Human Rights Campaign | News | Vandalism | Washington DC

Human Rights Campaign Shop Vandalized by Radical LGBT Group

A group calling itself 'The Right Honorable Wicked Stepmothers’ Traveling, Drinking and Debating Society and Men’s Auxiliary' vandalized the HRC Store in Washington D.C.'s Dupont Circle on Tuesday night with pink paint, coating the windows and writing the word "Stonewall" across the front sidewalk, the Washington Blade reports.

Hrc The group left a lengthy message on the website Pastebin.com outlining its reasons for doing so:

This week marks the 42nd anniversary of the Stonewall Riots...

...The modern LGBT movement owes its success to three days of smashing, burning, punching, and kicking--all of it happily indiscriminate--and the confrontational tactics of groups like ACT-UP that followed in the decades since. Yet, somehow we've forgotten our riotous roots.

The group also explained why it was targeting its own community:

Why, you're asking, did we specifically target the HRC, a massive national gay rights non-profit as opposed to vomiting urine on Rick Santorum or something equally fun?

Put simply, they suck. What do they suck? Cash. Lots of it.

The HRC rakes in something approaching 50 million dollars a year in revenue--their executive director, Joe Salmonellamayonaisemanese pulls in a salary of several hundred grand. What have we gotten out of this bloated carcass? Not a thing worth mentioning and every now and then, they eagerly sell trans people up the river. Seriously, this is an organization that hordes money and does nothing useful. It's a sad, sick dinosaur.

And, ripped establishment LGBT orgs:

Everyone: We know you mean well, but stop giving these idiots your money. Stop putting that equal sticker on your car. Stop going to their lame galas. And for the love of Judy Garland's Ghost and Robert Mapplethorpe's Zombie Bones, stop saying "It Gets Better" and hoping for a miracle from up on high. We don't expect you to riot (although we swear you'll love it once you get going!) but it's time for us to quit with the passivity, move to action, build community and care for each other instead of hoping the Gay Non-Profit Industrial Complex will ever get anything done.

Said HRC's Michael Cole to the Blade: "It’s unfortunate that after a marriage win in New York that represented an unprecedented coming together of LGBT groups, some are more interested in fostering division in the community."

(image michael key washington blade)

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. All I have to say about the HRC is please spare me. If you want to see real advocacy look at the NRA. When a pol goes against their perceived interpretation of the 2nd Amendment they knee cap the pol immediately. When a pol goes against queer rights HRC sends them a thank you note. Over ten years ago I stopped giving to HRC because they truly don't want to upset the apple cart. They want access just for access sake and the queers be damned.

    Posted by: Michael | Jun 30, 2011 2:12:41 PM


  2. HRC are a gay 'elite'. They're made up of people no different than any other elite. They do the same kind of things all people who're on the inside do. And I've no doubt they hob knob and socialize with other 'elites' in government, business, academia, African American elite 'advocates', Hispanic elite 'advocates', etc.

    If you've never read Animal Farm, read it. HRC are the pigs.

    Posted by: ratbastard | Jun 30, 2011 2:30:51 PM


  3. As any community matures, self criticism and internal conflict are essential to prevent stagnation, ensure continued relevance, and discourage complacency. Social movements, in particular, are like sharks: they suffocate if they stop moving.

    Organizations - like organisms - have a lifespan. Questioning whether HRC and other such institutions have outlived their usefulness is valid, healthy, and necessary. The resulting conflicts encourage debate and evolution. The alternative is parasitic institutions that end up preying on their hosts.

    I agree with everything quoted above. HRC, GLAAD, GlamFar… it's the nature of such organizations to want to continue, regardless of whether they've become irrelevant or even a burden to the communities they claim to support. It's extraordinarily rare for anyone within such an organization admit that it's time has passed and suggest moving on, so any such impulse has to come from outside.

    HRC has always defined disagreement - and therefore difference - as "divisive." In order to get and maintain power, they've attempted to reconceive queer people as a conformist, homogenous voting block in righteous pursuit of hetero notions of respectability. Not only have they and many other gay rights groups been willing to throw the fringe under the bus, they've implicitly promulgated the absurd notion that there are LGBTQ people who _aren't_ "fringe." They've encouraged us to define our identity as a community by an "anything they have we must have too" agenda without any examination of the alleged prize.

    For example, I've yet to hear anyone within mainstream gay politics note that while marriage equality is an ethically unimpeachable concept, that says nothing at all about the value of its goal. HRC, other similar organizations, and most of us have willfully ignored one of our mother's most annoying questions. To paraphrase, "If all the straight people jump off the Brooklyn Bridge, I suppose you will too?"

    Consider just a few points…

    • American marriage appears at this point in history to be a social and economic failure. Couples who work 80 hours a week and turn their offspring over to minimum wage slaves are neither actualized as adults nor doing a good job rearing children. Is obsessing with one's right to buy a ticket on the Titanic wise or even sane?

    • Marriage is de facto mandatory. Any unmarried woman over 30 is considered damaged goods, and any man in the same position is regarded with suspicion. Marriage, like the states and religions that support it, requires that everyone conform.

    • Marriage is a tool by which church and state use to influence intimate relationships, and both church and state have historically been utterly hostile to gay people.

    • Modern marriage is in large part based on a female sexual agenda, and perhaps - even more narrowly - a heterosexual female agenda. What are the ramifications of adoption of such an institution by relationships that include no heterosexual females, or no women at all?

    • Gay men have created community by using sex to form a complex and robust extended network of relationships, and unlike the larger culture, have tended to do so openly and honestly. Marriage requires monogamy which encourages frustration and resentment on the one hand, and secrecy, shame, and dishonesty on the other. How will this effect our viability as a community? Will gay men become essentially straight people who just happen to engage in homosexual acts?

    LGBTQ people need to face the fact that our origins guarantee that nearly all of us are desperate to finally be chosen first for basketball - so desperate that to pause and ask whether or not basketball is a worthy pursuit has become taboo.

    Certainly organizations like HRC are unlikely to survive such introspection. They're they're imaginatively crippled, eternally focused on reacting, and seldom able to take any creative action. A complex, diffuse, organic network of diverse individuals won't serve their purposes at all. For them to succeed and retain their power, influence, and wealth, they need at least the appearance of a homogenous product they can sell to the mass market of America.

    We should cherish our radicals. They embody our imaginations, impulse to play, willingness to face difficult questions, and ability to embrace a future that may be quite unlike the present. A messed up store front is a very small price to pay for all that and more.

    Posted by: Bryan | Jun 30, 2011 5:43:20 PM


  4. I love their logic: "the revolution started with kicking and punching, therefore, it should end with kicking and punching!"

    So, should we kick and punch the president? Will that get us somewhere? How about I kick and punch that uppity fag for not being trans-inclusive - that'll really get him on my side!

    Posted by: sarah | Jun 30, 2011 5:56:54 PM


  5. The fact of the matter is, people like this just enjoy kicking and punching, but they need an outlet of self-righteousness in order to do it.

    Posted by: sarah | Jun 30, 2011 5:57:53 PM


  6. Daya:

    The HRC has it's role in lobbying, but it doesn't that it needs $50 million in donations or that Joe Scamelomese needs a six-figure salary. They suck up resources without delivering much in results.

    My friends have experienced when the HRC has come in to participate in local state campaigns to put their damn logo everywhere and get quotes in the paper. Meanwhile, they provide no resources, no help, no training in the local campaign and then take the credit when 90% on the work was done by locals.

    Just because an organization does a bit of good in some places and then wastes momentous amounts of resources and time in other places on inneffective lobbying efforts doesn't mean that it's good overall.

    Posted by: missanthrope | Jun 30, 2011 7:25:19 PM


  7. « 1 2

Post a comment







Trending


« «Charlize Theron Speaks Out for Same-Sex Marriage, Won't Marry Till Gay People Can: VIDEO« «