Weissmann/Blicero

[Terrance]

This is what I posted to the list, responding to JL I wrote: 


Thank you for butting in.  Yes, all plausible explanation. A
regular motif (we can trace it back to the Short Stories),
loneliness, feelings of being close to death and most
Alive.  These are all quite plausible and make good sense to
me, but I think there is something else as well. What I
propose does not conflict with your three here. These three
might also support jbor's suggestion that Weissmann's open
homosexuality is one of the reasons that "At the top of the
complex is Schutzhaftlingsfuher Blicero." [GR.666] However,
I think there is another explanation provided by the text:
Who else COULD (my capitalization) the 175's have chosen for
their oppressor? His power is ABSOLUTE (my capitalization)
[GR.666]. Remember that Their greatest and most insidious
artifice is the lulling of people into a false sense of
freedom. The 175s do indeed feel close to death, in fact,
they Worship it. The phantom SS command here is based not so
much on the one prisoners knew at Dora as on what they
inferred to be the Rocket-structure next door. This
page--666--is worth reading real close. 


True, he is called their "brother elite" and this goes, I
think to jbor's point, but it is Death that they worship,
these guys are a counter culture, a collective of brothers,
but they have been sickened, kinda like those Africans and
many others in the Zone. 
I'll write more on this later, but I gotta go now. Thanks
for butting in. 

Responding to Dave's post on "polymorphous perversity"
possible allusions to Marcuse I provided the page in
Weisenburger where Brown is cited as the source and Luther
and the Wolfey article is discussed. Dave seemed to be
suggesting that perhaps the Stonewall Riots were being
alluded to here, but again, taking a very literal stance,
while knowing the history of gay rights here in NYC and
having in the past posted on the post war cops, with fire
hoses, dogs, Isle in the streets, the cops beating the
children, the S&M allusions there, and reading the novel
with these things in my memory and of course with the
hindsight of VL, but, but, the literal stance I want to
maintain to discuss Weissmann/Blicero, so I won't be lumped
in with your phantom tormentors, I asked where is the
textual support for such echoes, hints, and so on.  

Here's what I posted and I stanb by this too: 


See Weisenburger's Companion page 206-07. Brown, Wolfey. 

S&M Homo sexual sodomy, impotence, sterility, white sperm &
black shit and TRP may have the 60s in mind, gay rights, I
find no evidence of that, but he certainly had a lot of
Western (mostly German Holy Roman history to the rise of
Hitler) in here, yes not just hints and suggestions, real
dates, names we don't have to decode, yes and lots of
critics, particularly in the last year or so have tried to
connect this to the S&M etc., Amerikkka, of the 60s radicals
but, a big but, like Moma Kass's ass, where is the textual
support?


AND

When you extrapolated, and won't elaborate on your
extrapolation, suggesting that the reason for Blicero's
slide was in some way due to his open homosexuality I said: 



What evidence is there of this? His homosexuality is the
reason for his slide? Where is this? Also, could be another
reason why they choose him, not their homosexuality but
their need to be imprisoned, controlled. There freedom is a
banishment not because they are homosexuals.  

I stand by this too. But you keep cutting my posts and
frustrating the debate, cutting this last sentence out and
calling me on bigotry. I don't much care about being called
a bigot or whatever here, it's not nice, it's not fair but
it's so ridiculous it's is comical as Can T Wait said, your
calling me or Doug M a racist is so ridiculous, oh if you
knew the simplest facts about us you would know how
ridiculous your name calling is, but I would prefer to
discuss GR and I don't want to make light of serious topics
or get into a fight of words. If we all care so much about
ridding the world of bigots we shouldn't spend so much time
talking about it. We could, as many of us do, you included
I'm sure, act. 


Replying to my question above you posted textual support for
Weissmann's open homosexuality, which by the way, were
passages we had discussed, you and I, not more than a week
ago, so obviously I agree that Weissmann was open with his
homosexuality.