “Rights” Movement, as folks constantly practice being the most saleable personalities,.

Moreover, aside from the fact that, to me, it is absurd for anyone to make a staunch claim of “sexual identity”, based upon something as precarious, if not frivolous, as the human sexual appetite, no one but the parties involved know  what happens, in private, sexually – if anything at all, unless s/he is a witness. Therefore, it is no one’s business what two consenting adults do, regardless of gender, as it pertains to their sexual behavior, much less the type of erotic relationship in which they choose to commit themselves, married or otherwise.

One Love!

G. Djata Bumpus

Read full post

Do We Need Sexual Liberation for all, or "Gay" Liberation for a few?

“Moreover, and paradoxically, the “spirit” of sexism - the euphemism for Male Supremacy, is male homosexuality.”

Dear friends,

The Gay Liberation Movement which was actually endorsed first, on a national level, by the Black Panther Party, as I remember, around the early spring of 1971, today, is not the same movement, by any stretch of the imagination, as the one that we supported back then. Likewise, neither is its Women's Liberation counterpart that would officially establish itself as a force, much to the dismay of many, if not most, men, during the summer of 1971, when Black activists like Fannie Lou Hamer, Myrlie Evers, and U.S. Representative Shirley Chisholm, along with others like Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, and Bella Abzug founded the National Women's Political Caucus (NWPC). We (the Black Panther Party) vigorously supported that group just mentioned, as well.

Unfortunately, the leadership of both the Gay and Women's Liberation Movements in this country started “digressing” as opposed to “progressing”, within a couple of years, after losing their control to, for the most part, mean-spirited European American women, calling themselves “lesbians”, whose agenda had nothing to do with liberating anyone.

Oddly enough, it has been the specter of Male Supremacy that has been at the heart of these two movements becoming misdirected away from “liberation”, and, instead, being trivialized as, for instance, with women - “equal pay for equal work” - and for so-called “gays”, gay marriage. (By the way, who in this society has marriage equality?)

Moreover, and paradoxically, the “spirit” of sexism - the euphemism for Male Supremacy, is male homosexuality. Therefore, at least to me, it is, at best, insincere for either gay men or lesbians to proclaim to be sharing similar paths, let alone goals. If that’s not true, then why is that, perhaps, the most common lament by gay guys is: I don’t trust anything that bleeds for a week and doesn’t die. (By the way, a number of non-human animals bleed longer and more frequently than female humans...smh)

Additionally, whereas the original Women's Liberation Movement confronted Male Supremacy head on, the earlier-mentioned “lesbians” usurped that movement, as well as the Gay Liberation one, long ago. Then, they distanced themselves from the large presence of the African American pioneers who were mentioned earlier and their sisters - great artists/educators like Barbara Love, Nicki Mathis, Toni Cade Bambara, Sonya Sanchez, Nikki Giovanni, Audre Lorde, hundreds of Panther sisters, and so many others. Does anyone hear White Supremacy? Euphemistically, it is called racism, And, in fact, it is the racist arrogance of Europeans and their offshoots in the Americas that makes them trivialize the centuries-long oppression and exploitation of African American people, particularly, by comparing the plight of so-called gays to our circumstances.

Therefore, another problem is: In a socially-stratified society like ours, one can be a member of an oppressor group and an oppressed group at the same time. the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill debacle proved that point quite adequately. Likewise, males and females who call themselves both "gay" and "white" fit that bill. Consequently, again, in their racist arrogance, such "white" people trivialize our historical struggle for freedom, justice, and equality, as being analogous to two males piercing and thrusting their erections inside each other's anuses as if they are a "loving" pair, thus deserving of the same respect as heterosexual couples, when it is actually an expression of power and sexual greed in its extreme form, which itself is also, at best, a form of voluntary rape.

So, instead of strengthening the recognition of the need for all of us to have sexual freedom, the Gay Liberation Movement became the Gay Rights Movement and ceased to recognize the connection between the various cultural institutions in our country such as those of religion, the mainstream media and our schools, in relation to how they tie in with the overwhelming majority of Americans being sexually-repressed (especially those who call themselves “homosexual”).

Considering all that has been mentioned thus far, both movements have become little more than silly petty-bourgeois causes that do not recognize the fact that it is, essentially, the lack of appreciation for our very “human” identity as sexual beings that allows females to be treated, in a variety of ways, that males would never accept for themselves. In fact, the multi-billions of dollars porn industry recognizes males as sexual beings, but females as sexual objects.

Still, it is the disallowing of the right of females to be fully human, due to the fact that, from birth, for the most part, their own female elders brainwash them into believing their destinies are best served in relation to how skilled they are at deferring to equally brainwashed males (who have so foolishly deluded themselves into thinking that they are "superior" to anyone or anything) that is the cause of this whole situation. That’s the real deal! It is not simply a matter of demanding “equal pay for equal work”.

Proof: Named Steve Harvey, an African American, semi-literate, self-hating buffoon who makes Steppinfetchit look like Malcolm X, recently had a best-selling book called “Act like a Lady-Think like a Man”. Ouch!

The worst part of all that just mentioned is: both African- and European American women purchased such idiocy. [It’s funny. I doubt that any reputable publisher would have let a European American male have a book with such a disgusting title.] Moreover, I remember, during the Black Consciousness Era (roughly 1965 - 85), when speaking to Black men who had just moved Up South to places like Philly, NYC, and Boston from Down South (places like Baltimore, ATL, and Houston), it was not uncommon to hear such fellows advise, “Man, you gotta think like the white man.” Not to put any brothers from the South in the same category, Harvey, obviously of the same pedigree as those aforementioned Black men, somehow, saw a similar solution for all women. Wow!

At any rate, issues like abortion are only given recognition in the context of anti- and pro-, because women are not considered to be sexual beings - as men are. Worse yet, and unfortunately, in their intelligent response of feeling resentment towards Male Supremacy, far too many women, especially middle-aged European American ones, feeling that they are no longer part of the personality market, conveniently, have declared themselves to be “lesbians”, a totally reactionary stance against human progress that has nothing to do with sexuality, much less liberation.

In fact, I have found few things more humorous, but pathetic, than to see female European American Octogenarians holding signs at so-called “Pride” parades that read: I am a lesbian. What? Huh? When was the last time that that person had sex with someone else, of either gender?

Still, many argue that they do not "choose" to be gay; they just are. It is not a matter of behavior, they say. First of all, aside from the fact that a proposition cannot be proof of itself, behavior is anything that we do. Period. It involves a "choice" that people make. For instance, the greatest natural urges are those that remind us that we are hungry and/or thirsty. In our society, unless one lives in abject poverty in a desert or on the hills, s/he, usually, has access to, at least, water - whether clean or dirty. To be sure, the "choice" to eat and/or drink, is a wise one, since without consuming nutrients of some sort in periodic intervals a person would succumb.

Another strong "natural" urge is the sexual one. Yet, no one needs another person or outside element like food or drink to satisfy that frustration. Everyone has the ability to solve that problem by himself or herself – and everyday, billions do. Therefore, said one makes a "choice" to go to someone else in hopes of having that person or persons join in the sexual activity. Unfortunately, this urge, because it is so strong and can be satisfied, often, at so little cost - if any, has had a great deal to do with both power and sexual greed becoming the basis for sexual/social relationships in this society.

Of course, "choice" requires a conscious decision rooted in "will, judgment, and commitment". After all, one cannot "naturally" feel a certain way towards a potential sexual partner. Not even prostitutes take on any "John". Those who do are, unfortunately, at least, sometimes, the ones who are murdered.

Nevertheless, regarding one's "sexual" orientation, what difference does the gender, so-called "race", income level or any other orientation make, if, once you are with the type of person to whom you claim to be "oriented", either you wish that you weren't there - or s/he wishes that YOU weren't there?

In other words, can the complexities of creating mature personal relationships be trivialized so easily? In fact, other than some type of "tattle-tale" or "kiss-n-tell" revelation, how does one know what anyone has done sexually, or whether or not a person is "gay"? Even then, rumor is not enough, since a person does not have any idea what has happened with another sexually, unless s/he witnessed the act. Besides, due to the tug-of-war interactions that often happen in the bedrooms in any society, who knows what went down? Dig?

Sexual preference? We already have a name for such people. We call them rapists. One does not have sex with whom s/he prefers. Rather, a whole set of interactions must occur, approved consensually, by all parties involved. Otherwise., there is violation going on which, at that point, falls within the purview of law enforcement.

And then there are those, particularly males, who insist that they are "a woman inside of a man's body". This is a serious mental health issue. However, there are low-life surgeons, the descendants of the pre-legal abortion butchers, who will provide such psychotic individuals with "counseling", then an operation that gives the latter an artificial vagina, for example The problem with that is: The surgeon never informs the "patient", beforehand, that what distinguishes a woman from a man is not a vagina, but her monthly periodicity (although I must qualify that some females do not menstruate). No man can ever imagine what it feels like to menstruate. Such mistreatment of the patient's psychosis is in no small measure due to the fact that, for the most part, the US health care industry - one of the very worst in the world - mostly recognizes "physical" - not "mental" health. Did someone say "the market"?

At any rate, generally, it can be said that the inability to share erotic love with someone of the other sex comes largely from either a lack of ability to be a loving person or fear and mistrust. Additionally, erotic love is, sometimes, combined with either brotherly or sisterly love. Psychologically, that makes many homosexual relationships a form of incest. Moreover, as social relationships presently stand, in this society, most of the people pushing the gay agenda are women, particularly, European American ones - who call themselves "lesbians". While women as a whole justly resent men for society's patriarchy and sexism, it should be remembered that those same two evils exist and are perpetuated by so-called "gay" men as well. As a matter of fact, that's why, as I stated earlier, I believe that the spirit of sexism is male homosexuality.

Nevertheless, it appears that what sometimes occurs when two women, for example, sit around and commiserate with each other about what men have done to them or two men cry on each others' shoulders about what women have done to them, before long, one person ends up putting her or his face in the other one's lap. To be sure, that type of action breaks social custom. Worse yet, when people are breaking social customs, in order for such behavior to proliferate, the practitioners must necessarily develop obsessive and perverted habits, in order to motivate themselves and justify their very being. Otherwise, the aforementioned practitioners will cease the behavior, having no incentive to continue it.

In his now famous manifesto called "Letter from Birmingham Jail", the great Dr. King wrote, in part, " In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self-purification; and direct action." None of this ever happens with the so-called Gay Rights Movement. In fact, regarding their claim of being "homosexual", dialogue never happens, in any form. Instead, gay “pride” parades and other pathetic and obnoxious activities are thrust upon the public. We are simply told to accept this group, without any recognition or respect for the rest of the community. The so-called homosexual community is not a "community within a community". Rather, it is people who want to sit on both sides of the fence, when it comes to "inclusion".

Finally, those who oppose "gay culture", as it were, are personally attacked and childishly lambasted with a kind of moral terrorism, as gays use words and phrases such as "homophobia" and "mob rule". Also, gays use phrases like "straight allies". In other words, we have a national security issue here, since a certain amount of the population is at war with the rest of us. Gay violence has surfaced in New York City where, a few years back, a group of four women who call themselves "lesbians" brutally attacked a man, and have since been convicted of the heinous crime. There was even talk about a Korean American young man who murdered 32 people, at Virginia Tech, as claiming to be a tortured homosexual. Not a peep, about either incident just mentioned has been denounced by the "gay" community. The reason for their silence, at least to me, is due to the fact that their so-called Gay Rights Movement is not about sexual liberation at all. Rather, it is about sexual repression and destruction of the commonweal. Peace.

G. Djata Bumpus Read full post

Kobe Bryant's mumblings bring protest - a double standard?

“The recent frenzy caused by the pitiful, opinion-making, US government- and corporate-controlled mainstream media, when an African American celebrity called a referee out of his name…”

Dear friends,

The recent frenzy caused by the pitiful, opinion-making, US government- and corporate-controlled mainstream media, when an African American celebrity called a referee out of his name, as said media try to compete with the far more informative worldwide Internet, to me, is actually another case of the unclothed emperor attempting to cover himself up.

Bryant’s mumblings were offensive to a certain body of citizens. The powers-that-be of the NBA fined the young man $100.000. For all of the recording cowards like Chris Rock and African American hip-hoppers who are allowed by record companies to glamorize the use of the word “nigger”, I wonder what would have happened to him, if Kobe Bryant had called the ref a “cracker”? Did someone say “double standard”?

Nevertheless, while a proposition cannot possibly be proof of itself, this is the basis upon which many, if not most, of those who identify themselves as “gay” operate. “I’m just gay; that’s all to it.”, they say. Moreover, theirs is a bogus claim that they make about having such a staunch “sexual identity” as it relates to something as precarious, if not frivolous, as the human sexual appetite. And it is better study for a psychologist than sociologist.

Let’s face it. As the great Freud insisted, and I agree with him, our “identity” is an “emotional tie”. That first identity, of course, develops with our original nurse (mother). Additionally, this “identity”, as it were, is obviously an acknowledgement of one’s humanity. So, at least to me, the real question about “homosexuality” and “identity” then becomes: At what point does a person both alienate and disconnect himself or herself from the rest of humanity, by demanding to be recognized as gay?

To be sure, the “market” is responsible for this turn of events. You see, capitalism has been so attractive, because it is the only political economy, or process of social reproduction, that has afforded total political freedom to its participants, as workers. That means that a person can "flip a bird" at the boss, and walk away, being "free" to find another opportunity for employment. This was certainly not the case in either slave or feudalistic societies. So-called socialist (actually state capitalist) countries do not allow that kind of freedom either, since almost everyone works for the State and must work where he or she is assigned, more or less.

In any case, the downside of the total political freedom of capitalism is: The "market” controls all economic and, therefore, social relationships, based upon the notion of "supply and demand", whether for the human commodity - labor, or non-human ones (commodities). Most importantly, the chief rewards that motivate people to thrive in the market are power and sexual greed.

Unfortunately, since, the end of World War 1 or so, the "market" has taken control of what we see as culture, with possession as the strongest desire. As a result, the definition of culture, which historically, has referred to all of the actions by a specific population group, has become anything that the market determines it to be. Consequently, the notion of a “gay" culture (weddings, nightclubs, exclusive recreational venues, magazines and newspapers and ads sold by them, books and book stores, fashions, gay this-gay that, and so forth), is, totally, a market construct.

Invading other countries (military/industrial complex) and locking up citizens and immigrants (prison/industrial complex) is not enough. The market is greedy! Greed, to be sure, is always short-sighted, from the cheating spouse to BP’s oil spill in the Gulf or the Exxon/Mobil oil spill on the Niger Delta of West Africa.

Moreover, culture has no meaning once taken out of the context of a reproductive process. A people who cannot reproduce themselves as a people will cease to exist as a people and become part of something else. This is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. For example, the culture that held Africans in slavery, in this society, could no longer reproduce itself in that form and had to change, because of the well-deserved hostility and resistance it engendered.

Still, African American people have an actual cultural and historical experience. As well, the claim to being African American has both historical and social criteria that make a person an African American. So-called "gay" people do not enjoy such an identity. Therefore, perhaps, it may be instructive for someone to come up with criteria that define just what makes a person "gay". Besides, considering what has just been said, is there any reason why one should wonder that it is extremely inconsiderate and insulting to many African Americans when so-called “gays” compare their plight to ours?

Worse yet, it should be no surprise that one of the real dilemmas of a society that is socially-stratified such as ours, lies in the fact that a person can be a member of an oppressor group and an oppressed group, at the same time. This was adequately proven, with the Clarence Thomas - Anita Hill debacle. Except for African American women, but not limited to them, particularly women who call themselves "white", are oppressed as women, but, also, serve as oppressors, as part of the artificial "majority" group that calls itself "white". Therefore, for example, the attempt by these same women to form an artificial "minority" group, by calling themselves "lesbians", is disingenuous, at best.

After all, one need only recall 1974 and the desegregation of Boston Public Schools, as we watched our televisions, in both horror and anger, at scores of "white" women, daily, uninterrupted, as police stood watching, throwing rocks and other objects at buses carrying the brand new incoming African American children who were being transported to, especially, South Boston neighborhood schools. Additionally, from working in and living around Northampton, Massachusetts, a so-called lesbian stronghold, my own personal experience is that both the venomous vibes and actions of lesbian racists permeate the atmosphere here so thickly that one can cut said air with a knife.

Finally, in a healthy and sane society, people will not alienate themselves from the rest of us by calling themselves “gay”. (After all, imagine the mental health trauma that must be experienced, if one is incapable of making love with someone of the opposite sex.) Instead, folks will think of their communities first and help us all - and everything around us - proliferate with love and prosperity. As a result, males and females alike will engage themselves in nature’s symmetry of heterosexual bonding, as birds and bees do.

One Love,
G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post

Marriage Equality and the Bush Family

"...everyone should have the right to marry the person that they love."

Dear friends,

It's funny that marriage equality , as it were, has been trivialized to being synonymous with same-sex marriage, just as feminism has been trivialized to "equal pay for equal work". After all, within the context of "rights", where is marriage equality in so-called heterosexual marriages?

Still, on the link below, the younger Barbara Bush, daughter of the former president - a man who I knew when I was a Black Panther some 40 years ago, insists, "...everyone should have the right to marry the person that they love." That's reasonable. I guess. However, the identity issue, at least to me, becomes cloudy, since it begs for the question: How can anyone make such a staunch claim of sexual identity such as being "gay" - or "straight" for that matter, when the human sexual appetite is so precarious, if not frivilous?

It would seem that the only relevant identity between sex partners lies somewhere between two poles. They are: 1) Sexual liberation. 2) Sexual repression. Most people seem to fit somewhere between the two afprementioned poles. Besides, if the significance of a lover's gender is so important to a person in his or her abilty to express himself or herself intimately, then it seems that one is suggesting that s/he is somehow certain to be pleased with another, based solely upon her or his gender (as if all males and females are sexually enjoyable when they are mated with someone of the same gender). That type of reasoning is called "intellectual acrobatics" in the company that I enjoy.

Let's keep it real!

G. Djata Bumpus
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110201/ts_yblog_theticket/breaking-with-her-father-barbara-bush-voices-support-for-gay-marriage
Read full post

Has the recent ruling by a California judge made US armed forces "gay"?

Meanwhile, readers, listeners, and viewers of mainstream media gobbledygook are swayed from the larger issue of why our young people, since the end of the Civil War, and except for World War 2, have been hoodwinked into fighting to enrich profiteers and racketeers like Boeing, Polaroid, Halliburton, and so many other corporations via US armed forces and the latter’s wars of expansion (imperialism).

Dear friends,
Is it exciting that people who call themselves homosexuals can now freely join forces with others in order to protect the interests of profiteering and racketeering US multinational corporations through exercises that are, euphemistically, called wars? Additionally, if so, then are those who claim to be homosexual finally legitimate citizens, under that moniker?

At least to me, that’s very confusing, because on the one hand, they’ve estranged themselves from the rest of society, with many of them currently insisting that homosexuals are an actual “race”, while, on the other hand, these “gays”, both male and female, are seeking to be included in the process of our way of life unquestioned. Again, it’s very confusing.

In any case, will there still be a need for “Gay Pride” parades? Perhaps, instead, some gay men will lose their pink dresses and purple wigs and ride on top of tanks, along with their war buddies, in full camouflage gear, and celebrate victory along a road in some far away place, right after blowing up a hospital or day care center, as US armed forces have done so many times, previously, in places like Vietnam, Grenada, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

And what problems has the whole homosexual issue brought to the Pentagon? Obviously, the headache of trying to figure out what could possibly drive people of the same gender to mimick the lifestyles of ordinary males and females, much less want to be soldiers, must have left generals and admirals in a daze.

The so-called Gay Rights Movement is hardly a progressive one (i.e., movement). That’s why so many African Americans become nauseated when so-called “gays” compare their alleged plight to our ongoing dilemma and fight against White Supremacy.

Moreover, unlike the historical series of freedom movements that African Americans have initiated that have created better circumstances, not only for ourselves, but groups other than us as well, from the anti-slavery and early women’s rights initiatives, to the Back-to-Africa Movement led by the great Marcus Garvey that was followed by nationalist movements such as the Nation of Islam and the Republic of New Africa, all the way up to the modern-day Civil Rights Movement and the Black Consciousness Movement which grew out of all of the physical, intellectual, emotional, and spiritual energies of its predecessors, the so-called Gay Rights Movement selfishly seeks legitimacy, even though their claim of whiteness already gives them advantage over those who are not considered “white”. So, they want a dual citizenship, in other words. This is particularly so, because their leaders always look the same.

To that extent, the Gay Rights Movement is racist and reactionary!

Oh! Yes. There have been African Americans like the late and great Audre Lorde and James Baldwin who related, sexually, to others of their same gender. However, neither of these giants ever claimed that s/he was progressive because s/he was a homosexual. Rather, their intellects and actions which, by the way, still inspire others to join in the struggle for human freedom, was their cause.

Nevertheless, apart from a few horny guys who want access to a lot of men, male homosexuals are not socialized through this market construct called “gay culture” in a way that would cause them to have an interest in being soldiers. Yet, lower middle class young men, as well as women who think that they will become “tougher” by joining the armed forces are much easier to lure into that kind of life. Some of the aforementioned women may call themselves “lesbians”. But, again, homosexual males are, largely, a no-go.

And so, a California judge has done what, to be sure, perplexed generals and admirals at the Pentagon have been unable to do. But what’s next?

G. Djata Bumpus

Read full post

More about us needing sexual liberation – not “gay” liberation

“…does having females cover up their breasts when sunbathing, specifically designate them as sexual objects who are born and bred to satisfy the sexual greed of males, at the whim of the latter?”

Dear friends,

Recently, I read a piece by a very dear friend of mine who wrote about semi-nude sunbathing and the outcry that it causes among some folks. Additionally, she questioned whether or not the practice of females publicly showing their breasts is a good idea at this time, especially considering the fact that , as she put it, “In France, where the practice has been commonplace, more women reportedly are covering up, citing concerns about skin cancer and unwanted attention. There was talk a few years back about banning semi-nude sunbathing in Australia, but it didn't get far..”

Well, I must admit, first of all, that I was disappointed that she never drew a connection between those who either castigate females about showing their breasts in public, ignoring the latter’s own feelings of getting whatever kind of relief, as well as those that rebuke females who breastfeed in public. By the way, both types of breast-revealing females just mentioned are victims in our sexually-repressive society. They are NOT perpetrators of either immoral or naive behavior!

Yet, if people in any particular culture (civilization) do not recognize their sexuality within the context of the relatedness of those sexual feelings towards, especially, those of the opposite sex, then can they even enjoy their sexuality in a mentally- and physically-healthy way?

And what does that say about male/female relationships in such an environment? Can that culture survive very long?

In any case, as would be expected, there were brief remarks made about breast size, regarding both females and males. After all, in this market-driven, possession-oriented society of ours, people confuse self-pride with self-esteem. The former is a silly mask that people wear in order to trick people into thinking that they’re someone other than who they really are, whereas self-esteem develops from folks recognizing their inner powers, then revealing those strength capabilities to the world, because, each of the abovementioned folks, as individuals, knows what it’s like to be alone and accomplish goals on his or her own. Dig?

Therefore, for example, wearing expensive suits, a guy like Donald Trump rides around in limousines like a “big man”. But his gestures are only those of self-pride. As a matter of fact, he hides the real “him”, along with his often questionable business dealings, especially from his various wives and the authorities, because he prefers that people not know the real Donald Trump. Consequently, he has low self-esteem, particularly since his ascendance to wealth was bequeathed to him by his father, He didn’t earn it.

Likewise, women who get their breasts enlarged feel no better about themselves than they did prior to their operations. Consequently, just as the late Michael Jackson never tired of facial surgery, in spite of his great showmanship, popularity, and wealth, he was also a person who suffered from low self-esteem. He didn’t feel very good about himself.

Considering all of this mentioned above, how can we expect for females to appreciate who they are, if they are raised in a civilization that judges them (and we men too), according to how well they’re/we’re able to trick others into thinking that we are someone other than who we really are?
Moreover, does having females cover up their breasts when sunbathing, specifically designate them as sexual objects who are born and bred to satisfy the sexual greed of males, at the whim of the latter? And, if so, does that serve the purpose of not just maintaining, but proliferating Male Supremacy?

Nevertheless, in essence, people who call themselves “homosexual” deny the various aspects of power relations and discriminating tastes, much less sexual urges, that lead individuals to engage themselves in sexual relations from Jump Street. Moreover, and unfortunately, what passes off today as the “Gay Rights Movement” doesn’t address the direction that we need to take, as species beings, so that males and females can live as people who equally respect and trust each other, so that we can extend our existence as a species as far as possible into the future.

Finally, in a country where dialogue of any kind is, generally, unwelcome (and in some cases, at least, quasi-illegal), the specter of violence against females is clouded by the unwillingness of even female journalists and politicians to dare raise issues that will lead to the liberation of us all. Some “democracy”. Eh?

Still, imagine if millions of women in our country decide to show their breasts in public? What other freedoms would then be on the horizon?
To be sure, such inquiry may then stimulate the thought, “Perhaps, human beings really can appreciate freedom (liberation).”, as opposed to the way that things are now, where most people are more comfortable when they take no personal responsibility for ending their social bondage, and, instead, become anonymous, that is go un-noticed, by joining a herd (i.e., group or crowd) and running from it (freedom)?

“Dare to struggle, dare to win” - Frederick Douglass

G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/features/20100629_Jenice_Armstrong__Taking_off_the_top_at_Asbury_Park_.html

Read full post

Should Boy Scouts ban "gay" troop leaders?

Ultimately, nonetheless, avoiding any dialogue what-so-ever, the argument of many “gays” deteriorates to, “I’m just gay…that’s all to it!” At least to me, the question for which that declaration then begs is, “How can a proposition be proof of itself?”


Dear friends,

Very recently, there has been a lot of controversy in Philadelphia, regarding the city government’s decision to renege on its decades-old promise and practice to provide a rent-free building to the local chapter of the Boy Scouts of America, because the legendary organization has banned openly “gay” troop leaders (which is against newly-legislated city discrimination laws).

I wrote a letter to the editor, in response to a brilliant piece that was written by Philadelphia Daily News journalist Christine Flowers about this issue. My letter has been published; however, a few important points were edited out. Therefore, below, you will find the original letter, while on the link below it, you will find the published version.

Cheers!

G. Djata Bumpus
****************************
Dear Editor:

Christine Flower’s thoughtful piece called, “Philadelphia’s odd case against the Boy Scouts”, posted 6/18/10, reveals a disturbing practice by our city government to acknowledge a group of “gay activists” that appears to be ignoring the actual fact that homosexual relationships are no less based upon power and sexual greed than heterosexual ones. Yet, when do we hear heterosexuals establishing themselves as a distinct group based upon the ability to walk around pronouncing unproven claims about with whom they’re having sex? So what kind of guidance should we provide to our youth, so that they can replace us in the future?

One of the real dilemmas of a society that is socially-stratified such as ours, lies in the fact that a person can be a member of an oppressor group and an oppressed group, simultaneously. This was adequately proven, with the Clarence Thomas - Anita Hill debacle.

Let’s face it; except for African American women, but not limited to them, particularly women who call themselves "white", are oppressed as women, but, also, serve as oppressors, as part of the artificial "majority" group that calls itself "white".

Therefore, the attempt by some of these same “white” women to form an artificial "minority" group, by calling themselves "lesbians" or having “white” men calling themselves “gay” for the same purpose is disingenuous - at best.

Besides, what difference does a person's skin color, gender, or any other "orientation" make, if once you are with the person to whom you claim to be oriented, either you wish that you weren't there - or he or she wishes the same? Is anyone “oriented” to be with anyone else? That’s silly.

Well, is there a “sexual preference”? Actually, we already have a name for people like that. We call them rapists. In other words, some amount of mutual consent must be involved between parties. One does not have sex with whomever he or she prefers.

Ultimately, nonetheless, avoiding any dialogue what-so-ever, the argument of many “gays” deteriorates to, “I’m just gay…that’s all to it!” At least to me, the question for which that declaration then begs is, “How can a proposition be proof of itself?”

So-called “gay activists” undermine the real notion of citizens’ rights, when they attempt to re-invent themselves as a distinct population group. Moreover, Flowers hit the nail right on the head, when she insists about city officials and their cohorts engaged in this heartless move to evict children and their mentors from a city-owned property, “They need to get a better answer. Or maybe a conscience.” for discontinuing support for the Boy Scouts of America, a wonderful, life-enhancing group to which my five brothers and I belonged, many decades ago.

G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/opinion/20100624_Letters__The_Boy_Scout_case_has_oppressors_and_the_oppressed.html
Read full post