|March 5th, 2008||#1|
National Socialist Policy Toward Homosexuals
URI exhibit shines a light on Nazi campaign against homosexuals
March 6, 2008
A 1907 political cartoon depicts sex-researcher [jew] Magnus Hirschfeld drumming up support for the abolition of Paragraph 175 of the German penal code, which criminalized homosexuality. It’s part of “Nazi Persecution of Homosexuals, 1933-1945” a traveling exhibit at the Main Gallery in URI’s Fine Arts Center.
As gallery exhibits go, it’s hard to imagine a more powerful topic than the Holocaust. Even today, as the rogues’ gallery of genocidal tyrants has grown to include the likes of Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein and the current regime in Sudan, the Nazis’ systematic extermination of some 11 million people [Big Lie] exists in a class by itself. Of all the dark chapters in human history, it remains the darkest.
The vast majority of Holocaust victims — nearly 6 million [Big Lie], according to estimates — were Jews. But there were other victims, too — Communists and socialists, who were persecuted for political reasons; Jehovah’s Witnesses, who were deemed insufficiently devoted to the Nazi cause; Slavs and gypsies, who (like the Jews) were considered racially inferior; and homosexuals, who were attacked both for their sexual orientation and for not doing enough to further Hitler’s dream of creating an Aryan master race.
“Nazi Persecution of Homosexuals, 1933-1945,” a traveling exhibit now on display at the University of Rhode Island’s Kingston campus, focuses on this last group. Organized by the Washington, D.C.-based United States Holocaust Memorial Museum., the show features a wealth of historical and archival information, including copies of Nazi-era posters, photographs and government documents.
To help viewers make sense of this material, the show is divided into a series of smaller sub-sections, each dealing with a specific theme or topic. “Germany and Homosexuality Before 1933,” for example, covers the Weimar Republic of the 1920s and early 1930s. Though homosexuality was technically illegal during this period, police often looked the other way, especially in larger cities. That, in turn, gave rise to a lively gay and lesbian social scene, mainly centered around same-sex bars and nightclubs.
Another section, “The New Order, 1933-1939,” shows how things changed once the Nazi Party came to power. In contrast to the relative tolerance of the Weimar era, the Nazis quickly cracked down on people and activities they considered “undesirable.” That included acts of “unnatural indecency” — a euphemism for same-sex relationships. In an eerie echo of contemporary debates over national security, German police were also given broad powers to arrest, detain and spy on “enemies of the state,” including homosexuals.
Once arrested, accused homosexuals had roughly a one-in-three chance of being convicted and sent to prison. From there, many were sent to concentration camps, where they were often given the most grueling and dangerous jobs. Convicted homosexuals were also forced to wear pink triangles on their prison uniforms — a move intended to subject them to further abuse at the hands of fellow inmates. [ordinary lie]
Unfortunately, while the show has an important story to tell, its storytelling skills could use some help. Rather then engaging viewers with firsthand materials and interactive displays, the show consists of a series of free-standing text-and-photo panels that look like pages from a king-size textbook. The panels make it easy to ship the show from venue to venue, but don’t pack much visual or emotional punch.
Instead of being the compelling experience it might have been, “Nazi Persecution of Homosexuals” often feels like a super-sized version of a high school history lesson.
To its credit, the show does try to put a human face on the tragic events it describes — notably by focusing on the stories of people such as Richard Grune, a Bauhaus-trained artist who was arrested in 1934 and spent the next five years in a succession of prisons and concentration camps. Copies of Grune’s darkly expressionistic work, including a series of prints depicting life inside the camps, appear on several panels.
Still, for a show that deals with such powerful — and laudable — subject matter, “Nazi Persecution of Homosexuals” feels surprisingly static.
“Nazi Persecution of Homosexuals, 1933-1945” continues through March 29 at the Main Gallery, URI Fine Arts Center, Kingston. Hours: Tues.-Fri. noon-4 and Sat.-Sun. 1-4. Contact: (401) 874-2775 or online at uri.edu/artgalleries.
Last edited by Alex Linder; March 5th, 2008 at 11:25 PM.
|March 5th, 2008||#2|
The curious beginnings of a useless word.
by Sam Francis
Here is an article by Sam Francis that I think was one of his most important. Among other important facts, it shows how Jewish supremacists invented the word used to describe negatively those of us who love our heritage and want to preserve it. It is a lesson for all of us in the fight for our heritage and freedom! –DD
Sam Francis on 'Racism'
The Oxford English Dictionary is a multivolume reference work that is one of Western scholarship’s most remarkable achievements–the standard dictionary of the English language on what are known as “historical principles.” Unlike most dictionaries, the OED also provides information on the first historical appearance and usage of words. The range of the erudition in the OED is often astounding, but for AR readers, one of its most interesting entries is for the word “racism.”
According to the second edition (1989) of the OED, the earliest known usage of the word “racism” in English occurred in a 1936 book by the American “fascist,” Lawrence Dennis, The Coming American Fascism. The second usage of the term in English that the OED records is in the title of a book originally written in German in 1933 and 1934 but translated into English and first published in 1938–Racism by Magnus Hirschfeld, translated by Eden and Cedar Paul. Since Hirschfeld died in 1935, before the publication of Dennis’ book the following year, and had already used the word extensively in the text and title of his own book, it seems only fair to recognize him rather than Dennis as the originator of the word “racism.” In the case of the word “racist” as an adjective, the OED ascribes the first known usage to Hirschfeld himself (pictured).
Who was Magnus Hirschfeld and what did he have to tell us about “racism”?
Magnus Hirschfeld (1868-1935) was a German-Jewish medical scientist whose major work was in the field of what came to be known as “sexology”–the scientific study of sex. Like Havelock Ellis in England and Alfred Kinsey in the United States, Hirschfeld was not only among the first to collect systematic information about sexuality but also was an apostle of sexual “liberation.” His major work was a study of homosexuality, but he also published many other books, monographs, and articles dealing with sex. He wrote a five-volume treatise on “sexology” as well as some 150 other works and helped write and produce five films on the subject.
It is fair to say that his works were intended to send a message–that traditional Christian and bourgeois sexual morality was repressive, irrational, and hypocritical, and that emancipation would be a major step forward. His admiring translators, Eden and Cedar Paul, in their introduction to Racism, write of his “unwearying championship of the cause of persons who, because their sexual hormonic functioning is of an unusual type, are persecuted by their more fortunate fellow-mortals.” Long before the “sexual revolution” of the 1960s, Magnus Hirschfeld was crusading for the “normalization” of homosexuality and other abnormal sexual behavior.
Hirschfeld was the founder of an Institute for Sexual Science in Berlin and helped organize “sexology” on an international scale. In 1922, he was physically attacked and almost killed by anti- Semites in Munich. In May, 1933, the Nazis closed down his “Institute of Sexual Science” and Hirschfeld fled to France, where he lived until his death in 1935.
Racism is largely devoted to a highly polemical “refutation” of some of the main racial ideologies and theories of the 19th and 20th centuries. The writers whom Hirschfeld criticized, aside from his favorite target of the National Socialists themselves, were figures like Arthur de Gobineau, Vacher de La-Pouge, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, and others generally denounced today as “pseudo-scientists.” In fact, that is an inappropriate term. Some of them were not trying to write as scientists at all but rather as political theorists, while others are better described as pre-scientific writers on race who worked with inadequate information, concepts, methodology, and terminology. While Hirschfeld may have been correct in rejecting their more egregious errors, his sneering at them for these mistakes is rather like ridiculing Copernicus and Kepler because they continued to accept some erroneous ideas from medieval astronomy.
Even when Hirschfeld is right in his critique of the early race theorists, it is often because he has chosen easy targets. His “refutation” of “racism” is largely centered on irrelevant common-places that even extreme exponents of racial differences might readily acknowledge–that all human beings are part of the same species and can interbreed, that blood transfusions can take place between races, that “there is no such thing as a pure race,” that the races are identical in the vast majority of physical characteristics, that cephalic index is not a meaningful measurement of intelligence or character, etc. Yet his “scientific” evidence is often merely anecdotal or simply his own opinion asserted as unquestioned truth.
In another section, he recounts the names of those he considers the 70 most outstanding figures in world history and announces that “all such lists, when made without bias, will show that persons of genius and persons of outstanding talent are not set apart from the ruck by any colour of their eyes, by a peculiar shape of the skull or the nose, by any ‘ethnological’ characteristics whatever. What is decisive in human beings is not race but individuality.” It does not seem to occur to Hirschfeld that all but about 8 or 9 of the 70 world-historical figures on his list are white Europeans. There are no Negroes and only two Asians (Confucius and Sun Yat Sen).
It is interesting that for all his contempt for “racism,” Hirschfeld never once mentions IQ studies or the considerable psychometric evidence about race and intelligence that was already available even in the 1930s. Most of Hirschfeld’s polemic is aimed at the proponents of intra-European racial differences (Nordics, Alpines, Mediterraneans, Dinarics, etc.) and not at differences between whites and other major races (though he steadfastly denies such differences as well). Curiously, he never cites the work of Franz Boas and his disciples against “racism,” though that work was available in Europe at the time, nor does he invoke the ideas of the Frankfurt School, though Hirschfeld’s own claim that “racism” is rooted in fear, loss of self-esteem, and other social and psychological pathologies resembles the ideas the Frankfurt School was formulating.
Nor, despite Hirschfeld’s own Jewish background and the Nazi threat to Jews, does he seem preoccupied with anti-Semitism; in one or two passages he criticizes Jews themselves for their own ethnocentrism and faults Zionism for having created a new “race hatred” between Jews and Arabs. Moreover, Hirschfeld is a stout defender of eugenics, though not on racial lines, and he even has a brief chapter exploring a distinction he calls “Gobinism or Galtonism”–that is, attacking the ideas of French “racist” Arthur de Gobineau and defending those of Francis Galton, who coined the word “eugenics” and pioneered its development. Today most critics of “racism” would lump Galton and Gobineau together rather than distinguish between them.
As a serious critique of the view that socially significant natural differences between the races exist, Hirschfeld’s book is a failure, and even as a polemic against some of the more politicized and unverified claims about race made a century or more ago, it is weak. The importance of the book is not so much its content, however, as what it tells us about the word “racism” and how the enemies of white racial consciousness have developed and deployed it for their own purposes.
Hirschfeld describes his own political ideals as “Pan-Humanism,” a version of political, cultural, and racial universalism. The Pauls themselves write, “we think that the readers of Racism will detect a very definite orientation to the Left. . . . [Hirschfeld] was one who fully realized that sexual reform is impossible without a preliminary economic and political revolution.”
In Racism, Hirschfeld offers what is essentially a definition of “Pan-Humanism:” “The individual, however close the ties of neighborhood, companionship, family, a common lot, language, education, and the environment of nation and country, can find only one dependable unity within which to seek a permanent spiritual kinship–that of humanity-at-large, that of the whole human race.” With one exception, he is unsparing in his denunciations of the ethnocentric loyalties of nations, races, and cultures: “Always and everywhere, except in Soviet Russia, xenophobia, xenophobia, xenophobia.” Later, he informs us, “It may be too early to speak, but perhaps the problem of nationalities and races has already been solved on one-sixth of the land-surface of the globe [i.e., Stalin’s Russia].”
“Racism,” therefore, is a term originating on the left, and has been so defined and loaded with meanings the left wants it to have that it cannot now be used by the supporters of white racial consciousness for any constructive purpose. Anyone who uses the term to describe himself or his own views has already allowed himself to be maneuvered onto his opponents’ ground and has already lost the debate. He may try to define the word differently, but he will need to spend most of his time explaining that he does not mean by it what everyone else means. As a term useful for communicating ideas that the serious supporters of white racial consciousness wish to communicate, the term is useless, and it was intended by those who developed it that it be useless for that purpose.
But understanding the origins of the word “racism” in Hirschfeld’s polemic also makes clear the uselessness of the word for any other purpose. No one seems ever to have used the word to describe his own ideas or ideas with which he agrees; its only application has been by the enemies of the ideas it purports to describe, and hence it has no objective meaning apart from its polemical usage. If no one calls his own ideas “racism” and its only application is to a body of ideas considered to be untrue and evil, then it has no use other than as a kind of fancy curse word, the purpose of which is simply to demonize anyone who expresses the ideas it is supposed to describe.
It is clear that Magnus Hirschfeld himself harbored deep ideological, professional, and personal animosities against those to whom he applied the word, and those animosities may have extended to the entire society that throughout his career he associated with sexual repression and which he wanted replaced by a kind of global communism under the label of “Pan-Humanism.” Whatever the flaws or virtues of his polemic against “racism,” his own opposition to racial consciousness was neither entirely rational nor disinterested. It is time that the enemies of racial, national, and cultural consciousness like Hirschfeld and the Frankfurt School cease to be able to claim a monopoly on rationality and sanity and that the obsessions and motivations that seem to shape their own ideologies and political behavior be subjected to the same scrutiny they apply to the societies and peoples whom their thinking could destroy.
Last edited by Alex Linder; March 5th, 2008 at 11:34 PM.
|March 5th, 2008||#3|
[Odd thing is Jones denounces nazis as fags, yet the Nazis were against the original homosex promoter (and launcher of term 'racism'), the jew Magnus Hirschfeld. It is interesting that for all their disdain for nazis, EMJ and Flemio never man up to the fact that the nazis didn't just talk about the evil jew Hirschfeld was doing, they routed the bitch. Put him to flight. Catholic intellectual criticism of nazis often seems spiteful. Like they resent others are able to do what they merely fantasize about.]
[Flemio on Jones on Hirschfeld and others - a review of Libido Dominandi]
n the May, 2006, issue of Chronicles, Thomas Fleming has an essay on the results of the Sexual Revolution, "New Wine in Old Bottles." He writes that "The revolution that made us who we are began during the great revolt against Christianity known as the Renaissance, and it entered an acute phase with the French Revolution. Although it has taken many forms and aimed at so varied a set of targets... [it] has hardly deviated from its most basic goal: the liberation of what one of the most virulent revolutionaries termed the libido..."
In the interest of fostering deeper knowledge and debate about this important topic, I am re-publishing a revised version of my review of E. Michael Jones's book on this same topic, Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control. I am sending a copy of this web page to Mr. Fleming in the hope that he will wish to read Mr. Jones's book and perhaps comment on it in a future essay.
To live or to rule? Review- Essay of E. Michael Jones, Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control, South Bend, Indiana, 2005. St. Augustine’s Press, 662p.
The idea of the slavery of sin goes back to the foundations of religious teaching, but learning how to exploit the idea for social control arose with the rationalism of the Enlightenment. "Libido dominandi" – the passion for dominion, is the dark side of the Enlightenment, the agenda of social control. E. Michael Jones explores the multi-faceted agenda of social control in this compendious volume. Rationalism taught that reality was "matter in motion," and that the universe and man were entirely determined and predictable. At the same time, there was a craze among the philosophes to remake society along "scientific" principles. The Church and the monarchy presented the most obvious hindrances in the form of traditional hierarchies and restraints. Lord Bacon, the author of the phrase that "knowledge is power," also thought that systems of theology are purely "imaginary." Thus knowledge needs no justification. Power is its own justification.
Mechanistic philosophy thus gave birth to the naked will. But materialism cannot inspire, and the problem of how to control man and direct society in the absence of traditional moral restraints remained. In any case, Adam Weishaupt, the founder of Illuminism, could see through it, and the techniques for mind control arising from the systems of Illuminism he developed were "effective precisely because they did not derive from the mechanistic philosophy of the Enlightenment." Weishaupt took certain practices from the Jesuits, but ripped them from their religious context in order to develop a mechanism where people could be controlled without being aware of it. By removing the practice of sacramental confession and the examination of conscience from the religious framework that had restrained and guided it, Weishaupt was able to develop a system of spying and informing. Thus Illuminism – "a system of controls in the absence of morality" by which one abdicates one’s own mental sovereignty. Weishaupt set up a program for the methodical and systematic invasion of the psyche.
Techniques of "illuminized obedience" seeped into modern culture from numerous portals – through culture, politics, intellectual life, and economics. Elements of Illuminism found their way into psychoanalysis, psychological testing, Kinseyian sex research, communism, the manipulation of sexual passion for advertising, encounter group therapies, behaviorism and political and ideological correctness. Illuminist politics is essentially the dedication to "manipulate people through their vices" -- although this agenda is of course never stated openly. Thus Illuminism found a helpful ally in what Jones calls the "English ideology" – the refusal to put forth philosophical and metaphysical presuppositions out into the open, and instead engineer covert forms of consensus. Modernity has thus coexisted with an anti-metaphysical bias. It has ever avoided the unifying reason, and instead tended toward rationality on the one hand, sentimentalism on the other.
The disdain for metaphysics did not mean that people would no longer fight wars over ideas. It just meant that such battles would be fought less openly and in intellectually dishonest ways. Libido Dominandi is in large part an exposure of the intellectual dishonesty of modernity, beginning with the idea that sexual liberation means freedom. On the contrary, sexual liberation has meant and continues to mean an enormous increase in the power of government, rule by moneyed elites, and ever-increasing escalation of subliminal control. "There are only two options," Jones writes, "either you control yourself according to the moral law or your passions control you – or someone controls you through the manipulation of your passions." There is either the rule of reason and self-control or there is the sexual revolution and tyranny. Just as the classical state must foster virtue, the revolutionary state must foster vice. The twist of irony is that the "revolutionary state" does not enable creative change; it actually breeds stagnation and the seemingly infinite extension of the status quo.
Jones covers an enormous span of history in this book, which could be one of those founding texts for a counter-revolutionary movement for reason. For – "Morality is reason in the practical order," writes Jones. This is a wise cautionary note that recognizes the errors to which moral crusaders are often prone. Moral crusades rarely restore morality as such. It is the labor of integrity in the act of thinking and of conscience that makes the difference and gives the strength and inspiration of morality. The existence of morality is what makes it possible for us to disagree about reasons, but reasons cannot lead us to suppose that morality does not exist – except as an intellectual game. The Enlightenment era of rationalism left us a legacy of games of this sort because it was dedicated to the overthrow of the very communitarian forms of life that are the physical and tangible representatives of the moral law. But Enlightenment intellectual games did not divorce us from the moral law; they only divorced the act of thinking from the community of life. Hence we moderns have had to find out that thinking without community does not mean freedom from the moral law. It only means that the moral law has made a transition from the life of the community to the rule of the strong, the powerful, and the wealthy. Where morality is concerned, modern man has been continually driven to reinvent the wheel – an ironic footnote to our great progress in technics and mechanics.
In any case, the story soon leads to Revolutionary-era France, and Jones paints an unforgettable portrait of the English pre-feminist Mary Wollstonecraft, who was "forever attempting to infuse the images of the Enlightenment with the moral patrimony of the West which they were intended to replace." Revolutionary theory didn’t always make the grade when it encountered real life, as Mary Wollstonecraft was to learn to her cost. Then there was the Marquis de Sade, about whom Jones devotes many pages of text. Read it and weep! An important later source for understanding the dynamics of Anarchy and Terror was the Abbe Barruel’s Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism, which was read by Mary’s daughter, Mary Shelley, author of Frankenstein. ("The calamities described in horror fictions are moral truths in repressed form," Jones remarks.) The poet Percy Bysshe Shelley was entirely captivated by Illuminist ideas, and set Mary to reading the book in order to learn the thoughts of the enemy. The Abbe Barruel’s reading of Weishaupt led him to believe that the Illuminist cells were based upon the arousal and systematic management of the passions. The differences between the "illuminized and religious obedience" was that the religious obedience recognized the primacy of the individual’s own voice of conscience and self-restraint according to the Gospel. The illuminized obedience recognized and respected no such foro interno. It was also interesting for me to read that the Abbe Barruel thought that the philosophy of Immanuel Kant had had a pernicious influence on morals, and had written a book about it.(1) Mysteriously and inexplicably, he burned the manuscript before it could be published.
An important benefit of reading Libido Dominandi is that it clarifies the relationships between Illuminism, Freemasonry, and the Jesuits – a complex of subject heavily laden with conspiracy theory. Jones does not say that Illuminism was a conspiracy, but he does say that the techniques for mind control developed by it "became the model of every secular control system of both the left and right for the next 200 years." Is this "conspiracy theory"? Jones quotes "Wilson" (no source given) who said that idea was "ridiculous." Sources, citations and names in this book would benefit from a more careful editing at times.
The latter part of the 19th century deals with Freud and psychoanalysis, leading over to Freud’s nephew, Eddie Bernays, in America. Bernays was one of the founders of modern mass advertising, and saw how sex could be used in advertising products. "Bernays and his famous uncle were both involved in exploiting sexual passion for financial gain." Jungianism doesn’t fare much better in Jones’s view. Jones thinks that both Freud and Jung understood how powerful and profitable the new movement of psychoanalysis was, and that their break had to do not over ideas but on the issue of who was to control the movement. "Jung knew where the source of Freud’s power lay, and he wanted that source in his own right and not as somebody’s gentile heir-apparent."
The twentieth century brings us to America – John B. Watson and behaviorism, Greenwich Village and socialist-beatniks, Margaret Sanger and the birth-control-eugenics movement. The left may have repudiated the eugenics embraced by Hitler & Co., but it has never severed the link forged by Margaret Sanger, in which the agenda of the sexual revolution converged with the interests of the propertied classes. Far from helping to work for better working conditions and wages for working people, liberals and liberationists put their energy into the cause of contraception and later abortion. Jones thinks this was a covert war against high-reproducing groups – particularly Catholics and blacks, which, Jones says, was "waged in the ethnic interests of the WASP establishment … which had succumbed to hedonism and was in the process of putting itself out of business politically by the widespread practice of contraception." Enormous grants from the Rockefeller Foundation went into the sexual liberation agenda, Kinsey’s sex research institute, Planned Parenthood, and other eugenics crusades. These chapters on Rockefeller money and Kinsey’s sinister influence on American sexual mores, and how these dovetail into the agenda of the New World Order comprise the most fascinating – and appalling – chapters of this book. Jones writes: "…in controlling the agency responsible for the transmission of life, the controllers control human life at its source and therefore, at its most crucial point…. Liberal politics becomes then first the incitation to sexual vice, then the colonization of the procreative powers that are indissoluably associated with sexuality, and finally the political mobilization of the guilt which flows from the misuse of the procreative power in an all-encompassing system that gives new meaning to the term totalitarian."
Then there are events unfolding in Russia. Several chapters describe the life and angst of Alexandra Kollontai, the Russian feminist who "wanted both freedom and love but … on her own terms." Kollontai agitated fervently for sexual freedom, a program which the Soviet State went along with in the ‘20’s until it became apparent that the social chaos caused by it would bring down the regime. At that point the Soviet leadership made a radical about-face for the sake of the survival of the Soviet state. Wilhelm Reich, the German apostle of sexual freedom and masturbation, was "stunned by the reversal of the sexual revolution that was taking place in the Soviet Union" and spent some time trying to explain this betrayal, as he saw it, of the goals of the Revolution. Germany was going through its own sexual tribulations during the era of the Weimar Republic. Jones makes it quite clear that the struggles in the Weimar Republic were between two groups of homosexuals: the "butch" faction under Hitler and the SA, and the "femmes" faction" under the leadership of Magnus Hirschfeld and his Institute for Sex Science in Berlin.
Jones remarks that "Recent sexual politics has found it expedient to expunge the truth about the homosexual proclivities of the Nazis from the historical record." The evidence certainly refutes Reich’s contention that to abolish sexual repression is to abolish fascism. But the Reichian contention proved to be useful to people like Carl Rogers, Fritz Perls, and others in their wake. Rogers introduced his T-group practice into a Catholic religious order in Los Angeles and succeeded in utterly destroying it. Perhaps he didn’t "mean" to do it. Jones does not charge Rogers with overt anti-Catholicism. But Wilhelm Reich earlier had perceived the link between sexuality and religion – a connection known to the mystical tradition for centuries. Knowing how to work with the forces of instinct, drawing it into the conscious life in a manner which would fructify and animate the life of the soul -–all of this was known and taught over the centuries in human spiritual development. Reich quite consciously went about reversing it: "Intellect to the aid of instinct is… the classical notion of the intellectual life turned upside down…" says Jones. Indeed, the total sexualization of culture would mean the total extinction of religion. But such a sexualization would not mean that instinct would become "free" so much as it would become infected with all kinds of rationalizations and self-deceptions – thus opening the door to new forms of brutality, exploitation, and cruelty. Actually it is the repression of moral instincts that underlies the campaign to "unrepress" the emotions.
After describing the course and collapse of sexual liberation in Russia, Jones returns to America to discuss the progress of sexual liberation and how it affected especially the black community. Black writers like Claude McKay became symbols, for white intellectual patrons, of the "wisdom of the primitive Negro." The refusal of white liberals and intellectuals to endorse the 1965 Moynihan Report, which called for the protection of the black family and especially black fathers and heads-of-household, was to have devastating consequences for the black community. The black sociologist E. Franklin Frazier, who had been a major source for the Moynihan Report, thought that sexual promiscuity was more damaging to blacks than the legacy of slavery. But such views did not accord with the bastions of liberalism, which was willing to perpetuate the pathologies of the ghetto in order to preserve the sexual revolution.
The history of this period is still highly relevant today. The fixation of the American Left with the sexual revolution is still true, and it goes a long way in explaining why we have no effective checks on megalomaniac government and imperial aims. The left fumes about gay marriage while children in Iraq are incinerated and prisoners are sadistically tortured – it itself a telling result of the sexual liberation movement. The narcissism of the Left has become utterly repellent.
The long sections of American portions of Libido Dominandi devoted to the war against the Catholic Church and the contraception issue are important and revealing, but they change the tenor of the book from one which is about culture to one that is about Catholicism. If the book is to be about Catholicism, the lack of any mention of the priest sexual molestation scandals that have plagued the Church in recent years is an omission of major proportions. I believe that these scandals are based on facts, although in many cases probably exaggerated by the media and other groups for political purposes. To all who wish the Catholic Church well, they cry out for a sympathetic, but impartial, treatment.
The other major issue for me concerns the population issue, which Jones highlights so well in his discussions of contraception and procreation. I didn’t see the full implications of these policies before reading this book. The issue of totalitarian control by controlling procreation seems to me indubitable, frightening, and overwhelming. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the terms of the Malthusian problem – population outstripping food supply – were forever altered by the advent of petroleum in the 20th century. The use of petroleum in fertilizers and pesticides created the "Green Revolution," causing a huge increase in harvests. Cheap energy threw a curve ball into the Malthusian equation. The irony is that petroleum probably had a lot more to do with mushrooming populations than Catholic religious views. And further, it is not the poor of the world who are most guilty of environmental destruction and pollution. But it is the poor who pay, morally, socially, and environmentally, for the habits and demands of the wealthy elites of the wealthy nations. The officious interference of Western elites in the intimate matters of the family is but insult to injury. In so many ways "cheap oil" is a partner to the sexual revolution. It fosters the same abandon, lack of self-restraint, consumption, hedonism, and lack of concern for the future.
As Jones stresses in his last chapter about the Clinton sex scandals, without the moral law the rich do as they like. The moral law is the only thing that protects the poor. "A world liberated from morals is a world in which the rich get to do whatever they want… In the absence of morals, the rich will get away with murder because their desires are more powerful, and power in the context becomes the only measure of right and wrong. Either might makes right or we are all bound by the terms of a moral order not of our making."
Libido Dominandi is an important book that takes one of the central threads of modernity and pulls it through the skein of the last two hundred years of history. Michael Jones says things that Americans need to hear, and I wish there were a chance that his book could be widely circulated. Unfortunately, there isn’t – not only because of the atmosphere today, but also because the book would have to be substantially shortened and rigorously edited, and the focus – whether Catholic or cultural – would have to be clarified.
Christian fundamentalists have attempted to step into the breach created by the sexual revolution, but unfortunately fundamentalism is lacking in the tradition of moral reason that would enable it to win wider respect. If anything, Christian fundamentalism has only increased the determination of the leftist elites to support gay marriage, abortion, and other issues of "sexual freedom" – and this despite an unjust war, prison torture scandals, the abrogation of civil liberties, and the emptying-out of the American economy in favor of heedless consumption and the manipulation of finance. Few things highlight the terminal irrelevance and suicidal intent of the American so-called thinking class than their continued support for sexual liberation in the face of a tsunami of woes headed our way. Protestant Christianity has apparently terminated in a divorce from mores on the one hand and a divorce from reason on the other. Ironically, the churches that became "national" have nothing to say any longer for the nations. It is possible that Catholicism, being international, will be the only real meaningful support for Christianity.
So perhaps there will be a "Catholic moment," in which case Michael Jones could revise his book to argue the case for a counter-Protestant Reformation. Which, I think, is a case to be made. But the sexual liberationist doctrine also needs to be seen in the context of cheap energy and abundant petroleum, which exacerbated many of the problems discussed in this book. Lust brought us Empire – but Empire is discovering, to its chagrin, that oil is limited and there are signs everywhere of environmental stress and energy constraints. It is not too much to say that this time in history presents us with not only the opportunity but the necessity of affirming the moral law of self-restraint. But the book that unites the reality of the moral law to the theme of stewardship has yet to be written. Gratitude for the act of procreation that brought us here can be seen as a part of thanks and obligation to the Creation that made it possible.
(1) See: "Urbino: an Essay on the Vital Manners of the West," by Paul C. Johnston, published at the link to left: http://mysite.verizon.net/vze495qq/urbino/ -- in this essay my brother discusses Kantian moral philosophy as an essential component of what he calls the "Second Synthesis." He says that Kant engineered "a series of retreats and advances. His retreats involved understanding how we grasp the world around us. His advances involved what we can know about the moral order." Paul says that Kant introduced a "revolutionary notion" into European thought when he said that men have the power to shape the world according to the way it ought to be. This idea became central to Contractarian theory developed by Locke and Hobbes.
The reader would need to read all of Paul's essay (about 40 pages) to get the full implications of the "Second Synthesis," which is what followed upon the "First Synthesis" of Thomas Aquinas. In the First Synthesis, Reason "left the core alone" -- that is, it was the servant and protector of the core. "But the Second European Synthesis was a different matter. At its core was the belief that men could with their minds arrange the world in ways to suit human purpose. The principal consequence of the Second Great European Synthesis was to disorder the passions."
|March 5th, 2008||#4|
[This article appeared in Jones's magazine, Culture Wars, in April 1996]
Homosexuality and the Nazi Party
by Scott Lively
Scott Lively is co-author of The Pink Swastika: Homosexuals and the Nazi Party (Keizer, Oregon: Founders Publishing Company, 1995). The Pink Swastika is not available through Leadership U., but is available by calling Jeremiah Films at 1-800-828-2290.
The pink triangle, symbol of the "gay rights" movement, is familiar to many Americans. As the badge used by the Nazis to designate homosexuals in the concentration camps, the pink triangle perfectly expresses the message of "gay rights." That message is that homosexuals are currently and historically victims of irrational prejudice and that those who oppose homosexuality are hateful bigots. This all-important victim status engenders sympathy for the homosexual "cause" among well-meaning heterosexuals. Thus, millions of otherwise rational Americans support a movement whose sole unifying characteristic is a sexual lifestyle they personally find repugnant.
When homosexuals display the pink triangle, they are equating all opposition to homosexuality with Nazism and themselves with the Jewish victims of the Holocaust. As pro-homosexual Rabbi Bernard Mehlman puts it, "Homophobia and Anti-Semitism are part of the same disease." This quote appeared in an advertisement in a homosexual newspaper. It announced the dedication ceremony of the New England Holocaust Memorial in Boston last year. An accompanying article reported that New England homosexuals had pledged $1 million to help build the memorial, including $50,000 for an initial monument consisting of six steel and glass towers. Alongside the monument is an inscription honoring homosexual victims of the Nazis. Another Holocaust memorial being prepared in New York City is expected to similarly honor homosexuals. Washington, D.C. is home to the official U.S. Holocaust Museum which not only maintains a pro-homosexual display, but also employs noted homosexual activist Klaus Mueller as a staff researcher. Other Holocaust related projects, such as the Anne Frank Exhibit now touring the United States, incorporate a similar message in their programs.
While some homosexuals were interned in Nazi work camps, the role of homosexuals in Nazi history cannot be accurately represented solely by a pink triangle. Our review of more than 200 history texts written since the 1930s suggests that a pink swastika is equally representative, if not more so. For, ironically, while many homosexuals were persecuted by the Nazi party, there is no doubt that the Nazi party itself had many homosexuals within its own ranks, even among its highest leadership.
The Homosexual Roots of the Nazi Party
The "gay rights" movement often portrays itself as an American phenomenon which arose from the civil rights movement of the 1950s. It is not uncommon to hear homosexualists (those both "gay" and "straight" who promote the legitimization of homosexuality) characterize "gay rights" as the natural third wave of civil rights activism (following blacks and women). In reality, however, Germany was the birthplace of "gay rights," and its legacy in that nation is truly alarming.
The "grandfather of gay rights" was a homosexual German lawyer named Karl Heinrich Ulrichs. Ulrichs had been molested at age 14 by his male riding instructor. Instead of attributing his adult homosexuality to the molestation, however, Ulrich devised in the 1860s what became known as the "third sex" theory of homosexuality. Ulrichs' model holds that male homosexuals are actually female souls trapped within male bodies. The reverse phenomenon supposedly explains lesbianism. Since homosexuality was an innate condition, reasoned Ulrichs, homosexual behavior should be decriminalized. An early follower of Ulrichs coined the term "homosexual" in an open letter to the Prussian Minister of Justice in 1869.
By the time Ulrichs died in 1895, the "gay rights" movement in Germany had gained considerable strength. Frederich Engels noted this in a letter to Karl Marx regarding Ulrich's efforts: "The pederasts start counting their numbers and discover they are a powerful group in our state. The only thing missing is an organization, but it seems to exist already, but it is hidden." After Ulrichs' death, the movement split into two separate and opposed factions. One faction followed Ulrichs' successor, Magnus Hirschfeld, who formed the Scientific Humanitarian Committee in 1897 and later opened the Institute for Sex Research in Berlin. The other faction was organized by Adolf Brand, publisher of the first homosexual magazine, Der Eigene (The Special). Brand, Benedict Friedlander and Wilhelm Janzen formed the Gemeinschaft der Eigenen (The Community of the Special) in 1902. What divided these groups was their concepts of masculinity. Ulrichs' theory embraced a feminine identity. His, and later Hirschfeld's, followers literally believed they were women trapped in men's bodies.
The followers of Brand, however, were deeply insulted by Ulrichs' theory. They perceived themselves not merely as masculine, but as a breed of men superior in masculine qualities even to heterosexuals. The Community of the Special (CS) asserted that male homosexuality was the foundation of all nation-states and that male homosexuals represented an elite strata of human society. The CS fashioned itself as a modern incarnation of the warrior cults of ancient Greece. Modeling themselves after the military heroes of Sparta, Thebes and Crete, the members of the CS were ultra-masculine, male-supremacist and pederastic (devoted to man/boy sex). Brand said in Der Eigene that he wanted men who "thirst for a revival of Greek times and Hellenic standards of beauty after centuries of Christian barbarism."
One of the keys to understanding both the rise of Nazism and the later persecution of some homosexuals by the Nazis is found in this early history of the German "gay rights" movement. For it was the CS which created and shaped what would become the Nazi persona, and it was the loathing which these "Butches" held for effeminate homosexuals ("Femmes") which led to the internment of some of the latter in slave labor camps in the Third Reich. [Very significant - if true]
From Boy Scouts to Brownshirts
The "Butch" homosexuals of the CS transformed Germany. Their primary vehicle was the German youth movement, known as the Wandervogel (Rovers or Wandering Youth). "In Central Europe," writes homosexual historian Parker Rossman, "there was another effort to revive the Greek ideal of pedagogic pederasty in the movement of 'Wandering Youth'... Ultimately, Hitler used and transformed the movement...expanding and building upon its romanticism as a basis for the Nazi Party" (Rossman:103).
Rising spontaneously in the 1890s as an informal hiking and camping society, the Wandervogel became an official organization at the turn of the century, similar to the Boy Scouts. From early on, however, the Wandervogel was dominated and controlled by the pederasts of the CS. CS co-founder Wilhelm Janzen was its chief benefactor, and its leadership was rife with homosexuality. In 1912, CS theorist Hans Blueher wrote The German Wandervogel Movement as an Erotic Phenomenon which told how the organization was used to recruit young boys into homosexuality.
Wandervogel youths were indoctrinated with Greek paganism and taught to reject the Christian values of their parents (mostly Catholics and Lutherans). The CS belief in a homosexual elite took shape within the Wandervogel in the concept of "der Fuehrer" (The Leader). E.Y. Hartshorne, in German Youth and the Nazi Dream of Victory, records the recollections of a former Wandervogel member in this regard: "We little suspected then what power we had in our hands. We played with the fire that had set a world in flames, and it made our hearts hot...It was in our ranks that the word Fuehrer originated, with its meaning of blind obedience and devotion...And I shall never forget how in those early days we pronounced the word Gemeinschaft ["community"] with a trembling throaty note of excitement, as though it hid a deep secret" (Hartshorne:12). Louis Snyder notes in the Encyclopedia of the Third Reich that, "The Fuehrer Principle became identical with the elite principle. The Fuehrer elite were regarded as independent of the will of the masses" (Snyder:104). Snyder was not writing about the Gemeinschaft der Eigenen or of the Wandervogel, but of the upper ranks of the Nazi party some thirty years later. Another Nazi custom from the Wandervogel was the "Seig [sic - Sieg] Heil" salute, which was an early form of greeting popular among the wandering youth. During World War I, the greatest hero of the German youth movement was Gerhard Rossbach. Described by historian Robert G. L. Waite as a "sadist, murderer and homosexual," Rossbach was "the most important single contributor of the pre-Hitler youth movement" (Waite,1969:210). More importantly, Rossbach was the bridge between the Wandervogel and the Nazi Party.
In the turbulent days following Germany's defeat in World War I, Gerhard Rossbach was one of many former army officers placed in command of Freikorps (Free Corps) units. These unofficial auxilary military units were designed to circumvent limitations imposed on German troop strength by the Allies. Rossbach organized a Freikorps called Rossbach's Sturmabteilung (Rossbach's Storm Troopers). Rossbach also built the largest post-war youth organization in Germany, named the Schilljugend (Schill Youth) in honor of a famous Prussian soldier. In The Black Corps, historian Robert Lewis Koehl notes that both Rossbach's Storm Troopers and the Schilljugend "were notorious for wearing brown shirts which had been prepared for German colonial troops, acquired from the old Imperial army stores" (Koehl:19). These Storm Troopers would soon become known as Nazi Brownshirts. Konrad Heiden, a contemporary of Hitler and a leading authority on Nazi history, wrote that the Freikorps "were breeding places of perversion" and that "Rossbach's troop...was especially proud" of being homosexual (Heiden:295). Rossbach's adjutant was Edmund Heines, noted for his ability to procure boys for sexual orgies. Ernst Roehm, recruited by Rossbach into homosexuality [fascinating if true, would like to see documentation], later commanded the Storm Troopers for the Nazis, where they were more commonly known as the SA (an acronym for Sturmabteilung).
The Power Behind the Throne
While Adolf Hitler is today recognized as the central figure of Nazism, he was a less important player when the Nazi machine was first assembled. Its first leader was Ernst Roehm. Homosexual historian Frank Rector writes that "Hitler was, to a substantial extent, Roehm's protege" (Rector:80). Roehm had been a captain in the German army. Hitler had been a mere corporal. After World War I, Roehm was highly placed in the underground nationalist movement that plotted to overthrow the Weimar government and worked to subvert it through assassinations and terrorism. In The Order of the Death's Head, author Heinz Hohne writes that Roehm met Hitler at a meeting of a socialist terrorist group called the Iron Fist and "saw in Hitler the demagogue he required to mobilize mass support for his secret army" (Hohne:20). Roehm, who had joined the German Worker's Party before Hitler, worked with him to take over the fledgling organization. With Roehm's backing, Hitler became the first president of the party in 1921 (ibid.:21) and changed its name to the National Socialist German Worker's Party. Soon after, Rossbach's Storm Troopers, the SA, became its military arm. In his classic Nazi history, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, author William Shirer describes Roehm as "a stocky, bull-necked, piggish-eyed, scar- faced professional soldier...[and] like so many of the early Nazis, a homosexual" (Shirer:64). Rector writes:
Was not the most outstanding, most notorious, of all homosexuals the celebrated Nazi leader Ernst Ro[e]hm, the virile and manly chief of the SA, the du buddy of Adolf Hitler from the beginning of his political career? Hitler's rise had in fact depended upon Ro[e]hm and everyone knew it. Ro[e]hm's gay fun and games were certainly no secret; his amorous forays to gay bars and gay Turkish baths were riotous. Whatever anti-homosexual sentiments may have been expressed by straight Nazis were more than offset by the reality of highly visible, spectacular, gay-loving Ro[e]hm. If there were occasional ominous rumblings and grumblings about "all those queers" in the SA and Movement, and some anti-gay flare-ups, homosexual Nazis felt more-or-less secure in the lap of the Party. After all, the National Socialist Party member who wielded the greatest power aside from Hitler was Ro[e]hm (Rector:50f).
Betraying his roots in the "Butch" faction of the German "gay rights" movement, Roehm viewed homosexuality as the basis for a new society [again, fascinating - if true]. Louis Snyder writes that Roehm "projected a social order in which homosexuality would be regarded as a human behavior pattern of high repute...he flaunted his homosexuality in public and insisted that his cronies do the same. What was needed, Roehm believed, was a proud and arrogant lot who could brawl, carouse, smash windows, kill and slaughter for the hell of it. Straights, in his eyes, were not as adept in such behavior as practicing homosexuals" (Snyder:55). "The principle function of this army-like organization," writes historian Thomas Fuchs, "was beating up anyone who opposed the Nazis, and Hitler believed this was a job best undertaken by homosexuals" (Fuchs:48f). [This is plausible. Homosexuals are more vicious even than jews, as anyone who has written against them publicly will discover.]
The favorite meeting place of the SA was a "gay" bar in Munich called the Bratwurstglockl where Roehm kept a reserved table (Hohne:82). This was the same tavern where some of the earliest formative meetings of the Nazi Party had been held (Rector:69). At the Bratwurstglockl, Roehm and associates-Edmund Heines, Karl Ernst, Ernst's partner Captain Rohrbein, Captain Petersdorf, Count Ernst Helldorf and the rest-would meet to plan and strategize. These were the men who orchestrated the Nazi campaign of intimidation and terror. All of them were homosexual (Heiden:371).
Indeed, homosexuality was all that qualified many of these men for their positions in the SA. Heinrich Himmler would later complain of this: "Does it not constitute a danger to the Nazi movement if it can be said that Nazi leaders are chosen for sexual reasons?" (Gallo:57). Himmler was not so much opposed to homosexuality itself as to the fact that non-qualified people were given high rank based on their homosexual relations with Roehm and others. For example, SA Obergruppenfuhrer (Lieutenant General) Karl Ernst, a militant homosexual, had been a hotel doorman and a waiter before joining the SA. "Karl Ernst is not yet 35," writes Gallo, "he commands 250,000 men...he is simply a sadist, a common thug, transformed into a responsible official" (ibid.:50f).
This strange brand of nepotism was a hallmark of the SA. By 1933 the SA had grown far larger than the German army, yet the Vikingkorps (Officers' Corps) remained almost exclusively homosexual. "Roehm, as the head of 2,500,000 Storm Troops," writes historian H.R. Knickerbocker, "had surrounded himself with a staff of perverts. His chiefs, men of rank of Gruppenfuhrer or Obergruppenfuhrer, commanding units of several hundred thousand Storm Troopers, were almost without exception homosexuals. Indeed, unless a Storm Troop officer were homosexual he had no chance of advancement" (Knickerbocker:55).
In the SA, the Community of the Special's Hellenic ideal of masculine homosexual supremacy and militarism was fully realized. "Theirs was a very masculine brand of homosexuality," writes homosexualist historian Alfred Rowse, "they lived in a male world, without women, a world of camps and marching, rallies and sports. They had their own relaxations, and the Munich SA became notorious on account of them" (Rowse:214). The similarity of the SA to Freidlander and Brand's dream of Hellenic revival is not coincidental. In Gay American History, Jonathan Katz writes that Roehm was a prominent member of the Society for Human Rights (SHR), an offshoot of the CS (J.Katz:632).
The "relaxations" to which Rowse refers were, of course, the homosexual activities (many of them pederastic) for which the SA and the CS were both famous. Hohne writes that Roehm "used the SA for ends other than the purely political...Peter Granninger, who had been one of Roehm's partners...and was now given cover in the SA Intelligence Section. For a monthly salary of 200 marks he kept Roehm supplied with new friends, his main hunting ground being Geisela High School Munich; from this school he recruited no fewer than eleven boys, whom he first tried out and then took to Roehm" (Hohne:82).
Hitler's "Gay" Roots
In 1945 a Jewish historian by the name of Samuel Igra published Germany's National Vice, which called homosexuality the "poisoned stream" that ran through the heart of Nazism. (In the 1920s and 30s, homosexuality was known as "the German vice" across Europe because of the debaucheries of the Weimar period.) Igra, who escaped Germany in 1939, claims that Hitler "had been a male prostitute in Vienna at the time of his sojourn there, from 1907 to 1912, and that he practiced the same calling in Munich from 1912 to 1914" (Igra:67). Desmond Seward, in Napoleon and Hitler, says Hitler is listed as a homosexual in Viennese police records (Seward:299). Lending credence to this is the fact, noted by Walter Langer, that during several of those years Hitler "chose to live in a Vienna flophouse known to be inhabited by many homosexuals" (Langer:192). Rector writes that, as a young man, Hitler was often called "der Schoen Adolf" (the handsome Adolf) and that later his looks "were also to some extent helpful in gaining big-money support from Ernst Ro[e]hm's circle of wealthy gay friends" (Rector:52).
Langer, a psychiatrist, was commissioned by the Allies in 1943 to prepare a thorough psychological study of Hitler. His report, kept under wraps for 29 years, was published in book form in 1972 as The Mind of Adolf Hitler. Langer writes that Hitler was certainly a coprophile (a person who is sexually aroused by human excrement) and may have practiced homosexuality as an adult. He cites the testimony of Hermann Rauschning, a former Hitler confidante who "reports that he has met two boys who claimed that they were Hitler's homosexual partners, but their testimony can hardly be taken at face value. More condemning," adds Langer, "would be the remarks dropped by [Albert] Foerster, the Danzig gauleiter, in conversation with Rauschning. Even here, however, the remarks deal only with Hitler's impotence as far as heterosexual relationships go, without actually implying that he indulges in homosexuality. It is probably true that Hitler calls Foerster 'Bubi,' which is a common nickname employed by homosexuals in addressing their partners. This alone is not adequate proof that he has actually indulged in homosexual practices with Foerster, who is known to be a homosexual" (Langer:178). However, writes Langer, "Even today, Hitler derives sexual pleasure from looking at men's bodies and associating with homosexuals" (Langer:179). Too, Hitler's greatest hero was Frederick the Great, a well-known homosexual (Garde:44).
Like Langer, Waite also hesitates to label Hitler a homosexual but cites substantial circumstantial evidence that he was.
It is true that Hitler was closely associated with Ernst Ro[e]hm and Rudolf Hess, two homosexuals who were among the very few people with whom he used the familiar du. But one cannot conclude that he therefore shared his friend's sexual tastes. Still, during the months he was with Hess in Landsberg, their relationship must have become very close. When Hitler left the prison he fretted about his friend who languished there, and spoke of him tenderly, using Austrian diminutives: 'Ach mein Rudy, mein Hesserl, isn't it appalling to think that he's still there.' One of Hitler's valets, Schneider, made no explicit statement about the relationship, but he did find it strange that whenever Hitler got a present he liked or drew an architectural sketch that particularly pleased him, he would run to Hess- who was known in homosexual circles as "Fraulein Anna"-as a little boy would run to his mother to show his prize to her...Finally there is the nonconclusive but interesting fact that one of Hitler's prized possessions was a handwritten love letter which King Ludwig II had written to a manservant" (Waite, 1977:283f).
Hitler, if homosexual, was certainly not exclusively so. There are at least four women, including his own niece, with whom Hitler had sexual relationships, although these relationships were not normal. Both Waite and Langer suggest that his sexual encounters with women included expressions of his coprophilic perversion as well as other extremely degrading forms of masochism. It is interesting to note that all four women attempted suicide after becoming sexually involved with Hitler. Two succeeded (Langer:175f).
The Homoerotic Brotherhood
Whether or not Hitler was personally involved in homosexual relationships, the evidence is clear that he knowingly and intentionally surrounded himself with practicing homosexuals from his youth. Like Roehm, Hitler seemed to prefer homosexual companions and co-workers. In addition to Roehm and Hess, two of his closest friends, Hitler filled key positions with known or suspected homosexuals. Rector, himself a "gay Holocaust" revisionist, attempts to dismiss sources that attribute homosexuality to leading Nazis, but nevertheless writes that...
Reportedly, Hitler Youth leader, Baldur von Schirach was bisexual; Hitler's private attorney, Reich Legal Director, Minister of Justice, butcher Governor- General of Poland, and public gay-hater Hans Frank was said to be a homosexual; Hitler's adjutant Wilhelm Bruckner was said to be bisexual;...Walter Funk, Reich Minister of Economics [and Hitler's personal financial advisor] has frequently been called a "notorious" homosexual ...or as a jealous predecessor in Funk's post, Hjalmar Schacht, contemptuously claimed, Funk was a "harmless homosexual and alcoholic;" ...[Hitler's second in command] Hermann Goering liked to dress up in drag and wear campy make-up; and so on and so forth (Rector:57).
Igra, who confidently asserts that the above men were homosexuals, cites still other Hitler aides and close friends who were known homosexuals as well. He states that Hitler's chauffeur and one-time personal secretary, Emile Maurice, for example, was homosexual, as well as the pornographer Julius Streicher, who "was originally a school teacher, but was dismissed by the Nuremberg School Authorities, following numerous charges of pederasty brought against him" (Igra:72f). SS Chief Heinrich Himmler's "pederastic proclivities [were] captured on film" by Nazi filmmaker Walter Frenz (Washington City Paper, April 4, 1995). Reinhard Heydrich, mastermind of the first pogrom, Kristallnacht, and of the death camps, was homosexual (Calic:64). In The Twelve Year Reich, Richard Grunberger tells of a party given by Nazi propagandist, Joseph Goebbels, which degenerated into a homosexual orgy (Grunberger:70). A recent biography of Albert Speer by Gitta Sereny speaks of a "homo-erotic (not sexual) relationship" between Speer and Hitler (Newsweek, Oct. 30, 1995). Langer notes that Hitler's personal bodyguards were "almost always 100 percent homosexuals" (Langer:179). Hitler's later public pronouncements against homosexuality never quite fit with the lifelong intimacy-sexual or otherwise-which he maintained with men he knew and accepted as homosexuals.
In light of the above it is not surprising that many of those whose ideas influenced Hitler were also homo-sexual. Chief among those were occultists Jorg Lanz Von Liebenfels and Guido von List. In 1958, Austrian psychologist Wilhelm Daim published Der Mann der Hitler die Ideen gab ("The Man Who Gave Hitler His Ideas") in which he called Lanz the true "father" of National Socialism. Lanz was a former Cistercian monk who had been excommunicated for homosexuality (Sklar:19). After being expelled from the monastery, Lanz formed an occultic order called the Ordo Novi Templi or The Order of the New Temple (ONT). The ONT was an offshoot of the Ordo Templi Orientis which practiced tantric sex rituals (Howard:91).
On Christmas day, 1907, many years before it would become the symbol of the Third Reich, Lanz and other members of the ONT raised the swastika flag over the castle which Lanz had purchased to house the order (Goodrick-Clarke:109). Lanz chose the swastika, he said, because it was the ancient pagan symbol of Wotan, the god of storms (Cavendish:1983). (Wotan, the inspiration for "Storm Troopers," was the Teutonic equivalent of Baal in the Old Testament and Zeus in Greek culture). Waite notes that it was through Lanz that Hitler would learn that most of his heroes of history were also "practicing homosexuals" (Waite, 1977:94f).
Refuting "Gay Holocaust" Revisionism
"Gay Holocaust" revisionists assert that Hitler's ascension to the Chancellorship marked the beginning of a homosexual Holocaust in Germany. For example, in The Pink Triangle, Richard Plant writes, "After years of frustration...Hitler's storm troopers now had the opportunity to smash their enemies: the lame, the mute, the feebleminded, the epileptic, the homosexual, the Jew, the Gypsy, the communist. These were the scapegoats singled out for persecution. These were the 'contragenics' who were to be ruthlessly eliminated to ensure the purity of the 'Aryan race.'" (Plant:51). Rector, another revisionist, makes a similar statement: "Hitler's homophobia did not surface until 1933-1934, when gays had come to affect adversely his New Order designs-out of which grew the simple solution of murdering them en masse" (Rector:24). The fact is that homosexuals were never murdered "en masse" or "ruthlessly eliminated" by the Nazis. Yet many homosexuals were persecuted and some did die in Nazi work camps. What is the truth about Nazi persecution of homosexuals? There are several incidents in Nazi history which are most often cited as evidence of a "gay Holocaust." This list includes a series of increasingly harsh public pronouncements and policies against homosexuality by Hitler and Himmler, the sacking of the Sex Research Institute of Berlin, "the Roehm Purge" (also known as "the Night of the Long Knives"), and the internment of homosexuals in work camps.
The law against homosexual conduct had existed in Germany for many years prior to the Nazi regime as Paragraph 175 of the Reich Criminal Code, to wit: "A male who indulges in criminally indecent activity with another male, or who allows himself to participate in such activity, will be punished with imprisonment" (Burleigh and Wipperman:188). When Hitler came to power he used this law as a means of tracking down and punishing those homosexuals who, in the words of one victim, "had defended the Weimar Republic, and who had tried to forestall the Nazi threat" (ibid.:183). Later he expanded the law and used it as a convenient tool to detain other enemies of the regime.
In February of 1933, Hitler banned pornography, homosexual bars and bath-houses, and groups which promoted "gay rights" (Plant:50). Ostensibly, this decree was a blanket condemnation of all homosexual activity in Germany, but in practice it served as just another means to find and destroy anti-Nazi groups and individuals. "Hitler," admit Oosterhuis and Kennedy, "employed the charge of homosexuality primarily as a means to eliminate political opponents, both inside his party and out" (Oosterhuis and Kennedy: 248).
The masculine homosexuals in the Nazi leadership selectively enforced this policy only against their enemies and not against all homosexuals. Even Rector lends credence to this perspective, citing the fact that the decree "was not enforced in all cases" (Rector:66). Another indication is that the pro-Nazi Society for Human Rights (SHR) continued to participate in German society for several years after the decree. In The Racial State, Michael Burleigh and Wolfgang Wippermann remind us that Roehm was a leading member of the SHR; and we know from Anthony Read and David Fisher that the SHR was still active in Germany as late as 1940 (Read and Fisher:245). Furthermore, Oosterhuis and Kennedy write that "although he was well known as a gay-activist, [Adolf] Brand was not arrested by the Nazis" (Oosterhuis and Kennedy:7). Some of Brand's files were confiscated by the Nazis in their attempt to gather all potentially self-incriminating evidence.
In 1935, Paragraph 175 was amended with Paragraph 175a which criminalized any type of behavior that could be construed as indicating a homosexual inclination or desire (Burleigh and Wipperman: 190). (Interestingly, the new criminal code addressing homosexuality deleted the word "unnatural" from the definition-Reisman, 1994:3.) This new law provided the Nazis with an especially potent legal weapon against their enemies. It will never be known how many non-homosexuals were charged under this law, but it is indisputable that the Nazis used false accusations of homosexuality to justify the detainment and imprisonment of many of their opponents. "The law was so loosely formulated," writes Steakley, "that it could be, and was, applied against heterosexuals that the Nazis wanted to eliminate...the law was also used repeatedly against Catholic clergymen" (Steakley:111). Kogon writes that "The Gestapo readily had recourse to the charge of homosexuality if it was unable to find any pretext for proceeding against Catholic priests or irksome critics" (Kogon:44).
The charge of homosexuality was convenient for the Nazis to use against their political enemies because it was so difficult to defend against and so easy to justify to the populace. Since long before the Nazis, homosexuals had generally lived clandestine lives, so it was not unusual for revelations of their conduct to come as a surprise to their communities when it became a police matter. This is not to say that actual homosexuals were not prosecuted under the law. Many were. But the law was used selectively against the "Femmes." And even when they were threatened, many effeminate homosexuals, especially those in the arts community, were given protection by certain Nazi leaders (Oosterhuis and Kennedy:248). Plant writes:
The most famous example is that of the actor Gustaf Grundgens...Despite the fact that his homosexual affairs were as notorious as those of Roehm's, Goering appointed him director of the State Theater...[And] On October 29, 1937 ...Himmler advised that actors and other artists could be arrested for offenses against paragraph 175 only with his personal consent, unless the police caught them in flagrante (Plant:116).
There is one additional reason why the Nazis arrested homosexuals and raided even the homes of their supporters. They were looking for incriminating evidence against themselves (the Nazi leaders). Blackmail of homosexuals by estranged partners and prostitutes was a simple fact of life in Germany. "[H]omosexuals were particularly vulnerable to blackmailers, known as Chanteure on the homosexual scene," write Burleigh and Wippermann. "Blackmail, and the threat of public exposure, resulted in frequent suicides or suicide attempts" (Burleigh and Wipperman:184). The Nazi leaders were quite familiar with this phenomenon. Igra reports that Heinrich Hoffman, the official Nazi photographer, gained his position by using information about Hitler's perverse abuse of his (Hoffman's) daughter to blackmail the future Fuehrer (Igra:74). Heiden relates another story in which Hitler bought an entire collection of rare political writings to regain possession of a letter to his niece in which he openly revealed his "masochistic- coprophil inclinations" (Heiden:385). Once he was in power he had other ways to solve these kinds of problems.
The Nazis' hunt for incriminating evidence, as well as the selectivity of the Nazi violence, was obvious in the attack on Magnus Hirschfeld's Sex Research Institute, May 6th, 1933. As noted previously, the Sex Research Institute of Berlin had been founded by Hirschfeld (in 1919) as a center for "study" of homosexuality and other sexual dysfunctions. For all intents and purposes, it served as the headquarters for the effeminate branch of the German "gay-rights" movement. For this reason alone, the "Butch" homosexuals of the Nazi Party might have destroyed the Institute. Indeed, throughout the preceding years the Nazis had increasingly harassed Hirschfeld personally. Victor Robinson, Hirschfeld's biographer, wrote in 1936:
Although the Nazis themselves derived great profit from Hirschfeld's theories (and called on him personally for help), they continued his persecution relentlessly; they terrorized his meetings and closed his lecture halls, so that for the safety of his audiences and himself, Hirschfeld was no longer able to make public appearances (Haeberle:368).
Homosexualist James Steakley acknowledges the "Butch/Femme" aspect of the incident, saying that some German homosexuals "could conceivably have approved of the measure, particularly if they were Nazi sympathizers or male supremacists" (Steakley:105).
However, the attack against the Institute was not motivated solely by the Nazi enmity against effeminate homosexuals. It was an attempt to cover up the truth about rampant homosexuality and other perversions in the Nazi Party. Sklar writes that, "Hitler attempted to bury all his earlier influences and his origins, and he spent a great deal of energy hiding them...[In this campaign to erase his past] Hitler ordered the murder of Reinhold Hanish, a friend who had shared his down-and-out days in Vienna" (where Hitler is suspected of having been a homosexual prostitute) (Sklar:21). Hitler also knew that Hirschfeld's facility had extensive records that could be damaging to himself and his inner circle. This was the reason for the raid, according to Ludwig L. Lenz, the assistant director of the Sex Research Institute, who was in charge on the day of the raid. A part of the following quote was cited earlier:
...our Institute was used by all classes of the population and members of every political party...We thus had a great many Nazis under treatment at the Institute. Why was it then, since we were completely non-party, that our purely scientific Institute was the first victim which fell to the new regime? The answer to this is simple...We knew too much. It would be against medical principles to provide a list of the Nazi leaders and their perversions [but]...not ten percent of the men who, in 1933, took the fate of Germany into their hands, were sexually normal...Many of these personages were known to us directly through consultations; we heard about others from their comrades in the party...and of others we saw the tragic results....Our knowledge of such intimate secrets regarding members of the Nazi Party and other documentary material-we possessed about forty thousand confessions and biographical letters-was the cause of the complete and utter destruction of the Institute of Sexology (Haberle:369).
Burleigh and Wipperman report that the ransackers had "lists" of materials they were looking for (Burleigh and Wipperman:189) and that they carted away two truckloads of books and files. The materials taken from the Institute were burned in a public ceremony, captured on film, on May 10th. The spectacular and oft replayed newsreel footage of this event has caused the burning of books to become synonymous with Nazism. What information went up in smoke on that day will never be known, but we can infer that the pile of burning paper contained many Nazi secrets. According to homosexual sources at the time, the Nazis destroyed twelve thousand books and thirty-five thousand photographs. The building itself was confiscated from the SHC and turned over to the Nazi Association of Jurists and Lawyers (Steakley:105).
The Roehm Purge
The event in history most frequently cited as evidence of Nazi persecution of homosexuals is known variously as the Blood Purge, the Night of the Long Knives, and the Roehm Purge. Steakley writes that "the indisputable beginning of Nazi terror against homosexuals was marked by the murder of Ernst Ro[e]hm on June 28, 1934, 'The Night of the Long Knives'" (Steakley:108). It was on that night (actually over an entire weekend) that Adolf Hitler's closest aides orchestrated the assassinations of hundreds of his political enemies in one bloody sweep. Among the victims of this purge were Roehm and several of the top officers of the SA.
We have emphasized that the leadership of the SA was mostly, if not entirely, homosexual. The fact that SA leaders were the primary targets in the massacre could therefore be construed as a sort of "moral cleansing" of the Nazi ranks, which, in fact, Hitler claimed it was. But Hitler lied. The Roehm Purge was driven by political, not moral concerns. Hitler feigned disgust and outrage about the homosexuality of the murdered SA leaders to justify himself to the German people; it was a tactic he had used previously to allay public suspicions about the sexual deviancy of his inner circle. The importance of this fact is asserted in many leading works by both mainstream and homosexualist historians. The following are excerpts from four different historians who have examined the issue:
Hitler eliminated his closest friend Roehm and certain SA leaders as potential rivals. The strictly political motivation of this ruthless power play was initially too obvious to be entirely denied, but later it was conveniently obscured by charges of homosexual depravity (Haberle:369f).
The formal accusations against Roehm and those arrested with him centered on their homosexual activities, which Hitler had of course known about for fifteen years and shrugged off, it being alleged that these activities disgraced the party. For those victims without any homosexual background, "the Great Blood Purge" continued all over Germany, as Nazi leaders got rid of all their most hated enemies, as well as the inevitable "mistakes" (Garde:726f).
Ernst Roehm wasn't shot because the Nazi Party felt outraged by the abrupt discovery that he was "having" his storm troopers-that had been known for ages; but because his sway over the SA had become a menace to Hitler. In the Hitler Youth the "dear love of comrades" was evilly turned into a political end. And if the Nazi hierarchy was well larded with homosexuals, so was Wilhelm II's court and so was the Weimar Republic (Davidson:152).
Hitler himself, of course, had been well aware of Roehm's sexual orientation from the earliest days of their long association....So strong was Roehm that the Wehrmacht [German Army High Command] was concerned that he might seize control of the army. In 1934, Hitler became fearful that the Wehrmacht was plotting a coup against him to prevent such a takeover. To forestall this danger, Hitler had Roehm and about one thousand other men murdered one weekend in June 1934, the famous "Night of the Long Knives" (Crompton:79f).
Igra provides us with a long and detailed account of the power struggle which led to the purge, beginning with a refutation of the idea that it represented a policy of extermination of homosexuals by Hitler:
We shall find that, far from eliminating the sex perverts from his party, Hitler retained most of them, and that he moved against those whom he did eliminate only with the greatest reluctance and after he had been relentlessly pushed by outside forces and circumstances. On June 14 and 15 Hitler was in Venice to see Mussolini. It soon became common knowledge that the German Dictator and his entourage had made an unfavorable impression upon the Italians... Mussolini was never a stickler for puritan morality, to say the least, but there was one vice which the Italians particularly loathe; they call it il visio tedesco, the German vice. The conduct of some members in Hitler's entourage at Venice disgusted the Italians. Mussolini protested against the moral character and political unreliability of the leading personnel in the Nazi Storm Troops and warned Hitler that he would have to sacrifice his favorite colleagues if he wished to save his own personal prestige and that of his regime. Among those colleagues, Roehm, Heines and Karl Ernst were mentioned (Igra:77f).
The Roehm Purge, then, was not a "moral cleansing" of the Nazi ranks, but a re-alignment of power behind the German government which was primarily forced upon Hitler by powerful political elements whose support he needed to maintain control. Igra goes on to point out that not only did the majority of the SA homosexuals survive the purge, but that the massacre was largely implemented by homosexuals. He cites Strasser's statement that "the Chief Killers of Munich [were] Wagner, Esser, Maurice, Weber and Buch." These men "were all known to be sex perverts or sexual maniacs of one type or another," concludes Igra (ibid.:80). Plant records that the larger campaign of assassinations across Germany was orchestrated by Reinhard Heydrich, also a well-known homosexual (Plant:56). Igra addresses Hitler's justification for the purge:
In his defense before the Reichstag a week later Hitler talked of "traitors." That was his alibi...In his speech to the Reichstag he admitted that one of the motives for ordering the massacre was to get rid of the moral perverts in his party and that they were traitors because they practiced homosexualism. But under the dictatorship it was not possible for anyone to put Hitler at question. Nobody asked him to explain how it was that, if his purpose was to get rid of homosexuals, he really didn't rid himself of them but used them as the instruments of his own murder lust and still retained most of them as members of his personal entourage, as well as in key positions of the party organization and the government. Otto Strasser, in his book, The German St. Bartholemew's Night (which has not been published in English), mentions sixteen of these highly placed homosexualist officials who survived the massacres of June 30 and retained their posts (Igra:82).
In the Camps
Although homosexuals were never targeted for extermination, some were interned in Nazi work camps. The actual number of pink-triangle prisoners, estimated at 5,000-15,000 by Joan Ringelheim of the US Holocaust museum (Rose:40), was a tiny fraction of the total camp population. Of these, an undetermined percentage were heterosexuals falsely labeled as homosexuals. Homosexuals who died in the camps (mostly of disease and starvation) were "a small fraction of less than 1 percent" of homosexuals in Germany (S. Katz:146), compared to more than 85 percent of European Jewry exterminated in the gas chambers [double Big Lie: there were no gas chambers, and 85% of European jewry was not exterminated]. More significantly, many of the guards and administrators responsible for the infamous concentration camp atrocities were homosexuals themselves, which negates the proposition that homosexuals in general were being persecuted and interned.
While any prisoner could be chosen as a Kapo (a slave overseer), none of the other interned groups except homosexuals had counterparts among the Nazi guards and administrators. Examples of the homosexuality of the concentration camp guards can be found in many of the personal accounts of Holocaust survivors. Elie Wiesel, sent to the Buna factory camp in the Auschwitz complex, for example, acknowledges this in his book Night:
The head of our tent was a German. An assassin's face, fleshy lips, hands like wolf's paws. He was so fat he could hardly move. Like the leader of the camp he loved children...(Actually this was not a disinterested affection: there was a considerable traffic in young children among homosexuals here, I learned later) (Wiesel:59). [jew Wiesel has no credibility whatsoever]
In Treblinka, the narrative account of the Treblinka uprising, Steiner records the story of another Nazi administrator, taken from interviews with survivors:
Max Bielas had a harem of little Jewish boys. He liked them young, no older than seventeen. He had a kind of parody of the shepherds of Arcadia, their role was to take care of the camp flock of geese. They were dressed like little princes...Bielas had a little barracks built for them that looked like a doll's house...Bielas sought in Treblinka only the satisfaction of his homosexual instincts (Steiner:117f). [so-called 'holocaust' survivors' accounts are notoriously unreliable]
The enduring "Butch/Femme" conflict among German homosexuals clearly had a substantial bearing on the treatment of pink-triangle prisoners. Plant writes of one survivor who reported that "the guards lashed out with special fury against those who showed 'effeminate traits'" (Plant:172). And Rector records an interview with a former Pink Triangle named Wolf (a pseudonym) in which the issue of effeminacy was raised. "The ones who were soft, shall I say, were the ones who suffered terribly," said Wolf. Rudolf Hoess, the infamous commandant of Auschwitz, who may himself have been a "Butch" homosexual, defined "genuine homosexuals... [by their] soft and girlish affectations and fastidiousness, their sickly sweet manner of speech, and their altogether too affectionate deportment toward their fellows" (Hoess in Rector:137f). These "genuine homosexuals" were considered incorrigible and held in special barracks, while many non-effeminate homosexuals were released (ibid.:137). Hoess, incidentally, had at one time been a close friend of Edmund Heines (Snyder:301), the procurer of boys for Roehm's pederastic orgies.
Toward the end of World War II, many homosexuals were released from the concentration camps and drafted into the German army (Shaul:688). Steven Katz cites records that "indicate that 13 percent of all homosexual camp inmates were reprieved and released" (S. Katz:146). This was happening at the same time as the Nazis' frantic push to increase their "production" in the death camps, in an effort to exterminate every last Jew in Europe before the Allies could liberate the camps. [not true]
The American Connection
While the Nazi Party was crushed as a political force in 1945, remnants of Nazism survive around the world. As in Germany, many of these fascist groups are dominated by male homosexuals.
The most famous incident in the history of the American Nazi Party resulted from its 1977 demand to stage a march through the largely Jewish neighborhood of Skokie, Illinois, a Chicago suburb and the home of many Holocaust survivors. This plan was devised by Frank Collin [a jew], who often appeared with his followers "in full Nazi regalia: brown shirts, black boots, and armbands..." Civil authorities effectively blocked the march at first, but the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) rose to Collin's aid and forced the City of Chicago to allow it. The subsequent event drew international media attention. Homosexualists Johansson and Percy in Outing: Shattering the Conspiracy of Silence have finally revealed, more than 15 years later, that Collin was a homosexual pederast. In 1979 Collin was arrested "for taking indecent liberties with boys between ages 10 and 14" and was sentenced to seven years in prison (Johansson and Percy, 1994:130). [Why is there no mention that Collin was a jew?]
Meanwhile, back in Germany, the alarming increase of neo-Nazi skinheads is also linked to homosexuality. Elmay Kraushaar, a journalist for Der Spiegel, Germany's equivalent to TIME, is quoted in The Advocate:
There is a gay skinhead movement in Berlin. They go to cruising areas with leaflets that say, "We don't want foreigners." A major leader of the neo-Nazis in Germany, Michael Kuhnen was an openly gay man who died of AIDS two years ago. He wrote a paper on the links between homosexuality and fascism, saying fascism is based on the love of comrades, that having sex with your comrades strengthens this bond (Anderson:54).
Learning from History
Sadly, the homosexual dimension of Nazi history is overlooked by many historians. As Duberman, Vicinus and Chauncey have stated with the title to their "gay studies" text, the role of homosexuals and pederasts has been Hidden from History. They, of course, imagine the influence of homosexuality to be positive. From the Judeo-Christian cultural context, however, the rise of homosexuality necessarily represents the diminution of Biblical morality as a restraint on human passions. Consequently, where Judeo-Christian ideals decrease, violence and depravity increase.
It was the pederasts of the Community of the Special who sponsored the revival of Hellenic pagan ideals in German society. These men were viciously anti-Jew and anti-Christian because of the injunctions against homosexuality inherent in the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic. Homosexualist Warren Johansson notes that Hans Blueher, one of the leading theoreticians of the Community of the Special, "maintained that Judaism had suppressed the homosexual aspect of its culture, with concomitant hypertrophy [enlargement] of the family" (Johansson:816). Benedict Friedlander, in an essay for Der Eigene titled "Seven Propositions," chose as his first proposition an attack on Christianity. "The white race is becoming ever sicker under the curse of Christianity, which is foreign to it and mostly harmful," writes Friedlander. "That is the genuinely bad 'Jewish influence,' an opinion that has proven true, especially through the conditions in North America" (Friedlander in Oosterhuis and Kennedy:219). For his part, Adolf Brand called Christianity "barbarism" and "expressed his desire to fight 'beyond good and evil,' not for the sake of the masses, since the happiness of 'the weak' would result in a 'slave mentality,' but for the human being who proclaimed himself a god and was not to be subdued by human laws and ethics" (Oosterhuis and Kennedy:183). We should not forget Nietzsche, who called Christianity "the lie of millennia" (Macintyre: 188).
Much has been made of the reported silence, and in some cases complicity, of the supposed Christian churches during the Third Reich. But few have noted the long period of "Biblical deconstruction" that preceded the rise of Nazism, and fewer still have chronicled the diabolical perversion of German religious culture by the Nazis themselves. While the neo-pagans were busy attacking from without, liberal theologians undermined Biblical authority from within the Christian church. The school of so-called "higher criticism," which began in Germany in the late 1800s, portrayed the miracles of God as myths; by implication making true believers (Jew and Christian alike) into fools. And since the Bible was no longer accepted as God's divine and inerrant guide, it could be ignored or reinterpreted. By the time the Nazis came to power, "Bible-believing" Christians, (the Confessing Church) were a small minority. As Grunberger asserts, Nazism itself was a "pseudo-religion" (ibid.:79) that competed, in a sense, with Christianity and Judaism.
The schools were heavily targeted in order to de-Christianize the young. Mandatory prayer in schools was stopped in 1935, and from 1941 onward, religious instruction was completely eliminated for all students over 14 years old (ibid.:494f). The Nazi Teachers Association actively discouraged its members from taking religious instruction, while at the same time many teachers of religious studies (who were all required to be licensed by the state) "inculcated neo-paganism into their pupils during periods of religious instruction." Later, teachers were outright prohibited from attending voluntary religion classes organized by the Catholic church (ibid.:495).
From the early years, leading Nazis openly attacked Christianity. Joseph Goebbels declared that "Christianity has infused our erotic attitudes with dishonesty" (Taylor:20). It is in this campaign against Judeo-Christian morality that we find the reason for the German people's acceptance of Nazism's most extreme atrocities. Their religious foundations had been systematically eroded over a period of decades by powerful social forces. By the time the Nazis came to power, German culture was spiritually bankrupt. Too often, historians have largely ignored the spiritual element of Nazi history; but if we look closely at Hitler's campaign of extermination of the Jews [Big Lie - there was no such campaign. Jews were discriminated against legally, and the discrimination grew harsher over time, but there was not a single jew gassed, and no six million killed.], it becomes clear that his ostensive racial motive obscures a deeper and more primal hatred of the Jews as the "People of God."
The probable reason for Hitler's attack on Christianity was his perception that it alone had the moral authority to stop the Nazi movement. But Christians stumbled before the flood of evil. As Poliakov notes, "[W]hen moral barriers collapsed under the impact of Nazi preaching...the same anti-Semitic movement that led to the slaughter of the Jews gave scope and license to an obscene revolt against God and the moral law. An open and implacable war was declared on the Christian tradition...[which unleashed] a frenzied and unavowed hatred of Christ and the Ten Commandments" (Poliakov:300). [The birth rate was higher under the German nationalists than under the Christians. The jews promoting Weimar morality were driven out, regardless of the behaviors practiced by some nazis among themselves.]
There is no question that homosexuality figures prominently in the history of the Holocaust. As we have noted, the ideas for disposing of the Jews originated with Lanz von Leibenfels. The first years of terrorism against the Jews were carried out by the homosexuals of the SA. The first concentration camp, as well as the system for training its brutal guards, was the work of Ernst Roehm. The first pogrom, Kristallnacht, was orchestrated in 1938 by the homosexual Reinhard Heydrich [what evidence is there Heydrich was homosexual?]. And it was the transvestite [evidence?] Goering who started the "evolution of the Final Solution...[with an] order to Heydrich (Jan. 24, 1939) concerning the solution of the Jewish question by 'emigration' and 'evacuation'" (Robinson:25). Still, despite their disproportionate role, homosexuals did not cause the Holocaust. They, along with so many others who had lost their moral bearings, were merely instruments in its enactment. The Holocaust must be blamed on the one whom the Bible compares to "a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour" (NKJ:I Peter 5:8).
Yet, while we cannot say that homosexuals caused the Holocaust, we must not ignore their central role in Nazism. To the myth of the "pink triangle"-the notion that all homosexuals in Nazi Germany were persecuted-we must respond with the reality of the "pink swastika."
[This article, excerpts from The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party by Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams (Founders Publishing Company, 1995), first appeared in Culture Wars (April 1996), edited by Dr. E. Michael Jones. The excerpt was prepared for Culture Wars by Scott Lively. Culture Wars, 206 Marquette Avenue, South Bend, IN 46617, phone (219) 289-9786.]
Agonito, Rosemary. History of Ideas on Women: A Source Book. New York, G.P. Putnam & Sons, 1977.
Alyson Almanac. Boston, Alyson Publications Inc., 1990.
Anderson, Shelly. "Youth." The Advocate. January 26, 1993.
Bleuel, Hans Peter. Sex and Society in Nazi Germany. New York, J.B. Lippincott Company, 1973.
Burleigh, Michael, and Wipperman, Wolfgang. The Racial State:Germany 1933-1945. New York, Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Calic, Edouard. Reinhard Heydrich: The Chilling Story of the Man Who Masterminded the Nazi Death Camps. Military Heritage Press, William Morrow and Company, 1982.
Cavendish, Richard. Man, Myth & Magic: An Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Supernatural. New York, Marshall Cavendish Corporation, 1970.
Costello, John. Mask of Treachery: Spies, Lies, Buggery and Betrayal. New York, William Morrow and Company, 1988.
Crompton, Louis. "Gay Genocide: from Leviticus to Hitler." The Gay Academic. Palm Springs, California, ETC Publications, 1978.
Davidson, Michael. The World, the Flesh, and Myself. London, Arthur Baker Ltd., 1962.
Dynes, Wayne. The Encyclopedia of Homosexuality. New York, Garland Publishing, 1990.
Fest, Joachim C. Hitler. New York, Vintage Books, 1975.
Friedlander, Benedict. "Memoirs for the Friends and Contributors of the Scientific Humanitarian Committee in the Name of the Succession of the Scientific Humanitarian Committee." Journal of Homosexuality, January-February 1991.
Fuchs, Thomas. The Hitler Fact Book. New York, Fountain Books, 1990.
Gallo, Max. The Night of the Long Knives. New York, Warner Books, 1973.
Garde, Noel I. Jonathan to Gide: The Homosexual in History. New York, Vantage Press, 1969.
Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas. The Occult Roots of Nazism: Secret Aryan Cults and their Influence on Nazi Ideology. New York, New York University Press, 1992.
Graber, G.S. The History of the SS: A Chilling Look at the Most Terrifying Arm of the Nazi War Machine. New York, Charter Books, 1978.
Greenburg, David F. The Construction of Homosexuality. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1988.
Grunberger, Richard. The 12-Year Reich: A Social History of Nazi Germany 1933-1945. New York, Ballantine Books, 1971.
Haeberle, Irwin J. "Swastika, Pink Triangle, and Yellow Star: The Destruction of Sexology and the Persecution of Homosexuals in Nazi Germany." Hidden From History: Reclaiming the Gay andLesbian Past. Duberman, Martin, Vicinus, Martha, and Chauncey, George Jr. (Eds.). United States, Meridian, 1989.
Hartshorne, E.Y. German Youth and the Nazi Dream of Victory. New York, Farrar and Reinhart, Inc, 1941.
Heiden, Konrad. Der Fuehrer: Hitler's Rise to Power. Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1944.
Heritage and S.W. Jewish Press, September 16, 1983
Hohne, Heinz. The Order of the Death's Head: The Story of Hitler's SS. New York, Ballantine Books, 1971.
Howard, Michael. The Occult Conspiracy. Rochester, Vermont, Destiny Books, 1989.
Igra, Samuel. Germany's National Vice. London, Quality Press Ltd., 1945.
Johansson, Warren, "Pink Triangles." In Dynes, Wayne (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Homosexuality. New York: Garland Publishing, 1990.
Johansson, Warren, and Percy, William A.. "Homosexuals in Nazi Germany." In Henry Friedlander (Ed.). Simon Wiesenthal Center Annual: Volume 7. New York, Allied Books, Ltd., 1990.
Johansson, Warren, and Percy, William A. Outing: Shattering the Conspiracy of Silence. New York, Harrington Park Press, 1994.
Jones, J. Sydney. Hitler in Vienna 1907-1913. New York, Stein and Day, 1983.
Jones, Nigel H. Hitler's Heralds: The Story of the Freikorps 1918- 1923. London, John Murray, 1987.
Katz, Jonathan. Gay American History. New York, Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1976.
Katz, Steven T. "Quantity and Interpretation-Issues in the Comparative Historical Analysis of the Holocaust." In Holocaust and Genocide Studies: Volume 4, Number 2, 1989. New York, Pergamon Press, 1989.
Kennedy, Hubert. "Man/Boy Love in the Writings of Karl Heinrich Ulrichs." In Pascal, Mark (Ed.). Varieties of Man/Boy Love. New York, Wallace Hamilton Press, 1992.
Knickerbocker, H.R. Is Tomorrow Hitler's? New York, Reynal and Hitchcock, 1941.
Koehl, Robert Lewis. The Black Corps: The Structure and Power Struggles of the Nazi SS. Madison Wisconsin, University of Wisconsin Press, 1983.
Kogon, Eugen. The Theory and Practice of Hell. New York, Berkley Publishing Company, 1950.
Langer, Walter C. The Mind of Adolf Hitler. New York, Signet Books, 1972.
Lauritsen, John, and Thorstad, David. The Early Homosexual Rights Movement:1864-1935. New York, Times Change Press, 1974.
Levi, Primo. Survival in Auschwitz. New York, Macmillan Publishing Coompany, 1961.
Linsert, Richard. Kabale und Liebe: Uber Politik und Geschlechtsleben. Berlin, Man, 1931.
Lombardi, Michael A.. "Research on Homosexuality in Nineteenth Century Germany" (Parts I and II). Los Angeles, Urania Manuscripts, 1977.
MacDonald, Callum. The Killing of SS Obergruppenfuhrer Reinhard Heydrich. New York, The Free Press, 1989.
Macintyre, Ben. Forgotten Fatherland: The Search for Elisabeth Nietzsche. New York, Farrar Straus Giroux, 1992.
Miles, David H. "Stefan, George." Grolier Electronic Publishing, Inc., 1992.
Miller, Neil. Out of the Past: Gay and Lesbian History from 1869 to the Present. New York, Vintage Books, 1995.
Mills, Richard. "The German Youth Movement." In Leyland, Winston (Ed.). Gay Roots: Twenty Yearsof Gay Sunshine: An Anthology of Gay History, Sex, Politics, and Culture. San Francisco, Gay Sunshine Press, 1989.
Mosse, George L. Nationalism and Sexuality: Respectability and Abnormal Sexuality in Modern Europe. New York, Howard Fertig, 1985.
Nethercot, Arthur H. The First Five Lives of Annie Besant. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1960.
Newton, Michael. Raising Hell: An Encyclopedia of Devil Worship and Satanic Crime. New York, Avon, 1993.
Newton, Michael, and Newton, Judy Ann. The Ku Klux Klan: An Encyclopedia. New York, Garland Publishing, 1991.
Oosterhuis, Harry, and Kennedy, Hubert (Eds.). Homosexuality and Male Bonding in Pre-Nazi Germany: the youth movement, the gay movement and male bonding before Hitler's rise: original transcripts from Der Eigene, the first gay journal in the world. New York, Harrington Park Press, 1991.
Pawelczynska, Anna. Values and Violence in Auschwitz. Berkley, California, University of California Press, 1979.
Peters, H.F. Zarathustra's Sister: The Case of Elisabeth and Frederich Nietzsche. Crown Publishers, New York, 1977.
Plant, Richard. The Pink Triangle: The Nazi War Against Homosexuals. New York, Henry Holt and Company, 1986.
Poliakov, Leon. Harvest of Hate: The Nazi Program for the Destruction of the Jews of Europe. New York, Walden Press, 1979.
Read, Anthony, and Fisher, David. Kristallnacht: The Nazi Night of Terror. New York, Times Books,1989.
Rector, Frank. The Nazi Extermination of Homosexuals. New York, Stein and Day, 1981.
Reisman, Dr. Judith A. "A Content Analysis of Two Decades of The Advocate, the Gay and Lesbian National News Magazine." Work in Progress.
Reisman, Dr. Judith A., and Eichel, Edward W. Kinsey, Sex and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People. Lafayette, Louisiana, Huntington House, 1990.
Reiter, Joseph A. "Death in Venice." Grolier Electronic Publishing, Inc., 1992.
Robinson, Jacob. "The History of the Holocaust." Holocaust. Jerusalem, Keter Publishing House, 1974.
Rose, Rick. "Museum of Pain." The Advocate, October 19, 1993.
Rossman, Parker. Sexual Experience Between Men and Boys. New York, Association Press, 1976.
Rowse, A.L. Homosexuals in History: Ambivalence in Society, Literature and the Arts. New York,Macmillan Publishing Company, 1977.
Schwarzwaller, Wulf. The Unknown Hitler: His Private Life and Fortune. National Press, Inc., and Star Agency, 1989.
Seward, Desmond. Napolean and Hitler: A Comparative Biography. New York, Simon & Schuster.
Shaul, Elisheva. "Homosexuality in the Third Reich." In Gutman, Israel (Ed.). Encyclopedia of the Holocaust. Tel Aviv, Sifria Poalim Publishing House, 198?.
Shirer, William. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. New York, Fawcett Crest, 1960.
Sklar, D. The Nazis and the Occult. New York, Dorset Press, 1989.
Skousen, W. Cleon. The Naked Communist. Salt Lake City, Utah, Ensign Publishing Co., 1958.
Snyder, Dr. Louis L. Encyclopedia of the Third Reich. New York, Paragon House, 1989.
Steakley, James D. The Homosexual Emancipation Movement in Germany. New York, Arno Press, 1975.
Steiner, Jean-Francois. Treblinka. New York, Simon and Schuster, 1979.
Strasser, Otto. Hitler and I. Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1940.
Strasser, Otto, and Stern, Michael. Flight From Terror. New York, Robert M. McBride & Company, 1943.
Taylor, Fred. The Goebbels Diaries: 1939-1941. New York, G.P. Putmans' Sons, 1983.
Ulrichs, Karl Heinrich. Forschugen uner das Ratsel der Mannmanlichen Liebe. Leipzig, Max Spohr Verlag, 1989.
Waite, Robert G.L. Vanguard of Nazism: The Free Corps Movement in Postwar Germany 1918-1923. New York, W.W. Norton and Company, 1969.
Waite, Robert G.L. The Psychopathic God Adolf Hitler. New York, Signet Books, 1977.
Wiesel, Elie. Night. New York, Avon Books, 1969.
Wistrich, Robert. Who's Who in Nazi Germany. New York: Bonanza Books, 1984.
Last edited by Alex Linder; March 6th, 2008 at 12:29 AM.
|March 6th, 2008||#5|
THE PINK SWASTIKA AND HOLOCAUST REVISIONIST HISTORY
by Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D. [jew]
The Institute For Media Education1
The greatest sacrilege to the millions of innocent infant and aged Nazi victims, would be allow these dead to be exploited as political fodder to re-arm the same ideologues who ushered in Germany’s “final solution”. The Pink Swastika challenges the historical meaning of The Pink Triangle and in doing so, brings light to one of the darkest pages of human history.
Are the Victimizers Co-Opting the Holocaust?
Under the banner of The Pink Triangle (a Nazi symbol for incarcerated homosexuals), a mass media campaign by the major broadcasters and press, has been awarding Nazi victim status to homosexuals. Claiming to have been victimized by the Nazis just like the Jews, pink triangles are sweeping the land, embossed on fancy stationary, upscale check books, flags, posters, stickers, shirts, pins, and the like. After losing nearly all of my (Jewish) family in the gas chambers during World War II, I was deeply disconcerted when Holocaust museums world wide advertised new exhibits alleging the Nazi mass murder of homosexuals. One of the complaints of those curating these exhibits has been the dearth of evidence with which to document museum assertions of a Nazi aminus toward homosexuals. Now, here come the authors of The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party, Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams, to document why evidence of a fatal form of Nazi “homophobia” has been uniformly lacking.
Instead of evidence finding Nazism in conflict with homosexuality, Lively and Abrams report the strategies of the German homosexual movement to ensconce National Socialism (the Nazi party) and Adolf Hitler, triggering a holocaust which engulfed all of Europe. Writing of those days in The Mass Psychology of Fascism, radical German sexologist and Hitler contemporary, Wilhelm Reich, warned that Nazi leadership was both ideologically and actually homosexual.2 Almost as an aside, Reich noted Nazi leaders such as “Bluher, Röhm…. Rosenberg” represented Hitler’s fascism, which was, Reich said, “a male state organized on a homosexual basis.” 3
But, the primary confirmation of The Pink Swastika and Reich, are the formal writings of Adolf Hitler himself, in the bible of the Nazi movement, Mein Kampf [My Struggle]. Here the reader meets up with page after page of Hitler’s outspoken hatred of Jews, Marxists, Negroes, Chinese, Arabs, women, and all Eastern Europeans along with his overwhelming worship of power and disdain for Judeo-Christian morality alongside his strategy for world domination. In his introduction to Mein Kampf, Konrad Heiden reconfirms Hitler’s hatred for Christianity, as he viewed the “belief in human equality” to be a Jewish plot, made popular due to “Christian churches”. (Emphasis mine)
Hitler is documented as classifying who he and Germany should hate. He hid nothing. Jews and the like were subhuman, they were “parasites” “vampires,” “liars” “cowards,” “traitors,” among other adjectives. But, search the Nazi manifesto for any animosity, contempt, much less hatred of homosexuals. To do so is to search in vain. In point of fact, as Reich knew personally, Hitler eulogized and venerated the archetypal super macho Aryan male, for whom women were seen to serve the role of breeders for the race of supermen. The Fuhrer’s contempt for women is made vivid by the abnormal way in which he used his niece and the few other women close to him, including Eva Braun.
Hitler outlined in Mein Kampf who would live and who would die: He stated who would be slave and who would be master. The Pink Swastika opens his fascist bible to the prototypical Nazi macho homosexual male best expressed today in the widely popular “Tom of Finland” fantasy drawings sold in all homosexual book stores, magazines, as well as in general advertisements for “gay” films and phone sex. Common are the blond, square jawed muscle men wearing Luftwaffe caps, skin tight black pants, high black polished boots, sporting a black leather strap going from the shoulder diagonally across a hairless, bare, Aryan chest, a whip swishing alongside the hero’s slim hips.
The authors recall the 1920s post WW1 Weimar Republic, the near starvation and wild currency fluctuations in Germany against the backdrop of the sex and drug “Cabaret” scene of Europe and Gay Berlin. They point to Berlin’s world famous coterie of Bohemian artists, sadosexual transvestites, lesbians and homosexual nightclubs and baths, as well as the rampant control of Berlin by pornographers, organized crime and drug dealers. In this milieu, reports Elson in Time-Life Books, Prelude to War, thousands of prostitutes walked Berlin’s city streets half nude, dressed as “dominatrixes” and school girls, while transvestites and “powdered and rouged young men” everywhere sold their wares to financiers and military men alike.
The famous German Jewish homosexual sex “scientist,” Magnus Hirshfeld, reported that roughly 20,000 boys and youths were prostituted to Germany’s flourishing “gay” population. (The British, qua-American homosexual icon, Christopher Isherwood blissfully said of Berlin’s 1920’s boy brothels, “Berlin is for boys…The German Boy….the Blond”).
In the midst of such pansexual revelry it could be argued that were Hitler a shy, retiring sort of bookworm, he might not notice the dominating homosexual sensibility and the erotic mix of sexes. However, Lively and Abrams conclude that as a young aspiring Viennese artist, Hitler would be especially familiar with the artistic homosexual fraternity for Vienna was the hub of Bohemian culture. Hitler claims to have been destitute, and in the midst of the Cabaret era, he was reduced to living in a men’s hostel for down-and outers. Both male and female prostitution were rife, the younger the better. Such a poor young artist would have met many “different” and adventurous people whose celebrity. like today, was gilded by an intimacy with homosexuality. The authors present a reasonable body of evidence to the jury of public opinion, including the possibility that Hitler earned extra cash as a youthful Viennese prostitute, serving a male clientele.
In a fascinating read of 204 well documented pages, the authors of The Pink Swastika track down the facts behind the homosexual movement’s current claims for Nazi-victim status. Divided into seven parts, the story opens as the new Nazi party is founded in the smoky din of the Bratwurstglockl, “a tavern frequented by homosexual roughnecks and bully-boys….a gay bar,” favored by Hitler’s closest comrade, Captain Ernst Röhm. Almost every biography of Hitler reports that Rohm was a flagrant homosexual and the only man Hitler called by the familiar “du.”
Hitler’s beloved Storm Trooper Chief and founder of the Brown Shirts, the authors note, had a “taste for young boys.” Almost as close to Hitler as Röhm was Rudolph Hess, known for his dress-up attire as “‘Black Bertha’” in the gay bars of pre-war Berlin” In fact, Mein Kampf was dedicated to Hess while Hitler was in prison. The Pink Swastika reports that Hitler was given power by a homosexual gang, a gang says Dr. Carroll Quigley, President bill Clinton’s college teacher and mentor, that subverted Germany’s free elections by underhanded and brutal strategies.
According to Quigley in Tragedy and Hope (1966) Hitler’s intimate friend, Captain Röhm and his trusted homosexual cadre of Storm Troopers staged the famed burning of the Reichstag, along with other bully-boy tactics, to frighten people into supporting the Nazi party and Hitler. For our purposes here it is useful to see what Quigley says about homosexual Nazi Storm Troopers:
Accordingly….a plot was worked out to burn the Reichstag building and blame the Communists. Most of the plotters were homosexuals and were able to persuade a degenerate moron from Holland named Van der Lubbe to go with them. After the building was set on fire, Van der Lubbe was left wandering about in it and was arrested.
This is especially interesting. The Pink Swastika addresses the many myths surrounding “The Night of the Long Knives” or the “blood purge” when supposedly only homosexuals such as Röhm were murdered by Hitler. Quigley offers another interesting insight, saying that “Most of the plotters were homosexual”. He adds that many of those who knew the truth were murdered in March and April while ”Most of the Nazis who were in on the plot were murdered by Goring during the “blood purge” of June 30, 1934” (emphasis added).
Also, as Lively and Abrams report, it was under Röhm and his Storm Troopers that the records and books of “the Sex Research Institute,” were burned. The authors reveal that Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld, the Jewish “feminine” homosexual director of the Institute, maintained detailed records of his many court-referred sex offenders, including important Nazi rapists, and homosexual child offenders, pederasts. Quigley confirmed that Röhm and other key Nazis who knew too much about Hitler’s criminal activities were killed for allegedly plotting against Hitler.
Lively and Abrams track the role of Röhm in recruiting and training a total of roughly 2.5 to 4.5 million Storm Troopers (SA) and Gestapo (SS) compared to about 100,000 men in the regular German army. Once the SA was disbanded after the June 1934 blood purge, most of these experienced SA homosexual leaders moved into other power positions in the German military.
The authors raise many questions in The Pink Swastika. If he feared homosexual influence on boys, why did Hitler chose known homosexuals to serve as key youth leaders? Karl Fischer, a homosexual teacher, began the Wandervogel (a German version of the boy Scouts), which became “The Hitler Youth” in 1933, under a well known pederast, Hans Blueher, who wrote of man-boy “love.” Gerhard Rossbach, homosexual Nazi leader of the Freikorps gave over leadership of the Schill Youth to Edmund Heines, a convicted Nazi pederast, and murderer, all under the watchful eye of Adolf Hitler.
The Pink Swastika reports that while Hitler and his Gestapo chief, Heinrich Himmler methodologically annihilated all German and European Jews via mass deportations to death camps, beyond political homophobic rhetoric after the Röhm murders, and a demand that men produce children for the Aryan race, Hitler refused to attack “homosexuals.”
Adolf Brand, a pederast-child pornographer was one of many prominent “butch” advocate homosexuals who continued to live, write and entertain in Germany, untouched by the Nazis. Other homosexual and bisexual leaders cited by these and other authors included Bladur von Schirach, Hitler Youth Leader; Hans Frank, Hitler’s Minister of Justice; Wilhelm Bruckner, Hitler’s adjutant; Walther Funk, Hitler’s Minister of Economics; friend and advisor Hermann Göring, Hitler’s second in command (who dressed “in drag and wore camp make-up”), Hans Kahnert, who founded Germany’s largest “Gay rights organization (Society for Human Rights) which counted “SA Chief Ernst Rohm among its members,” Edmund Heines, a pederast sadist, Dr. Karl Gunther Heimsoth, a homosexual Nazi who coined the term “homophile,” and Julius Streicher, an infamous pornographer and pederast who was very close to Hitler.
Most interesting was Emil Maurice, Hitler’s close personal secretary and chauffeur. One of the Röhm purge assassins, apparently Maurice had secured a blackmail strategy that preserved his life until the war’s end. For Lively and Abrams cite Maurice as homosexual, while Mollo, in his history of the SS, portrays Maurice also as Jewish described in a famous photograph:
Hitler and four of his first SS men (a fifth has been erased). L to R: Schaubk, Schreck, Hitler, Maurer and Schneider. The fifth man was Emil Maurice who was thrown out of the SS in 1935 when found to be a Jew, but later allowed to retain his appointment and privileges, and wear [sic] SS uniform.
A look at another photograph of Hitler finds him voluntarily posing enthusiastically before a massive statue of two nude, muscular men holding hands. This suggests we ask if Hitler had a sexual relationship with his handsome young chauffeur (a not uncommon arrangement as identified in reports of the time), . Maurice is identified as the man erased in the SS photograph, his two shoes still quite visible in the picture. Elsewhere, pictures of Maurice reveal a dark-haired, rather Semitic looking young man. Could Maurice have been Hitler’s Jewish, SS lover? What a fascinating research question. The captions read:
[Picture #1] “Hitler in prison with Maurice, Kriebel, Hess and Dr. Fredrich.” [Picture #2] “Common room of Nazi prisoners at Landsberg. Behind Hitler, Emil Maurice, early companion and chauffeur.”
Most histories of World War II (see especially Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich) report Hitler’s ties to the “notorious” homosexual, Ernst Röhm and other males within his coterie. The Pink Swastika notes, if anything, that sex laws under Hitler’s Reich Minister of the Interior Henrich Himmler were largely tolerant toward the “2 million” Germans Himmler said were registered in homosexual organizations in 1933, for “only repeat offenders can be incarcerated.” “Repeat offenders” meant a fourth public sex offense, or someone who had already served six months in jail for repeated offenses. In 1940, Himmler reiterated that only “multiple offenders” (largely engaged in sex in a public forum) might be jailed. However, wrote Himmler, “artists and actors” might escape any penalty, despite how often they were found in compromising situations.
During the Hitler era, of roughly 70 million Germans , “less than 1%” “hardly one hundredth of all the country’s inhabitants” were Jewish, said Hitler. Morris Ernst, in his book on Kinsey, discussed Hirschfeld’s findings:
Germany….with a population of 62,000,000, there were nearly a million and a half men and women [said Hirschfeld] “whose constitutional predisposition is largely or completely homosexual” Just how big a proportion of his estimated million and a half German homosexuals found their way into Nazi uniforms is not known, of course. But a good many of them were attracted by the Nazi principles and the society of their fellows in a bond which excluded all women (p. 169-170).
Historical records suggest Germany had perhaps 700,000 Jews versus 2-3 million “registered” homosexuals, according to Himmler. Whether there were 1 and a half million (Hirschfeld) or 2 to 3 million (Himmler), at most 10,000 German homosexuals were sent to work camps, 6,000 died and 4,000 were released. The 6,000 homosexual deaths are a minimum of Germans who would have been “fems,” despised by the homosexual powered elite as well as collections of homosexuals who were also Jewish, Italian, Asian, Black, Communist, Marxist and the like. This still leaves estimates of 20,000 male prostitutes unaccounted for with the under 1% of homosexuals largely interned in “work camps,” not, the authors note, the “death” camps for Jews and other outcasts. Lively and Abrams point to the nearly 100% extermination effort by the Nazis toward all captured Jews of all nationalities, gassed or interned in death camps. The especial concern of Hitler that all good Germans reproduce in order to create an Aryan nation must not be forgotten. Aryan Germans were expected to breed and it is well known that German breeding farms were established for that purpose. Non-German homosexuals appear to have been of no interest to the Nazis, for there is no record of any attempts to hunt, arrest or harm foreign homosexuals, for any reason.
The evidence strongly suggests these selected German homosexuals were killed for political reasons, versus 566,000 of roughly 700,000 German Jews (85%), 23.5% of all gypsies, 10% of Poles, 12% of Ukrainians, 13.5% of Belorussians. The German military plot to kill Hitler resulted in the murder of the few men responsible, as well as 7,000 of their family members. The authors raise some interesting questions, such as where is the record of retaliation for those who hid, hired, nursed and fed persecuted homosexuals? The author’s discussions of the “butch” versus “fems” battle raging between German homosexuals and the effect of this internal war on alleged “book burning: and the like, answer many critical questions.
In the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Shirer said Hitler welcomed “Murderers, pimps homosexual perverts, drug addicts or just plain rowdies.” In fact, even Shirer sidestepped the brazenly homosexual nature of Nazi party pioneers–a critical body of knowledge for any society contending for a civil existence. The authors cite several million “Butch” type Rohm homosexual Nazis who worked as guards and directors of women’s and men’s death camps and work camps. Elie Weisel, the world famous Holocaust survivor, reported witnessing homosexual guards and administrators who “kept” and raped young Jewish boys at will, “there was a considerable traffic in children among homosexuals here, I learned later.”
Lively and Abrams report that basic mathematics refute the idea that homosexuals were killed for being homosexual. For were homosexuals treated like Jews, 2-3 million out of 2-3 million German homosexuals should have lost their businesses, their jobs, their property, their possessions and most should have lost their lives. Homosexuals would have been forced to wear pink triangles on their clothing in the streets, they would have had their passports stamped with an “H,” barred from travel, work, shopping, public appearances without their armbands, and we would have thousands of pictures of pink triangle graffiti saying “kill the faggots,” and the like. If German homosexuals were not Nazis, these 2-3 million men would have been homeless, walled into ghettos, worked as a mass labor pool, then gassed and their abuse recorded in graphic detail, as were millions of Jews. And, if Germany’s several million “gays” were not Nazi victims, they were Nazi soldiers, collaborators or murderers.
Interviewing SS General Jurgen Stroop and a German policeman, Moczarski, Kazimiers reports on the continued presence of homosexuals in the Nazi hierarchy.
A policeman well acquainted “with Germany’s homosexual element [spoke up and said they] kept files on all known and potential pederasts. He remarked that very few homosexuals in the NSDAP were as “indelicately” treated as was Rohm…”So maybe a few of the fags in the party did get knocked off. There were plenty of others who made out just fine. They remained active party members…..got promotions…..[and were] protected by the top NSDAP brass.”
The Storm Troopers and the Gestapo were schooled in what the authors call the “Hellenistic” Greek ideal of man-youth-pedagogy. Concerned about the man-boy aspect of homosexuality, The Pink Swastika connects-the-dots for readers from the homosexual power structure in Germany to the current social debate in the United States. The naked, copulatory San Francisco “gay rights” parades, the violent homosexual burning of buildings when Governor Pete Wilson originally refused gay minority rights, the bullying attacks on Cardinal O’Conner and former HHS Secretary Louis Sullivan and scores of others, note the authors, are a replay of the homoerotic Nazis.
Our own research on Heterosexual v. Homosexual Partner Solicitation Language (The Advocate v. The Washingtonian), as noted earlier, regularly finds men and boys pictured in naked Fascist chic, strutting the black Luftwaffe cap, boots, whips and black leather–Fascist sadism. While Lively and Abrams cite at least 160 ex-gay organizations nationwide which identify sex abuse, neglect and authoritarian trauma as triggering homosexual conduct, on the evidence, a post-World War II Fascist model is afoot in American schools under the protective cover of “AIDS Prevention” and “gay youth” protection, controlled largely by adult homosexual activists.
Parallel with these subversive activities is the effort to divorce children from their parents, by painting the fatal and lonely life of homosexuality with a patina of heroism and martyrdom, via mass media, institutional education and law (the privilege of marriage being a recent assault) undermining America’s survival as the international standard barer of a Judeo-Christian moral order. Lively and Abrams are concerned, and I would conceded properly so, that idealistic “gay youth” groups are being formed and staffed in classrooms nationwide by recruiters too similar to those who formed the original “Hitler youth”. The Pink Swastika authors draw our attention to the need to forcefully reverse the flood of “gay rights” legislation or face a massive increase in children dedicated to the exploitive and heartbreaking “gay life” with all that implies for the child and society.
The Pink Swastika finds that serious “Judeo-Christians” are the likely targets of this resurgent homosexual movement. In 1934, all German school children were receiving textual, verbal and cinematic classroom indoctrination into Fascism. By 1936, sexuality advocate, Wilheim Reich warned that the wide availability and juvenile use of pornography was creating heterophobic German children–boys and girls who feared and distrusted the opposite sex. The homosexual fight for Nazi victim status comes directly on the heels of our exposé of forty years of corrupt and cynical manipulation of the fraudulent “10%” of homosexuality data established by Dr. Alfred Kinsey and Co. (Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, Reisman and Eichel). Recently, Newsweek challenged the fraudulent Kinsey data, asking, “How Many Gays Are There?” while the Wall Street Journal faced up to “Homosexuals and the 10% Fallacy.”
Recent admissions by Dr. John Bancroft, the new Kinsey Institute Director of Kinsey’s reliance and use of a homosexual pederast[s] to obtain Kinsey’s child sex data raises the specter that a homosexual/pederast biased male research base has become the foundation of current sexual attitudes, education, conduct, law and public policy. As no other sex researcher has ever reported his or her laboratory experiments on children to determine their sexual capacity, Kinsey remains the citation for all such scientific claims. To that end, H.R. 2749, “The Child Protection and Ethics in Education Act of 1995” was introduced by Congressman Steve Stockman, December 1995, to begin to investigate that possibility. The price we now are paying for decades of Kinsey’s claims of infant and child sexuality and his 10% homosexuality data, can never be calculated.
Now the homosexual press regularly reports that scores of “closet” lesbians and homosexuals are in place to resurrect homosexuality, reshaping the nation’s ideals of child, marriage, justice, research, law, health, sexuality, crime and public policy from the old bi/homosexual sensibility. If it is true that institutional Judaism capitulated to homosexual pressure in Holocaust museums worldwide, awarding Nazi victim status to the macho male ideology which launched the Holocaust, what does growing homosexual power mean to their memory, and to the way homosexual power will exert itself in the future?
The Pink Swastika is both an excellent course in Nazi history, and an excellent warning for the future of our nation. Historical research like this should be pouring out from our institutions of higher learning. That universities are captured by “politically correct” homosexual/feminism only proves how dangerous fraud in science has been and continues to be for our nation. Lively and Abrams have done a yeoman’s job in bringing this controversial and important information to the public forum. The book should be purchased in quantity and distributed as widely as possible, for woe unto our nation should we ignore the warning of James Madison in 1832: “A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or perhaps both.” The Pink Swastika is critically needed popular information in the current Culture War, lest America become a Farce or a Tragedy or perhaps both.
Wilhelm Reich (1970), The Mass Psychology of Fascism. Penguin: New York, pp. 123, 127.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. (1992) Houghton Mifflin.
The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia. (1991), Columbia University Press.
Robert Elson (1976), Prelude to War. Time-Life Books, New York, pp. 70-83.
Havelock Ellis (1934), Psychology of Sex, Ray Long & Richard R. Smith, Inc., New York, p. 221-222, Ellis cites Magnus Hirschfeld’s research on boy prostitution.
Christopher Isherwood (1953), Christopher And His Kind, Farrar, Straus, Giroux, New York, pp. 4-5.
The Washington Blade, August 11, 1985, p. 47 (a homosexual press).
Carroll Quigley (1966) Tragedy and Hope, Macmillan Company, New York, p. 437.
Andrew Mollo, A Pictorial History of the SS, 1923-1945. Stein and Day, New York, p. 19.
John Toland (1976) Adolf Hitler, New York. Ballantine books, p.131.
See: Eldon R. James, Ed., “The Statutory Criminal Law of Germany,” Washington, The Library of Congress, 1947, pp. 114-115, and Timothy Kearley “Charles Szladits’ Guide to Foreign Legal Materials: German,” published by the Baker School of Foreign and Comparative Law, Columbia University, 1990.
Morris Ernst, American Sexual Behavior and the Kinsey Report, The Greystone Press, NY, NY, 1948.
Mein Kampf translated by Ralph Manheim, Boston: Sentry Edition: Houghton Mifflin, 1962. Also see Ingo Muller, Hitler’s Justice: Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass: The Courts of the Third Reich, 1991, where Muller writes “Accounts of the power and invluence wielded by Jews in the Weimar Republic have usually been grossly misleading. In actual fact the percentage of Jews in the population of Germany declined steadily from the late nineteenth century onward, shrinking from 1.2 percent in 1871 to 0.76 percent in 1930….0.16 percent of all government employees. p. 59.
The People’s Chronology, Henry Holt and Company, Inc. 1992.
Katz, Steven. (1989). “Genocide in the 20th Century”: Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Vol 4, No 2. Great Britain: Pergamnom Press, pp. 127-148.
William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of The Third Reich, New York,
Elie Wisel (1982) Night, New York, Bantam Books, p. 46.
Moczarski, Kazimiers (1977). Conversations With An Executioner. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. pp. 38-
Reich, supra, pp. 123, 127.
The Washington Post, December 8, 1995, p. B1, and December 28, 1995 Letter to the Editor.
John Toland (1976) Adolf Hitler, New York. Ballantine books, p.131.
Letter from James Madison to W.T. Barry (August 4, 1832), reprinted in The Complete Madison, S. Padower, ed. 1953, p. 337.
|March 16th, 2008||#7|
[Letter I received]
I admire all the hard work you do at VNN, but you've really dropped the ball big time on this one... i.e., reading the "Pink Swastika" on Radio Istina. On other issues you clearly have done loads of background research before presenting material. In this case, you seem to have come across a book with a thesis that you like and you're running with it before having checked its claims out in the least.
I have been a student of the Third Reich and its personalities form some 30-odd years now and can unreservedly state that Pink Swastika is one of the biggest cobbled-together loads of fertilizer to come down the pike in a long time. It is one lie, misstatement and twisted fact after another with that book. Of course, that's the beauty of such effrontery... to critique it takes an endless amount of time and labor. Little effort is involved in just throwing baseless charges around. Case in point: the authors cite the long-discredited and completely baseless claim that Hitler was a male prostitute during his Vienna years. This was a lie cooked up by the Communists in the late '20s as black propaganda against Hitler. To their credit, the gays themselves took the time to refute this puerile trashy book.(http://www.qrd.org/qrd/religion/anti....pink.swastika) Of course, they did not do this out of any love for Adolf!
It should hardly be surprising that at least some gay men will be attracted to organizations projecting a strong male image. But this does not mean that these are gay organizations. The authors of Pink Swastika are merely playing the old "call your enemy Nazis" game. They have a problems with gays and so they smear them by calling them Nazis -- a tactic we are all familiar with. Please drop this book from Radio Istina (which is supposed to be about the factual truth, right?) and get on to more useful topics.
All the best,
|December 30th, 2009||#8|
NATIONAL SOCIALIST POLICY TOWARDS HOMOSEXUALS
(from "Das Schwarze Korps", official newspaper of the SS, probably 1936)
[Translated by Carlos W. Porter]
"ENEMIES OF THE STATE"
More than a year and a half have gone since the famous and once violently controversial provision of Article 175 of the Constitution in June 1935. This revision was necessary prior to the introduction of a new Criminal Code since the wording of the old paragraphs offered no basis for the application of the legal concepts of the National Socialist state. It may therefore be time to look at the practical results which have followed this change in legislation.
Homosexuality is a "field" in which the bourgeois citizen's favorite flower is the "touch-me-not". The average person probably knows many people whose hair stands on end at the very mention of such a topic. But how poorly this problem lends itself to solution through the methods of the ostrich, and how seriously it affects every member of the racial community, is proven by the facts which confronted the new State when it began its work in this field. Following the accession to power, the new State drew up an inventory of clubs and associations embodying the "third sex" concept with vast torrents of "scientific" and "intellectual" verbiage. These organizations were then discovered to have 2,000,000 members! If we subtract children and old men from the total number of male citizens of the Reich, 2,000,000 men represents nearly 10% of all males of working age, in full possession of their mental and physical capacities.
Faced with this horrifying discovery -- the concealment or minimization of which would be criminal negligence -- the State has only two possibilities to choose from: delicate accommodation, or a ruthless combat on this front. That it opted for the latter was a matter of course: any other choice would have been abject surrender.
Even if the struggle against this pestilence of the racial community -- the epidemic contagion of which was an inheritance from the era of liberalism -- had not been the logical consequence of our racial ideals, the State would have been compelled to make hard decisions by its own saddest experience [the Röhm Putsch].
What appeared to be a tragic misfortune, a bitter stroke of fate one and a half years after coming to power, may, to the historians of coming generations, even look like a stroke of luck: the young State was compelled by a cruel fate which appeared to strike out against it, to take cognizance of the plague in its most dangerous forms, and to take up clear front line positions.
At a time when people were still inclined to view homosexuality as a medical problem, and to make cautious adjustments accordingly, homosexuality was found to be a political problem, capable of overthrowing weak governments. The value of this discovery can hardly be overestimated.
It gave our leaders the inner conviction they needed to combat the “medical” problem with political weapons.
THE DEEPER MEANING
Thus, the struggle shifted away from the field of science at the very outset. It no longer mattered against whom one struggled, but rather, the ideal for which one struggled. The “whom” was of no importance, but the “ideal” was obvious to everyone. It was necessary to heal the German body politic, to maintain and reinforce the strength of the German people.
Experience shows that persons whose characters had been infected by this pestilence were mostly weak, unreliable, and mendacious people, sometimes subservient, sometimes power-hungry: people who, in the long run, were incapable by nature of holding political office in a community of the Folk. But unless we assume from the outset that the 2,000,000 people mentioned above are all of them unfit material for reinforcing the strength of the people, it is obvious that the plague still withdrew many – possibly hundreds of thousands – of men from the reproductive process during the best years of their reproductive lives.
A people faced with the task of raising the birth rate by 1.5 million per year cannot afford the luxury of doing without a great proportion of its fathers just because they have fallen victim to a decades-old, unchecked attrition tactic directed against the health of the German people. This consideration defined the political task to be performed in the interests of the racial community. The task was clarified first of all with regards to the “findings” of “experts” who had puzzled over the “etiology and symptomatology” of the pestilence. The “scientific knowledge” of the outstanding “experts” in this field – whether we consult Kraft-Ebing, Schrenck-Rotzing, or Magnus Hirschfeld – are always based on the assumption that homosexuality is an inherited, or, in any case, innate anomaly: the various experts only contradict each other in the assumed causes of the “anomaly”.
The resulting “moral” attitude, expressly formulated by the Jew Hirschfeld, speaking in his own case, was simply a logical consequence: homosexuality is inborn, like a cleft palate or a hare lip; just as we may not punish people or persecute them for the possession of a hare lip, nor should be persecute homosexuals or place restrictions upon their personal freedom.
The men who took up the task which confronted them in the Third Reich – this must be stated unambiguously regardless of any humanitarian outcry – would have carried out that task unsparingly even if Hirschfeld & Co. had been right. But their work led to a discovery which was surprising even to them personally: the number of “anomalous cases” was totally insignificant compared to the totality of cases treated. Of 100 homosexuals, not even 2 belonged to the class with which scientific research had heretofore been exclusively concerned! This gives another face to the tear-jerking theory of the “poor sick people who just can’t help it”.
Our opponents may object that such “police findings” are very poorly grounded scientifically: people who have been arrested are motivated to portray themselves as capable of rehabilitation, and their statements are worthless. To this, we reply: if we simply confined ourselves to the statements of criminals, we would obtain a much higher rate than 2%, since the whole theology of homosexuality rests upon their “not being able to help it”. And the smartest of these criminals – the most experienced – are very quick to refer to Section 51. But our responsibility, set forth for us on political grounds, is not concerned solely with the punishment of those who have committed criminal acts: it also comprises educational efforts, and, finally, an appraisal of success, of which the persons affected are mostly unaware. Here is where the “anomalous cases” may be clearly distinguished from their fellow travelers and from those seduced by them. This is also a scientific method. It may even be the only scientific method, since its enquiries are not just concerned with cases which have been sought out to fit the theory but which cannot be generalized: it is directed at the totality of those indiscriminately washed ashore into police custody.
If we simply take these men as they arrive, and if we observe them closely, we find them to be creatures without any strength of character, who have never exercised any will power or felt any inclination towards character building; so that upon superficial observation, we might well conclude that they are incurably ill. But if we compel them to perform systematic labor – which most of them have never before experienced in their lives – if we segregate them from “normal” men under strict guard; if we prevent them from playing the self-exculpatory role of their “illness”; if we compel them to look upon their failure as human beings reflected in the faces of their own kind; a transformation takes place with astonishing rapidity. The “patient” gets well. The “anomaly” is found to be perfectly normal. He undergoes a simple phase of development through which he failed to pass in his youth. This leaves only the 2% of truly anomalous cases, who, just as they constituted the focal point of infection in the outside world, now become the crystallization point of aversion, separating them the chaff from the still useable wheat.
ONLY 2% ARE SICK
Unfortunately, such a healing process cannot be applied across the board in practice. The State cannot build sanatoria for two million “sick people”. The battle lines are only clearly drawn during the initial phases.
But experience in individual cases also shows how correct it was to apply political pressure in a field where criminal proceedings were bound to fail. Only about 2% are sick, and these are not as little to be pitied as born criminals.
The danger of this 2% exceeds all powers of imagination. 40,000 “anomalous cases” who could easily be excluded from the racial community are, if allowed complete freedom, capable of poisoning 2,000,000 other people.
It will be objected that these 2,000,000 must undoubtedly be inclined, due to weakness of character, to allow themselves to be poisoned. Of course, a race cannot consist solely of people as strong as an ox. All the more reason to protect the weaker; the science of hygiene was not developed solely for the benefit of people with a constitution of iron, who throw off every infection effortlessly, but for the benefit of the more susceptible.
Above all, we know that all human beings unconsciously pass through a period in which they are receptive to the poison to some extent. The life of the instincts awakens at a point of development at which the other sex has not yet appeared as the definitive object of desire.
And experience unfortunately teaches that the carriers of this infection approach precisely youths in this age group; not openly – unfortunately – but behind the mask of the “well-meaning friend” who resorts to every conceivable subterfuge to conceal his true aim. This enormous number of petty offenders can only be explained by the misuse of youthful trust.
An accomplice who wrings his hands before accusatory facts can no longer wash those same hands in innocence. For decades, the “intellectual leadership” of the German people tolerated open homosexual propaganda, and even considered it a praiseworthy showcase of “democratic liberalism”.
They stood by and did nothing when the youth movement of the pre-war generation fell increasingly into the hands of the inverts. They didn’t reach for the horsewhip when the “Wandervogel Apostle” Hans Blücher, in his book “Wandervogel: The German Wandervogel Movement as an Erotic Phenomenon” (!), openly admitted that “the Wandervogel movement would have been entirely inconceivable without inverts” (p. 35), because “an inclination towards a person regardless of sex was in the last analysis erotically conditioned. A Wandervogel need not be ashamed of his love for a younger comrade, there is nothing “immoral” about it, etc. Blücher admitted it was no accident that one of the largest youth associations in the district was overwhelmingly controlled by inverts!
That is the theology with which criminals seek to win our youth. That they turn to youth deliberately is proven not only by their criminal tendencies, but by their criminal intent. That intent is aimed at destroying the community of the Folk.
One homosexual teacher can corrupt a whole school. One homosexual “youth organization leader” (may he rest in peace) can corrupt a whole generation entrusted to him. One homosexual “friendly fellow who just likes young people” can corrupt the youth of a whole district. These people are criminals against the State, and should be treated as such.
They are criminals against the State, because they act from expediency just as much as from inclination. Constantly surrounded by their own kind, as soon as they hold a position of leadership they become the superiors of dependent subordinates.
They then build a state within a state: a secret state whose interests run counter to those of the Folk, and which therefore constitutes an organization hostile to the State. Thus the circle is closed.
They are not “poor, ill people” who must be “treated”, but enemies of the State who must be destroyed!
FROM DAS SCHWARZE CORPS (official publication of the SS), date unknown; probably very late 1936 or early 1937.
Translated by Carlos W. Porter, 1996