ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • United States Politics

Pure as Milk

Updated on January 23, 2018

My adventure exposing the truth about Harvey Milk

Was Harvey Milk tolerance personified, was he human kindness poured upon a suffering world, or was his spirit contaminated by something more dangerous than melamine? I came across some interesting facts about Milk - the subject of a big budget movie/love note, inductee of the California Hall of Fame, a man whose life is commemorated every May 22nd in California for heroically playing with other men's genitals.

Here is an excerpt from Randy Shilts' The Mayor of Castro Street pertaining to Milk’s boyfriend, Jack Galen McKinley:

"...sixteen-year-old McKinley was looking for some kind of father figure...At 33, Milk was launching a new life, though he could hardly have imagined the unlikely direction toward which his new lover would pull him." (pages 30-31)

Apparently this kind of behavior was not unusual for Milk. More excerpts:

"It would be to boyish-looking men in their late teens and early 20's that Milk would be attracted for the rest of his life." (page 24)

"Harvey always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems." (page 180)

Harvey Milk and Jack Galen McKinley
Harvey Milk and Jack Galen McKinley

So Milk had sex with a child. Is it possible to suggest that Milk exploited these vulnerable young men, some of whom eventually committed suicide? Milk also closely allied himself to Jim Jones. Milk even wrote to Jimmy Carter praising Jones, calling him “a man of the highest character” and a “loving protective parent”. Milk fought those out to stop Jones. Jim Jones of course later killed hundreds - mostly people of color.

So just for fun I thought I’d check whether the Wikipedia article about Milk included this interesting information about Milk’s lover’s age. I discovered that the article failed to mention that Milk had a sexual relationship with a child. The article only testified to Milk’s angelic nature and his selfless efforts to nourish the infant gay rights movement. I learned that Harvey was no milquetoast, but rather a passionate warrior for freedom, filled with hope and laughter. His was a special kind of genius. The article went so far as to include panegyrics from, among others, his campaign manager - always known for their unbiased presentation of plain fact.

Here are some quotes from the article: “Anne Kronenberg, his final campaign manager, wrote of him: "What set Harvey apart from you or me was that he was a visionary. He imagined a righteous world inside his head and then he set about to create it for real, for all of us."" And later on: "Harry Britt summarized Milk's impact the evening Milk was shot in 1978: "No matter what the world has taught us about ourselves, we can be beautiful and we can get our thing together ... Harvey was a prophet ... he lived by a vision ... Something very special is going to happen in this city and it will have Harvey Milk's name on it.""

We can only assume that Milk has now been lifted to the heavens. Fashioned into a constellation. Set amidst a luminous band of stars.

Anyone can edit Wikipedia articles, so I attempted to interrupt this hymn of praise, if only for a moment, by including the above mentioned fact about Milk’s lover’s age. However, other editors, Milk’s choir, protested vigorously. Someone who styled himself Moni3 kept deleting my small addition. We also engaged in debate.

Here’s a sample, my replies are in bold:

quote: He [Jack Galen McKinley] had already been living with Tom O'Horgan when he left O'Horgan to live with Milk. In the same set of pages you cite, it states that within weeks McKinley and Milk were living together in a long-term relationship. Your point seems to be that you think Milk's relationship with a child is acceptable. Of course that has no bearing on the fact that McKinley was 16. Please try to stay on topic.

quote: I don't think anything about Milk's relationships. And yet you've spent quite some time trying to justify Milk's relationship with a child. Why would that be? That you are introducing your own values to what is acceptable and what is not is a sign that you are attempting to address this factoid with an agenda in mind. My only agenda is the accurate representation of the source material. By not including a fact from that very source material? Are you serious?! My only "agenda" is the truth. I don't think damaging information about political figures should be swept under the rug. Shilts' book does not say that Milk preyed on boys regularly, Only on occasion. and Shilts never calls him a pederast or a pedophile. I am adding someone's age, I did not use the word "pedophile". You can't accuse me implying anything when I only want to include a basic fact without any editorial comment. You object not to my editorialzing but to the truth.

In the end the truth was censored by a sinister Prince of Wikipedia called Wikidemon.

Milk’s status as a semi-divine being can only be preserved by dishonesty. Really I think the whole fabulous, gaudy tower of homosexual activism is built on a foundation of lies. Examples: 1) Homosexual behavior is no more dangerous than heterosexual behavior. 2) Gay activists did not serve as an ally to the AIDS virus by fighting sensible public health measures (like closing the bathhouses). 3) Irresponsible conduct on the part of some gay men did not help spread the disease to southern Africa. 4) Homosexuality is an ethnic group rather than a lifestyle. 5) History has included many gay heroes like Da Vinci and Lincoln. 6) Harvey Milk was killed because he was a homosexual. 7) Homosexuality has not been historically associated with pedophilia. 8) Homosexual activists have not threatened to cut aid to impoverished African countries if these countries refuse to kowtow to said activists.

I wonder if schoolchildren of tender years should be compelled to lament, to cry over Milk’s ending. Should they, at taxpayer expense, be forced to attend ceremonies and dip their handkerchiefs in his spilt blood (hopefully this is only a metaphor).

I hate to see this kind of cover-up perpetrated by anonymous activists and corporate bureaucrats within the Byzantine labyrinth that is Wikipedia. How many young people get their information from Wikipedia? Is Truth safe in the sticky hands of founder/pornographer Jimmy Wales?

Wikipedia has been caught deceiving and distorting on numerous occasions. For example a Wikipedia page critical of the NYT was DELETED.

Everyone from Exxon Mobile to the British Labour Party to Dow Chemical to the Israeli government to MySpace has been caught disinforming the public.

Wikipedia editing courses launched by Zionist groups.

More problems: Wikibullies at work. The National Post exposes broad trust issues over Wikipedia climate information

Wikipedia volunteers are turned off by annoying Wikilawyering: The Decline of Wikipedia

Anyway I think I’ll build my own website. I'll name it Wikiexposia or Wikipediaisfullocrapia. It will contain many examples of Wikimisleading.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No comments yet.