Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Response to response to my original post, #1228

Expand Messages
  • thelastbaron
    Dear Enrique (and others): First off, sorry that I did not sign my note. I assumed that when I logged into the system it would append my name, as do most other
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 28, 2005
      Dear Enrique (and others):

      First off, sorry that I did not sign my note. I assumed that when I
      logged into the system it would append my name, as do most other
      such systems. I did fill in a profile when I joined and in it, I had
      to list my real name. If it is not visible, I apologize. My real
      name appears below on this new post.

      Secondly, thank you so kindly for lecturing me in matters of the
      world. You response has the typical hysterical tone of an enraged
      old queen.

      I received a letter at some point inviting me to apply for
      citizenship and apassport to the GLK for the fee of $500, or was it
      $250? It doesn't really matter, because as I said, the fee was
      outrageous and over the top.

      I am 48, live in Vermont with my life partner of many years. I,
      too, was an adult when the Jim Jones massacres took place and can
      remember them vividly. I have no personal ties to that event as you
      profess to (although I have every reason to doubt the veracity of
      that statement and indeed most of your personal statements). The
      events of Jonestown, do, however serve to this day as the hallmark
      of all cultist tragedies and are frequently cited as such whenever
      discussing the more negative aspects of cult groups and cultist
      establishments.

      As the GLK does not seem to have its act together but instead
      appears to be the quintessential "high fag drama" in the making -
      lots of clucking and title-bestowing and prancing around in tights
      with little in terms of results to show for it - it bears than
      passing resemblance to a cult, which therefore makes my comparison
      to Guyana and Jonestown and the events entirely apropos.

      Your statement that the truth about Jonestown is still shrouded in
      mystery is utter and complete balderdash - more documentaries and
      exposes have been made about those events than nearly everything
      which has occurred in the 20th century other thant Hitler and Nazi
      Germany! Jonestown survivors have also carefully been interviewed,
      their recollections documented and set forth in books,
      documentaries, motion pictures, websites and more! It would
      therefore behoove you, dear Enrique, to possibly view, read and
      visit as many of these as I have before you presume you are
      qualified to lecture me on anything other than perhaps how to
      correctly do drag.

      Vicky/Victor made the statement I referred to in the Yahoo boards -
      as a matter of fact, his/her statement was only three or four up the
      thread from my own comments, I believe. That makes his/her statement
      public and allows anyone to comment on them, just as you are
      commenting on mine. Do not dare to presume to lecture me when your
      own accusations are entirely misguided and baseless.

      As for the GLK website and its "just getting started" - ha! - don't
      make me laugh. The website has been up for more than a year!

      I am, professionally, a web designer and graphic artist. As you are
      obviously not aware, thanks to modern software, quality content can
      be put up very quickly. If you need more detail on that, just ask
      and I can give you some actual examples of some I have done and am
      the webmaster for - all personal clients whose websites, fully
      detailed, impeccably laid out and executed, were done in fewer than
      72 hours. Then again, I did these myself, had total free hand and
      didn't have to work through committees choked to death with self-
      important people such as yourself on them.

      I read the "reason" given on the GLK website as to why a monarchy
      was chosen and trust me, it is, like so much connected with this
      venture to date, utter rubbish. Australia or any other existing
      sovereign nation could simply bung you into jail for reason of
      treason whether you chose a constitutional monarchy or a republic or
      an oligarchy or a bona fide dictatorship - the form of the
      government you chose to defect to or try to establish has no bearing
      on the actual act of sedition. I currently work with a local group
      attempting to reestablish a republic which actually existed here
      before the United States did and we are aware of what sedition means
      and how carefully we must tread, but we are doing so quietly and
      carefully, through peaceful means as are you. However, we also
      carefully research everything we do and don't spout off in near-
      hysteria when someone posts remarks on our websites (there are
      several) or leaves comments we find offensive in our guestbooks for
      whatever reason.

      Let's examine your statements about the GLK: "It is true that
      technically, the GLK is currently a non-territorial state." Yes, it
      is true. There is nothing "techinical" about it. What we have here
      is a group of like-minded individuals cruising on a head of
      emotional steam who have decided these islands would be a good
      homeland and are therefore attempting, as explained (even if
      somewhat vaguely) on the GLK's homepage, to more or less blackmail
      Australia into disavowing ownership of them and thus setting them
      into a sort of legal limbo where they could be appropriated. That
      sounds a lot like Christopher Columbus' notion when he first set
      foot in the "new world" and claimed the ground on which he stood
      for Isabella and Ferdinand. The people living there, Carib Indians
      with a long history and large presence, were conveniently
      termed "savages" which made all of his actions oh so legal! In the
      case of the GLK, it might have been better if a group of like-minded
      individuals had banded together and then purchased the land that
      they now seek to have declared independent, not just tried to extort
      it from Australia.

      " The High Court and its international team of lawyers are exploring
      the legal matters independence and international recognition. These
      are complex issues that will be resolved over many months, and
      probably years. One must be a realist if one is to exist in this
      world."

      The legal team, whichis likely all-volunteer, has a terrific
      challenge ahead. It will not just take years, more likely decades. I
      am realistic in every aspect of examining this, which is why I
      alluded to a pyramid scheme in my posting. But I'll refer back to
      that below.

      Being of genuine German noble lineage myself (as the 42nd Freiherr
      (Baron) von Werne, gay, no male heirs, hence my moniker the Last
      Baron), I also take great umbrage at your next utterly preposterous
      and baseless statement: "Remember, the first King proclaimed himself
      King or was proclaimed King by others. He was not of royal lineage,
      but those that followed him became regal. Great things generally
      come from humble beginnings." The first kings were (if you had ever
      studied history and would occasionally do some research before
      spouting off hysterically) emphatically not self-proclaimed, but
      elected - by the Barons of their respective countries. And the adage
      you were trying to paraphrase so crudely is "mighty oaks from little
      acorns grow."

      As for constitutional monarchies, many are stable, but not in any
      greater incidence than stable democratic or socialist republics. All
      of the stability you cite is also of post-war making and very
      recent. Examples of instability and insurgency in constitutional
      monarchies dating between 1870 and 1945 abound. To cite a few (which
      you probably know nothing about since you seem to know very little
      about actual history other than that which you have either
      personally observed or watched on television), there was widespread
      insurgency and unrest in nearly every Balkan monarchy between World
      War I and the second world war. The same held true for a number of
      other coutnries with elected heads of state as well. For more
      modern examples of just how stable some constitutional monarchies
      are, please feel free to research Belgium (where not to long ago
      there was fear that the country might split apart due to lingusitic
      troubles) and, much more glaringly - right in your own back yard -
      Nepal. Now there's a country which easily proves you know little
      about which you seek to lecture me.

      Further quoting your response: "While it may be hard for you to
      accept it, citizens of CMs enjoy a greater degree of personal
      liberties. The Netherlands is such an example. Surprisingly, Dutch
      citizens enjoy more civil liberties than American citizens."

      In response, it is in no way hard for me to accept that citizens of
      many other countries enjoy differing degrees of civil liberty. As a
      dual national with two passports (so far) myself, I am highly aware
      of this. Germans, too, enjoy a greater degree of civil liberty than
      do Americans, but the correlation that this stems from their form of
      government is again utter nonsense and totally ridiculous. And the
      fact that Dutch citizens enjoy such a wide range of freedoms is not
      at all "surprising" to me, as you put it. The Netherlands has long
      been a tolerant, progressive nation, but the level of personal
      freedom enjoyed there, especially the pot smoking and sexual freedom
      you are obviously referring to, is not a historical development
      based on centuries of tradition or in any way connected to the Dutch
      ruling house, but rather a recent (postwar) development which is
      entirely unrelated to the country's form of government. Again, you
      need to reason your arguments through a little more precisely befoe
      you make them. Try thinking first and spinning your wheels
      afterwards - a sound way of doing anything in life, I find! ;-)

      Next, let's take this passage of yours apart: "You are also quite
      confused about the fees you quoted. As I understand, the fee for
      processing the citizenship documents is only $50. I would agree that
      the additional fee for a passport may seem premature, but those that
      have paid it have done so "in anticipation" of the day when it will
      be called for, and to assist the cash flow of the administration.
      This $500 fee you claim is false. You should have you fact straight
      before you make any allegations. It would be prudent that you read
      the posted documents
      before you make any further scandalous allegations."

      I was referring to an e-mail I received recently. In it, I was
      offered the chance to go to the website and download an application
      for citizenship and also apply at the same time for a passport. It
      is entirely possible that I am mistaken, but I do remember reading
      the fee for both as $500, which is entirely unrealistic, especially
      when, as I said, it is for documents which have no legal standing
      anywhere in the world and are entirely useless. As for having one's
      facts straight before speaking, you are obviously a paragon example!
      My allegations were not scandalous, I was merely expressing my
      opinion. From the tone of your letter, however, I fear that tht act
      in and of itself was the reason for your hysterical response -
      obviously this "heaven on Earth" gay kingdom we are all supposed to
      be enraptured about will only be heaven for selected citizens and
      will not tolerate much in the way of criticism - your statements in
      a letter addressed to me personally rather than on the Yahoo board
      on which mine were posted are proof of that.

      Further, I am a little confused as to why you refer to Dale as HIM,
      an acronym for His Imperial Majesty. If Dale has decreed himself
      King of the GLK, then he would properly be addressed as HRH, His
      Royal Highness, not his Imperial Highness. That form of salutation
      is reserved for those bearing the title of Emperor and cannot be
      used interchangeably. Of course, yo obviously researched that
      beforehand, so I await, with bated breath, you response lecturing me
      won why I am wrong about this, too, as you have obviously declared
      yourself the ultimate expert on all matters of royalty (even though
      you so obviously know nothing of heraldry, royal lineage, history
      and world events, as I have already demonstrated above).

      "There is no pyramid scheme, as far as I can see. Do you actually
      know what a pyramid scheme is and how it works?" How nice of you to
      presume utter ignorance on my part, Enrique, when so far you have
      more than adequately proven your own! Yes, I do know what a pyramid
      scheme is - it is a scheme to make money rapidly which must
      continually recruit new members on differing levels to continue to
      make the promised returns for those already recruited. It frequently
      offers no tangible merchandise or services, but makes the appearance
      that it does. AmWay, Fortunate You, and a few others here, some
      even more notorious spring to mind immediately and with a little
      more digging, I could regale you with long boring details about
      them. Suffice it to say, I was comparing the "no tangible
      merchandise or services" angle when I made that statement. After
      all, citizenship in something which does not exist and probably will
      not, as we both have already agreed, for a long time to come, is
      exactly that - offering "clients" a service/product which, de facto,
      does not exist!

      "As a citizen of the GLK, I find most of your allegations and
      accusations disgusting. As far as I can tell, the only so-
      called "stench" is from the B.S. you are so venomously spewing.
      Being a good citizen requires being vigilant and familiar with the
      truth, because it is the truth that sets us free."

      I was not making any allegations or accusations. I was, however,
      pointing out that there are many anomalies the GLK needs to address
      urgently. One is organization - before you go off offering non-
      existent services such as passports to a non-existent country to
      people, you might want to actually go about trying to gain some
      support in other ways - media coverage, establishing more than just
      a website (which is the traditional way to lure the less fortunate
      into schemes and cults, by the way), etc. Basically, wheat I (and I
      am sure many others who long for a sovereign gay state, a serious
      and realistic one) see here is a typical "gay bar drag show"-type
      organization. A group of folks got together and had an idea which
      has so far not worked out (as you state so clumsily yourself) and is
      still trying. Kudos for not giving up. However, they have done so in
      a haphazard, disorganized and sometimes comic-operetta fashion. The
      proclamation of anyone to "King" of a non-existent country is much
      more of a turn-off, in my eyes, than seriously going about trying to
      found a gay state and achieving bona fide independence through
      peaceful, democratic means, and ultimately, if required, through
      less peaceful means.

      Finally, I am quite familiar with the concept of truth. Having been
      a journalist many years ago, I am also familiar with how to bend it,
      something you, Enrique, do very well.

      Peace to you too. Try to respond with less high fag drama and better
      facts, if you care to!

      Peter W.
      The Last Baron
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.