Sunday, February 22, 2009

Gay politics

The Age reports today about a young man being charged for blackmail. He had filmed himself having sex with a politician and threatened to put the video on the internet. While I do not suggest that blackmail is okay, we don't know whether he asked for money or love (most blackmailing is emotional, and never makes it to any court).

The 'victim' of the attempted blackmail attack remains unknown, we just hear that he is a 'married senior political figure', while the offenders details lie in plain sight. While Jake tried to 'out' this politician, he got outed by The Age. But maybe Jake doesn't mind if others know about his sexual identity.

So the same action, informing a wider range of people of one's preference for sex partners of the same gender, gets one person into trouble (for just trying it) while it fills happily the top of page 3 in The Age. It seems though that Jake didn't hide his sexual identity, unlike his lover for 5 month. He used a false identity during their relationship, not to mention the fact of his marriage.

A society, in which blackmailing about sexual identity still happens, deserves the label sexual repressive. This repression goes so far that representatives of the government deliberately deceive its constituents about their sexual orientation, they betray their churches by ridiculing their vow of marriage. (Of course, I imply here that the black mail victim is only one of the gay politicians playing a similar charade, not just a solitary bad apple)

Jake's career took a dent after his attempt to regain his relationship, make some extra money or what ever his motives were. The 'senior political figure' remains unknown, unharmed, protected by the secrecy of a feudalistic administration, that covers for his lies to his voters and spiritual community.

Representative democracy is based on trust, not on control. Control exists only for commoners, who are by definition potential terrorists, but not for those in control. National security, ie. the integrity of the network of parasites sucking the population dry, is the common excuse why politicians get granted privacy even for their lies and crimes, while the governments satellites can zoom into any property.

Let's call Jake's gay lover Kevin for simplicities sake. (Yes, like Kevin Rudd. No, I don't think he did it. Which doesn't mean it couldn't imagine Kevin Rudd doing something similar. I saw a photo of him snuggling one of the bushfire victims, a little boy, who looked less than comfy.) Kevin probably found out early in his life that boys made him happier in bed than girls. But in homophobic Australia career comes only with traditional family, so he got used to live different lifes.

Networking, the essential component in the existance of a political parasite, takes lots of time. This allows for plenty of excuses to do something entirely different, constructing realities/stories to meet the expectations of the environment becomes a skill. If Kevin manages to hide his sexual identity even from his spouse (which some gays manage to do) he fits into the profile of a pathological liar. If his wife is complicit, he qualifies as skilled conspiritor, willing to cooperatively deceive those around him.

I fail to find a decent explanation why someone should trust Kevin. His voters might be sufficiently homophobic not to vote for him just because of his sexual orientation (very likely imho), and he lied to them. He lied as well on his wedding ceremony, vowing monogamy. The separation between private and public life is similarly inadequate like the separation of mind and body - if a person's private life requires the regular construction of lies and deception, then we can safely assume the use of similar strategies in public life.

Kevin trusts someone, even more, Kevin networked with a lot of people exchanging 'dark secrets' to secure each other favours in time of need. Finding out the competitors bets for a tender can make building one's house cheaper, or get access to unusual areas of entertainment. Doing things outside the law for the network strengthens its bonds.

So when his little bitch came back to him, he knew that his name would not surface. The network of psychopaths would not let him fall.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

omg, you so totally do reckon it was kevin rudd, don't cha?

"for simplicities sake", eh?

you do!

Anonymous said...

i first figured rudd was gay when he got loaded at some strait strip club in new york & was, kicked out for hassling the lap dancers.

Anonymous said...

see, that's was cover, it's all part of his cunning disguise.

Anonymous said...

also:

Premier Peter Beattie denied the controversy would hurt Mr Rudd's election chances.

"I think Australians will probably warm to him rather than take a critical view," he said. "It shows that he's got blood in his veins."

Anonymous said...

so that's alright then.

Winston Smith said...

disclaimer: i totally don't think it was Kevin. Thanks anyway for reasons to get suspicious. Not touching strippers, but smooching helpless kids after the bush fires casts a funny shadow on the PM.

But Jake would have spotted his face. No matter how boring, each country gets a visual overload of their leader's image (as learned from Saddam and GWB).

For synchronicity's sake, sbs runs a docu about Harvey Milk, a gay politician.

I never thought that moving from Europe to Oz could feel like a time travel. Doh.

Anonymous said...

oh, right!

i totally don't think it's kevin either.

;-)

Anonymous said...

wait, maybe that would've been more convincing if i hadn't typed that ;-)

Anonymous said...

man, i gotta stop blogging stoned.