Widgetized Section
Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
World Net Daily Sells Lies with the Pink Swastika
more from Hrafnkell Haraldsson
World Net Daily Sells Lies with the Pink Swastika was written by Hrafnkell Haraldsson for PoliticusUSA.
© PoliticusUSA, Jan. 1st, 2011. All Rights Reserved
Related Posts :
Today’s edition of the Politicus Musical Pulse features Pink Floyd. Astronomy Domine - Pink Floyd ...
Genocide Enthusiast Scott Lively I wrote yesterday about the Religious Right's renewed assault on Marria ...
British computer scientist Alan Turing was born 100 years ago (his birthday was Saturday). When he came into ...
Due to the utter inability of some conservatives and Christian fundamentalists to see facts for what they ar ...
Glenn Beck went on his radio show on March 18 to ask, "What happens if Obama is re-elected?" The answer he a ...
By Blogsdna
84 Responses to World Net Daily Sells Lies with the Pink Swastika
Public Service Advertisements
English Saddle
Jan. 1st, 2011 at 12:03 pm
billo and hitler do strike me as sharing some similarities, though i don’t mean that like most rw mean it (like he is the devil). that simple way of thinking, the dogmatic blind faith that you’re right, — it scares me.
they never see themselves.
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Jan. 1st, 2011 at 12:25 pm
I agree with respect to a way of thinking. Very dangerous and frightening and like the Nazis eager to find scapegoats
Scott Rose
Jan. 1st, 2011 at 12:06 pm
The arguments in the book under discussion here do not even merit being repeated in order to debunk them, though the volume most certainly should be recognized and condemned as anti-gay hate propaganda. On the one hand, the SS uniform belt buckle read “Gott mit Uns.” On the other hand, German Jehovah’s Witnesses protested the rise of the Nazis (and then were killed by the Nazis).
Sarah Jones
Jan. 1st, 2011 at 12:25 pm
I love these posts, Hraf. I enjoy your expertise in history – esp when you apply it to right wing talking points. The lies of the right have permeated our culture. One might think WND is not worth debunking, but if left alone to fester it will create contagious mold spores, as has been proven.
At any rate, I am still trying to figure out what Obama book Coulter read (oh, that’s it, she never read them). He’s as far from the black and white thinking of Hitler as you can get and still function. And since intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function, President Obama is outshining Ms Coutler by a long shot.
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Jan. 1st, 2011 at 12:30 pm
Thanks, Sarah. As someone pointed out, Amazon.com sells this book too but people are free there to review it (and bash it for its inaccuracies and hate) whereas WND is actually promoting it.
I don’t think any of these right-wing pundits (or politicians) read books they pan. I mean, they don’t read the legislation they vote on so why read books? They’ve taken ignorance and anti-intellectualism to new levels while deifying “thinking from the gut” which is really just another name for giving free rein to emotions and closing the door on analysis and rational thought.
Joel
Jan. 1st, 2011 at 1:13 pm
“They’ve taken ignorance and anti-intellectualism to new levels while deifying “thinking from the gut” which is really just another name for giving free rein to emotions and closing the door on analysis and rational thought.”
Well said! But why? Why is rational thought treated so harshly? There’s got to be more than simply blaming it on “elitism.”
Sarah Jones
Jan. 1st, 2011 at 1:46 pm
Some posit that we don’t come to our values through rational thought and that this is a failure of modern day liberalism, since liberals tend to approach values in this manner. At any rate, by doing so we fail to reach the broader culture which obviously doesn’t value thought, temperance, consistency in values, etc. This could explain why people “vote against their own interests”. People are emotional creatures, they come to their values through emotions even when they don’t mean to. Perhaps it’s a chicken or the egg question as far as why liberals value facts and statistics and logic.
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Jan. 1st, 2011 at 1:53 pm
I agree, Sarah. I guess using our brains is somehow a violation of divine writ since God has already told us how and what to think. And apparently we don’t need to think about what he told us, which is kinda bizarre when you ::ahem:: think about it
OJohnny
Jan. 1st, 2011 at 11:40 pm
You have framed the Tea Party exactly. The T/party were the political ball bearings that rolled the republicans back into power. Ignorance and anti-intellectualism, were a pervasive component necessary in the character of those
to be indoctrinated by Freedom Works, and others in the Dick Army/Koch Bros, anti Obama campaign. Talking points frequently espoused on talk radio and Fox News, that equated education with intellectualism, and intellectualism with elitism, provided the perfect grand gulf between “them” and “us”.
The absence of “analysis and rational thought” made these country T/Baggers hollow vessels ripe to be dispensed with nothing more than simple platitudes,
often misspelled on signs.
The “don’t think for your self, we’ll tell you what to think” dogma perpetrated by anti-intellectual right wing talkers like Limbaugh, and Hannity, have given us the politicians in the congress we will deal with for the next two years.
Elm
Jan. 2nd, 2011 at 8:33 pm
This is an exercise in allegedly discussing “facts, logic, rational thought, anti-intellectualism,” blah, blah, blah, without addressing anything of substance. It’s the equivalent of an adhominum attack, or an attack upon the person, which is not a debate, but an attempt to misguide, obfuscate & avoid constructive debate.
IludiumPhosdex
Jan. 1st, 2011 at 12:59 pm
I think you should be commended for opening the doors to demonstrating the unwitting parallels between Nazi German propaganda and that of the “Christian” Right in our supposedly “morally superior” United States, as in discovering parallel passages between Mein Kampf and Ann Coulter.
Let’s look for further possibilities in this vein, not just from Nazi Germany but also from their cousins in a deluded Luscious Glory of Race Homour known as Afrikaner Nationalists from down South Africa way as were responsible for apartheid and its depravities.
(IIBC, Portugal’s Salazarist regime, commonly known as the Estado Novo–literally, “the New State”–could also be considered Fascist in its leanings, even to the extent of excusing its colonial presence in Africa as essential to her national and sovereign identity after India reclaimed control of the Portugese enclaves of Goa, Diu and Daman in 1961.)
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Jan. 1st, 2011 at 1:56 pm
Thank you, IludiumPhosdex. But see below the comment by Elm. Evidence is trumped by belief. That’s the kind of world these people live in and Elm doesn’t seem to realize that his blanket assertions are the same flavor as those made by the Nazis about Jews.
Elm
Jan. 1st, 2011 at 1:26 pm
The documentation is more than adequate to support the author’s conculsion the Nazis were organized around & by militant gays. Hitler doesn’t even mention gays in Mein Kampf, so he obviously wasn’t very concerned about them. How could he be when they were responsible for propelling him into power in the first place?
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Jan. 1st, 2011 at 1:55 pm
How do you figure? Can you offer some evidence? And I don’t mean the out-of-context and misquoted nonsense in the Pink Swastika.
I’ve given you plenty of evidence here. It has elsewhere been refuted line-by-line. Defend it rather than simply insisting it’s true, because that doesn’t make it true.
Sarah Jones
Jan. 1st, 2011 at 2:05 pm
Seriously, that must be satire:-) Please, god.
Freeman
Jan. 1st, 2011 at 2:33 pm
Elm,
I’m open-minded. Got any links to any of this “more than adequate” documentation? Apparently it’s not adequate enough that it comes up on a quick google search – quite the opposite, in fact. Most google hits support the opposite conclusion. The closest I could find to your position is this book (Hitler: The Pathology of Evil, page 65 on Google Books if the link doesn’t work), where it is claimed that Hitler preferred gays because “No one with family responsibilities is any good for streetfighting”. I consider this pretty poor support for the argument given that, rightly or wrongly, homosexuals aren’t generally regarded for street-fighting skills superior to those of family men. In the next paragraph the author acknowledges that after coming to power he “reversed himself”, denounced homosexuality among the Stormtroopers, had many of them killed, and many more sent to concentration camps.
What you got?
Salt_Snorter
Jan. 2nd, 2011 at 11:11 am
I have to say that I was impressed by this article and by you as a writer. Its not often that you see someone draw these kinds of comparisons without weighing their writing down with so much distaste for the opposition. Your parallels were distinct, your point was clear, and your writing held its composure.
More than anything, reading this article gave me hope that it is still possible to make comparisons in areas with such deep-seated connotations without adopting a polarized stance.
Elm
Jan. 2nd, 2011 at 8:43 pm
I don’t know if you will find Konrad Heiden’s book “Der Fuehrer” on the web, but it is an excellent documentation by a reputable German Historian of record, about the rise and character of the Nazi movement. Many of these books have been quitely shuffled off the shelves into the stacks, often due to lack of use, and a re-engineering of public perception.
History is today seldom studied in conventional academia, and what is, is often tainted and censored by special interests. Today’s censorship is being exercised by selective editing.
Scott Rose
Jan. 1st, 2011 at 7:05 pm
Come out from behind your cowardly little nickname of Elm and present your galling ignorance under your real name. Who knows but that you could be one of the authors of The Pink Triangle, or a relative of one of those propagandizing, anti-historical authors.
Elm
Jan. 1st, 2011 at 2:42 pm
I don’t believe one can label the quotes contained within The Pink Swastika, “out-of-context and misquoted nonsense.” The book refers to almost 200 sources, most of them from quite credible authors like William Shirer who reported on the Nazi movement FROM Germany at the time, & Georgetown University History Professor Carroll Quigley author of Tragedy & Hope, who comes out & flatly states in his book it was a homosexual arson squad drawn from SA leaders that torched the Berlin Reichstag in January 1933. For this they framed a Dutch Communist by the name of Van der Lubbe. Forgive me, but I don’t see “plenty of hard evidence” to the contrary.
If you haven’t read the book, I suggest you do. The historical record is clear. It seems the Nazi persecution of homosexuals was mostly for public consumption, & to frame political enemies & others with whom the Nazis disagreed. Hitler was a Roman Catholic. I don’t know if this makes him a “Christian” however, of which there are over 1,000 denominations. Homosexuality & sexual predation, as we often see in today’s media, is also rampant among Roman Catholic clergy. So there would appear to be a common denominator. Homosexists are prominent in both.
Hrafnkell
Jan. 1st, 2011 at 4:58 pm
These errors are well documented, Elm. As the SPLC points out,
“Christine Mueller, professor of history at Reed College, did a line-by-line refutation of an earlier (1994) Abrams article on the topic and of the broader claim that the Nazi Party was “entirely controlled” by gay men. Historian Jon David Wynecken at Grove City College also refuted the book, pointing out that Lively and Abrams did no primary research of their own, instead using out-of-context citations of some legitimate sources while ignoring information from those same sources that ran counter to their thesis.”
Loads of facts are left out; the grossest intellectual dishonesty is demonstrated by errors of both commission and omission. 200 sources mean nothing if they’re misused.
How you can even continue to believe what you say you believe is beyond belief:
1928: The Nazi party pamphlet published, Paragraph 175, “Anyone who thinks of homosexual love is our enemy”;
Feb. 23, 1933: 24 days after being appointed Chancellor, Hitler bans all homosexual-rights groups;
October 24, 1934: the Gestapo secretly orders local police to collect names of all homosexuals in Germany; <– obviously for public consumption, right, Elm?
June 28, 1935: Paragraph 175 amended: even a touch between men can result in arrest for homosexuality;
October 26, 1936: the Reich's "Central Office to Combat Homosexuality and Abortion" is established.
I don't know Elm, but I'd suggest you abandon ideology or religion or whatever it is that's keeping you from seeing facts for what they are. Just a suggestion.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 1st, 2011 at 5:14 pm
he is quoting from a book or a source, not understanding at all what he is saying
Hrafnkell
Jan. 1st, 2011 at 5:17 pm
Apparently so.
Elm
Jan. 1st, 2011 at 3:24 pm
Freeman – It seems there were two homosexist groups in Germany, & that for a time following the blood purge of June 30th, July 1st 1934, SA homosexuals were arrested & incarcerated in prison camps until they could be processed & reinducted into the regular German Army. According to German Historian Willi Frischer, these Nazi homosexuals, members of the butch or “ubermenchen” faction, as opposed to the effeminate “femmes,” were identified with a brown triangle.
For how history has been inverted & selectively edited by homosexists, refer to a book titled, “After The Ball,” by Marshall Kirk & Madsen, & also “Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences; The Red Queen & The Grand Scheme,” by Dr. Judith Reisman. Her book & research on Kinsey, is one of the best documented books I’ve read to date.
Following the events of July 1st, it seems “Roehm’s Avengers” murdered some 150 SS Officers as payback for their involvement in the execution of hundreds of their comrads, including SA Chief Ernst Roehm. This appears to be the primary reason the Brown Shirts were made into an enemy of the state & outlawed. German Industrialists & the Prussian Officer class also wished to be rid of the Brown Shirts, to which end Hitler was given an ultimatim at a meeting with Goring & the head of the German Army, General Werner von Fritsch. It was to be either Roehm or Hitler. And of course, as history records, Hitler chose to eliminate Roehm, & consolidate.
Freeman
Jan. 2nd, 2011 at 10:26 am
Elm,
Thank you for your response. I’ll keep my mind open and look into the sources you’ve referred to.
That said, and in the absence of having read those sources, I still find your arguments unpersuasive. The idea that butch “homosexists” were desirable to the Nazi Party while sissy gays were not seems unlikely (where does one find that distinction in, for example, Paragraph 175?), as does the idea that a small and much-despised fraction of the general population has the influence to “invert and selectively edit… history”. Maybe history isn’t written by the victors after all. The idea that any government would single out any group for execution, arrest and incarceration in prison camps in order to turn around and re-induct the survivors into the armed forces seems completely absurd on it’s face. One normally wouldn’t persecute a group that severely and then arm them in his own company, although I suppose stranger things may have happened.
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Jan. 2nd, 2011 at 10:59 am
Nazi laws show without doubt that the Nazis did not care what your “role” was in a homosexual relationship. The homosexual act itself was to their eyes a form of degeneracy. The idea that “butch” Nazis had any sort of power or influence cannot be demonstrated by appealing to the historical record. Nor is there any evidence that homosexuals have revised history. The historical revisionism is taking place in works like The Pink Swastika. Those guilty of revisionism are ever quick to cast the blame for their deeds elsewhere.
Elm
Jan. 2nd, 2011 at 4:20 pm
Hrafnkell – One gets the impression you haven’t read the book. And if you haven’t read the book, how can you be aware of, or malign its well documented conclusions? And don’t be obtuse, just as they were in Germany between the flames, drag queens & the leather fellows are still evident in current homosexist culture. And as an aside, militant butch gays often brutalize effeminate homosexuals, for which heterosexuals are often blamed. Maybe you should read George Chauncey’s “Gay New York” for insight into homosexist culture, because you don’t seem to have a clue. Yet, based upon a shallow knowledge you purport to accuse the authors of The Pink Swastika of “historical revisionism.” In Chauncey’s book, you will learn of the competition on New York Docks between drag queens & female prostitutes, for what was referred to as “the seafood trade” – meaning heterosexual sailors. Also consider the schizophrenic relationship with homosexuality in Arab culture, in which homosexuality is repressed and severely punished, in the midst of a lively traffic in young boys. Apparently for some, sex with young boys is not considered homosexuality.
In William Manchester’s book, The Arms of Krupp, of which I also have a copy & read, Alfried Krupp is referred to as an attendee on the Isle of Capri, where young boys were included in the dinner fare. So, key German Industrialists also had a taste for young boys.
Also, “The Damned” with Dirk Bogart & “Cabaret” with Liza Minnelli, offer valuable insights into the difference between butches & femmes. Ernst Roehm was a classic butch gay pederast, whereas communists like Harry Hay of the Mattachine Society were effeminate. Homophobia therefore, may be properly defined as an irrational fear of effeminate characteristics in men – most of them paradoxically, homosexist themselves albeit militant gays, which is why the ubermenchen Nazis often brutalized femmes.
Whereas the Nazis viewed effeminate homosexuals & things feminine with distain, they were brutal in their own ubermenchen militant homosexism. In addition, many effeminate homosexuals like Hitler, & as revealed in “The Hidden Hitler” by Lothar Machtan, attempt to conceal or compensate for their masculine weaknesses, by adopting & exhibiting an exaggerated or more hyper form of “machismo” masculinity. This compensatory form of masculinity often includes brutality & outright barbarism as is evidence by Nazi eugenics & a genocide of “inferiors” & “useless eaters.”
William Shirer, a historian of record, describes SA Chief Ernst Roehm as, “A tough, ruthless driving man — albeit, like so many of the early Nazis, a homosexual (read, militant gay pederast) — helped organize the first Nazi strong-arm squads which grew into the SA.” [The Rise and Fall of The Third Reich, Shirer 1960:64f] So, wasn’t it Ernst Roehm and his band of ubermenchem homosexist thugs, who were mostly responsible for propelling Hitler into power? By the way, I don’t believe Roehm was a Christian, at least a practicing one anyway.
a.mcewen
Jan. 1st, 2011 at 4:58 pm
Elm, the purpose of the Pink Swatiska was to accuse the gay community of being behind the Holocaust. That has been refuted several times with links provided by this author and the Southern Poverty Law Center.
It would seem that you have tried to divert the issue by mentioning the book After the Ball as some sort of proof that gays have diverted history. However, the majority of the gay community has never heard of this book. In fact the book receives its prominence from religious right claims that the gay community is using it as sort of a blueprint to take over America.
HOWEVER no one can cite specific proof that this is the case because none exists. No meetings, no press releases, no planned strategies involving the gay community and After the Ball.
And in the case of Judith Reisman, you continue to misfire. Reisman has made a career reaping off of the unsubstantiated claim against Kinsey. The Kinsey Institute refuted her claims, she sued them, and was beaten back HARD – www.kinseyinstitute.org/a...
Lastly, here are two things you omitted – Reisman endorsed the Pink Swastika nonsense and World Net Daily also sells HER books.
Hrafnkell
Jan. 1st, 2011 at 5:15 pm
Well put, a.mcewen. The idea of a so-called “gay agenda” fundamentalists prattle on about is laughable. Its like claiming a Pagan agenda (per Falwell and Robertson). If wanting your constitutionally-guaranteed rights is an agenda then fine, but the idea that there is some kind of plot to overthrow a Christian nation which has never existed, does not exist, and hopefully will never exist, is absurd. Go back to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It’s the same shit, different title.
Elm
Jan. 2nd, 2011 at 4:31 pm
As former US Seal & senior Naval Intelligence analyst William Cooper points out in “Behold A Pale Horse,” The Protocols of The Elders of Zion, are an Illuminati, not a “Jewishly” defined document. And I believe it would be safe to say, the Illuminati are not pro Jewish.
Elm
Jan. 2nd, 2011 at 9:09 pm
Dr. Judith Reisman is a very credible & exacting scholar – a member of “who’s who” in the American Scientific Community. So I’m sure she wouldn’t endorse the conclusions reached by the authors of The Pink Swastika, unless they had a high degree of credibility. Her book, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences; The Red Queen and The Grand Scheme, is one of the most extensively footnoted works I’ve studied in recent history. So who are you to even suggest her works are “unsubstantiated?”
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 1st, 2011 at 5:13 pm
when Hitler came into power, most people were paid on a daily basis and couldn’t carry the amount of money home that they made. They also couldn’t buy a loaf of bread with the amount of money they made.
Hitler turned the economy around the same way the Vietnam War turned our economy around.
you say if the right wing was then power now we would have no Wall Street staffs or anything of the such, when in fact the Republicans are supporting Wall Street theft by wanting to deregulate them.and quite frankly we would be at war all the time because right-wing politicians are nothing more than the Taliban. I don’t know where you get your information about the right wing, but this isn’t Germany 1940, this is the United States in the year 2011 and the right wing certainly isn’t what you think it is.
Maxine
Jan. 1st, 2011 at 5:51 pm
Anyone feel like enlightening Elm about the difference between primary and derivative sources?
Naw. Let him go research it himself.
Elm
Jan. 1st, 2011 at 7:48 pm
In the first place Christine Mueller is a homosexist. Compared to most if not all historians of the Nazi era, she is neither an objective researcher nor a credible figure. In my studied view, she refutes & disproves very little of anything described & documented in The Pink Swastika. What I see here is, people will believe what they wish to believe in spite of, not because of the historical record. It’s like you’re talking to yourselves & have no knowledge of history whatever. You certainly don’t need me to do that.
So, if anyone has an ounce of objectivity left in them, I refer you to a quote in the front material of The Pink Swastika… “A well researched book. The central theme that the Nazi movement was riddled with homosexuals is certainly true.” [Hillmar von Campe, Historian, Halle, Germany]
There is also an Official British White Paper, filed by His Majesty’s Consul-General at Frankfort-on-Main, published during the Nazi era in reference to Kristallnacht, or the Night of Broken Glass, which reads in part, “The explanation of this outbreak of sadistic cruelty may be that sexual perversion, and in particular homosexuality, are very prevalent in Germany. It seems to me that mass sexual perversity may offer an explanation for this otherwise inexplicable outbreak.”
I believe one should accept, or at least more seriously consider, the observations of Historians of that time, who were closer to the events of WWII & German Kulture, rather than the second hand opinions of Johnny-Come-Latelies & homosexists like Christine Mueller, who are complicit, or have been made victims of what appears to be their “educations.”
Hrafnkell
Jan. 1st, 2011 at 8:02 pm
So because the author says his work is factual, it is? You’ll have to do better than quoting from the front cover. Of course they’re going to assert their crap isn’t crap. Cite one reputable historian of the Nazi era who praises the accuracy of this book.
Elm
Jan. 1st, 2011 at 8:49 pm
“A well researched book. The central theme that the Nazi movement was riddled with homosexuals is certainly true.” [Hillmar von Campe, Historian, Halle, Germany]
Ian Eisenberg
Jan. 2nd, 2011 at 4:03 pm
How can you claim this man is a reputable historian?
He was a former nazi youth member who while refuting his former association with the Nazi’s continues to represent their attitudes and beliefs.
His own books represent massive misrepresentations and in some case outright lies.
Elm
Jan. 2nd, 2011 at 4:32 pm
Why should we believe you?
Hrafnkell
Jan. 1st, 2011 at 8:18 pm
I thought Conservapedia’s post on the subject was amusing: www.conservapedia.com/Hom...
They don’t really come down on one side or the other, which is surprising. The research for the entry is incomplete to downright shoddy and they really shouldn’t bother having an entry at all if the best they can do is skim Wikipedia for a few stray comments.
The mention of Pink Swastika is not at all surprising though I find it interesting that they don’t mention the theory that homosexuals were the masterminds of the holocaust.
Could it be that even the editors of the Conservapedia know better than to traffic in such nonsense?
Elm
Jan. 1st, 2011 at 9:10 pm
This seems also pertinent quoted from page 12-13 of The Pink Swastika.
In an interesting and informative study, a critical analysis titled “Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic: the Issue of Homosexuality,” by Dr. Charles Socarides (published in the Winter 1992 edition of The Journal of Psychohistory, Vol. 10, No. 3:317), Socarides quotes the warning of Abram Kardiner, psychoanalyst, former Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University, 1966 recipient of the Humanities Prize of The New York Times: “There is an epidemic form of homosexuality, which is more than the usual incidence, which generally occurs in social crises or in declining cultures when license and boundless permissiveness dulls the pain of ceaseless anxiety, universal hostility and divisiveness…Supporting the claims of homosexuals and regarding homosexuality as a normal variant of sexual activity is to deny the social significance of homosexuality…Above all it militates against the family and destroys the function of the latter as the last place in our society where affectivity can be cultivated…Homosexuality operates against the cohesive elements in society in the name of fictitious freedom. It drives the opposite sex in a similar direction. And no society can long endure when either the child is neglected or when the sexes war upon each other. “
a.mcewen
Jan. 1st, 2011 at 9:54 pm
Elm, you are citing the Pink Swastika as proof that the book (The Pink Swastika) isn’t fraudulent? Okay, that’s interesting.
I suggest you start reading this piece regarding the errors in the Pink Swastika – wthrockmorton.com/2009/06...
And we haven’t even begun to TALK about the fact that its author, Scott Lively, is behind the “kill the gays” bill in Uganda or that he was advocating imprisoning gays and lesbians for a number of years before the bill in Uganda was proposed. Or that he actually cites research by a man – Paul Cameron – who has been censured and rebuked by a myriad of legitimate medical associations because of his bad research techniques, etc., etc., etc.
Elm
Jan. 1st, 2011 at 10:25 pm
I know little of Scott Lively’s activities in Uganda, however, I have run across comments on the web about a previous ruler of Uganda, that was a brutal homosexual who brutalized the people. So this would explain their reaction.
As for Paul Cameron, I understand much of his research is accurate but unpopular with homosexists, so they attacked him personally. I also understand the American Psyciatyric Association was taken over, & its policies altered & influenced by gay activists in 1973.
As an aside, I also find it interesting, the Italian Newspaper – Il Popolo di Roma published, on July 25th, 1934, immediately following the Nazi assassination of Dr. Dolfuss in Vienna, the following comment – “Pederasts and assassins rule in Berlin.” This was a grave accusation by an influential Italian Newspaper against the German Government at the time, especially when friendly relations existed between the two countries. Under ordinary circumstances the publication of such a statement would have given rise to a diplomatic protest and demands for an official explanation. However, as far as the record shows, Hitler made no such protest. Moreover, Mussolini backed up his accusation by ordering the mobilization of Italian troops on the Austro-Italian frontier, as a gesture against Hitler’s designs on Austria. But Hitler made no counter-move. Interesting.
a.mcewen
Jan. 1st, 2011 at 11:15 pm
Elm, you got a lot of things wrong. That Ugandan leader was a pedophile named Mwanga who raped young boys and murdered a group of them who would not have sex with him between the years of 1865-1866 – over 100 years ago
Now regarding Paul Cameron, I think his problem has less to do with “homosexists” and more to do with his bad techniques:
“(Cameron) misrepresents my findings and distorts them to advance his homophobic views. I make a very clear distinction in my writing between pedophilia and homosexuality, noting that adult males who sexually victimize young boys are either pedophilic or heterosexual, and that in my research I have not found homosexual men turning away from adult partners to children . . . I consider this totally unprofessional behavior on the part of Dr. Cameron and I want to bring this to your attention. He disgraces his profession.” – Dr. A. Nicholas Groth in letter written to the Nebraska Board of Examiners of Psychologists on August 21, 1984
“Paul Cameron (Nebraska) was dropped from membership for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists – American Psychological Association, 1983
The science and profession of psychology in Nebraska as represented by the Nebraska Psychological Association, formally dissociates itself from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron in his writings and public statements on sexuality. Further, the Nebraska Psychological Association would like it known that Dr. Cameron is not a member of the Association. Dr. Cameron was recently dropped from membership in the American Psychological Association for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists – Nebraska Psychological Association, 1984
Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism” – American Sociological Association, 1985
The Canadian Psychological Association takes the position that Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism and thus, it formally disassociates itself from the representation and interpretations of scientific literature in his writings and public statements on sexuality. – Canadian Psychological Association, 1996
Surely all of this groups haven’t been “taken over” by gays.
And you say he is accurate, then you must agree with his belief that gay men stuff gerbils up their rectums (he inaccurately cited an article to reach this point) and you also must agree with this statement he made to Rolling Stone magazine in 1999:
“If you isolate sexuality as something solely for one’s own personal amusement, and all you want is the most satisfying orgasm you can get- and that is what homosexuality seems to be-then homosexuality seems too powerful to resist. The evidence is that men do a better job on men and women on women, if all you are looking for is orgasm.”
Everything else you are talking about regarding Hitler is pure speculation and based on your defense of the indefensible (i.e. Cameron), it can be seen as BAD pure speculation
Elm
Jan. 2nd, 2011 at 1:36 am
If Mwanga, as you write, “raped young boys and murdered a group of them who would not have sex with him between the years of 1865-1866,” I would say this partially explains the present Ugandan response to homosexuality. They more than others, would be aware of their own history. If Mwanga’s sexual predation was restricted to young boys, then Mwanga, like Nazi SA Chief Ernst Roehm, was a pederast, not a gender neutral pedophile. For the record, pederasts are neither interested in young girls or women, and are contemptuous & abusive of effeminate homosexuals. Ubermenchen pederasts are interested primarily in young boys, just as was the case with SA Captain Gerhard Rossbach, and his formation of the 100% homosexist unit, “The Rossbach Organization” & Schilljugend Rossbach. See Wikipedia.
It seems from Kinsey onwards, science has been corrupted into a pursuit of set, predetermined outcomes. Even by today’s diminished morals, Kinsey would still be considered a sex criminal for his abuse of children under a pretext of science, as is documented in Kinsey’s 1948 “Report” on Sexuality In The Human Male. In Table 34, Kinsey & his fellow sex workers used stop watches to time the alleged “orgasms” of babies as young as 6 months old. Also, Kinsey’s alleged 10% figure for the percentage of the population that is exclusively homosexual, was just as corrupt and outcome based as the rest of his “research,” and has since been wholey discredited.
Note: Documentation & direct quotes from original, or even properly attributed and cited secondary sources, are not “speculation.”
I do agree, homosexuality is not only misunderstood, but misrepresented. Homoerotic attraction is not a genetic predisposition, but a by-product of environmental & sociological factors, largely affected by parental roles, & predatory solicitations which serve to seduce many young boys into the fold. In fact, the gay rights movement in its entirety, functions much like a sexual cult. The human target of sexual affectation is not predetermined at birth. Otherwise, adults like Kinsey who sexual molest children could claim they were “born that way” – born to enage in sex with children as it were. Of course, Kinsey viewed both children & animals as legitimate sexual “outlets” for who he referred to as, “mature adults.”
Whereas many will disagree, that the etiology of homoerotic attraction is a fragmentation & deficiency of psycho-sexual masculine gender patterning commensurate with biology, this is supported by over 80 years of clinical studies, only to be rejected by those enaged in “gay science,” which alleged the size of the hypothalamus was what determined “gayness.” Of course, the obvious question of whether repetative homoerotic conduct altered the hypothalamus in the first place, was conveniently never asked.
Hrafnkell
Jan. 2nd, 2011 at 6:56 am
Not to mention the specious reasoning behind your claim, Elm. Are you saying that if the dictator had been a heterosexual male, or a one-armed man, or maybe a woman, they would have a just reason for wanting to kill all heterosexual males one armed males or all women?
Elm
Jan. 2nd, 2011 at 5:10 pm
No. It’s your “reasoning,” & concocting of false predicates which are “specious.” Stauffenberg, A Nazi war hero only had one arm, & of course we know he was implicated & executed for his participation in an attempt to kill Hitler.
Interestingly, Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg was from an aristocratic Roman Catholic family. Upon his execution by firing squad, he is reported to have shouted, “long live free (meaning free of Nazis and Nazi barbarism) Germany.”
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Jan. 2nd, 2011 at 5:16 pm
And how does this advance your argument that Nazi anti-Semitism is the result of homosexual machinations? How does it disprove mine, that Nazi anti-Semitism is the result of 18 centuries of Christian anti-Semitism? Where do you think the anti-Semitism came from, Elm? Do you think homosexuals invented it for some reason? Where is the logic in your argument? I can see none. Instead you throw out claim after claim, none of them proving a single thing beyond that you have no argument to present.
Elm
Jan. 2nd, 2011 at 5:34 pm
Hrafnkell – If you are blind to the difference between Romanism & Christianity, then you are oblivious to the many wars fought throughout history because of these differences & no true student of history.
If you are blind to the impact of sexual corruption and Nazi homosexists upon the course of history both distant & recent, then you are blind to one of the major sexual engines of history.
And if you choose to stubborn AND remain blind, then how is it the blind & willfully ignorant can instruct anyone, let alone argue or debate the finer points of history?
Elm
Jan. 2nd, 2011 at 8:22 pm
A persecution of Israelites began long before Christianity was declared the official State Religion of pagan Rome. Indeed, the etiology of a hatred for the Jewish people can be traced all the way back to Ham and Nimrod.
The first with whom the Nazis signed a concordat was with Rome, whose messiah is Nimrod – also known as the “egg of the great cackler,” in reference to Ham, who spread gossip about his father Noah.
Rome does not revere the Messiah or King of Israel, whom Rome to this day strives to contain in occultic bondage. Like Rome, the Nazis were the sons of Ham, or Hamitic. This is why what is ostensibly referred to as “Christianity” has such a varied attitude & relationship with the Jewish people, and why numbers of disenfranchised Jews even today, often have such a conflicted relationship with their own covenential prerequisites.
Whereas Rome views itself in terms of replacement & displacement theology, various branches of Protestant Christianity, embrace a connection or affirmative theology.
What we learn from the post flood generation, is the sons of Shem, whether they see this or not, are the protectors of not only their father’s dignity, but also are the guardians of the human family. Whereas Ham exposed, Shem, assisted by Japhet, covered his father’s nakedness. I don’t believe Hitler cared very much for his father, but he was exceedingly close to his mother.
English Saddle
Jan. 2nd, 2011 at 9:22 pm
You’ve made great points HH. Keep up great work. You can’t reason with everyone.
JBrown
Jan. 2nd, 2011 at 8:40 am
Neither Christianity nor Homosexuality was at the root of Nazism. Most Nazis, including Hitler (who was certainly not above pretending to be Christian or anything else for the sake of furthering his own aims), were fundamentally anti-Christian. Just read the published plans of the official Reich Church. They planned to replace the cross with the Swastika and the Bible with a copy of Mein Kampf. Hitler’s ideology owed a great deal more to a Nietzschean worldview (though Nietzsche was neither a Nazi or anti-semite) in which the right of the powerful to maximally exploit the weak took precedent over any other ethical rules. Like Nietzsche, those at the top of the Nazi regime despised genuine Christianity for its promoting of a so-called “slave morality.”
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Jan. 2nd, 2011 at 10:00 am
To be fair, my argument was that Christianity was at the root of Nazi antisemitism, not that it was the cause of Nazism itself. By the way, Hitler didn’t pretend to be Christian. He was born and raised a Catholic and died a Catholic, and those who supported him were also Christians. The Jews, Heathens, and others, all went to the camps. It was a Christian Germany and a very Christian Nazism. But in the end, as I argue, it doesn’t matter what Hitler thought or didn’t think about religion. What matters is that it was Christians who put him there and kept him there through thick and thin.
Elm
Jan. 2nd, 2011 at 4:36 pm
Wasn’t it Christians from Britain & America who fought & defeated the Nazis? Wasn’t General Patton a Christian? And didn’t he ask his Christian Chaplan to pray for good weather so he could pursue and defeat the Nazis?
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Jan. 2nd, 2011 at 4:49 pm
It was also that same Christianity that made many of those men anti-Semites (including Patton himself). But those men did not fight Hitler over religion and if they had it would have been Christians against Christians, hardly the stuff of ballads.
And I might point out to you that Hitler declared war on the U.S., leaving us little choice in the matter. It was not the U.S. that declared war on Hitler.
In any event, even if your point was valid, and it’s not, it would not negate the Christian origins of Nazi anti-Semitism.
Elm
Jan. 2nd, 2011 at 5:38 pm
Once again, it was the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor, which prompted America to declare war against the Axis powers. which included Germany and Italy. What is your reference for Hitler’s declaration of war against America?
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Jan. 2nd, 2011 at 7:02 pm
It was Germany that declared war on the United States, Elm. On December 11, 1941. A comment does not allow me to copy & paste that declaration but it’s a fact of history. It is a simple matter to Google or Bing this but I will provide here a link for you: www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p3...
Elm
Jan. 2nd, 2011 at 7:54 pm
The point is, Japan, an ally of Germany, attacked Pearl harbor on the morning of December 7, 1941, followed by the US declaration of war against Japan on December 8, 1941. Naturally, Germany would have followed suit and declared war against America. And of course, Britain had previously been attacked by, and was at war with Germany years before.
What began WWII, was Germany’s invasion of Poland which compelled Great Britain to enter the war on the side of Poland with whom they had a defense pact. So, in a quest for Lebensraum (literally “living space”), Nazi Germany was first to initiate hostilities in WWII, at the conclusion of which it intended to establish a “Thousand Year Reich,” with global scope and intentions by the way.
Prior to the Imperial Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Germany did everything it could to keep America out of the war, even funding the peace movement in America. The Japanese attack put an end to these efforts.
JBrown
Jan. 3rd, 2011 at 8:11 am
Your argument comes to depend on the definition of Christian. Is any person or group of people Christian simply because they self-label that way? If so, then yes, we can include Adolf Hitler and millions of other self-proclaimed Christians under that umbrella. But then what does Christianity mean? Absolutely nothing. It includes everyone from Mother Teresa to Eichmann and becomes a way to slander true Christians by association.
Self-proclaimed “Christians” may have aided Hitler to power, but it was Christians of a much different (and I would argue more genuine) strain who were also most dedicated to bringing him down. Figures like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and the members of the White Rose group (the majority of whom where Christian) sacrificed their lives opposing Nazism. I know for a fact that Bonhoeffer did so as a direct result of his Christian faith. Either these people were genuine Christians or the Nazis were. To include both renders the term meaningless.
A final note: While anti-semitism certainly did arise among those calling themselves Christian, in light of the argument above it would make much more sense to criticize it as a product of Western civilization than of Christianity.
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Jan. 3rd, 2011 at 9:08 am
I don’t think it really counts as a product of Western civilization because the civilization in question was Christian. anti-Semitism depends upon the Jews as enemies for killing Jesus, as the New Testament says, servants of Satan. It wasn’t a nebulous western civilization that made this claim, but Christianity.
I would argue that any term or definition is difficult – not everyone will agree on any of them, including Christian.
It’s wrong to say any Christian who didn’t behave in a way you deem proper is a “so-called” or “self-proclaimed” or “not a real” Christian. They were Christians, following the beliefs – the Christian beliefs – handed down them after many centuries of an unbroken chain of Christian domination of European culture and religion. Saying they weren’t really Christians is a cop-out.
Yes, other Christians – but a minority – opposed Hitler. But so did atheists, communists, pagans, Jews, and others. A few Christians opposing Hitler does not change the fact of history that the Nazis got their anti-Semitism from Christian anti-Semitism. It does not blame-shift that guilt to homosexuals, who had nothing to do historically speaking, with the origins of anti-Semitism.
The New Testament is full of anti-Semitism. Are you going to argue that the people who wrote those anti-Semitic books were not Christians either?
Elm
Jan. 3rd, 2011 at 1:39 pm
It is true, Romanism tilled the soil for a massacre of Jews repetatively from her inception, largely because of displacement & replacement theology, & the blaming of the Jews for having killed “Christ.” However, Nazi Jew hatred was driven by new “scientific” form of racial eugenics, and began with the murder of Germans classed as “useless” eaters, extracted from mental hospitals etc. The T4 program served as a model and practice run for the Holocaust & was administered by Nazi physicians. The eugenics program itself had its birth in the United States, whereas in Germany, under Police State conditions, they applied the lessons.
One of the greatest ironies of Christian history, is that if the Jews, who were accused by Rome of killing Jesus – which they did not, had actually killed Jesus, why blame them? Why not thank the Jews instead? Because without the alleged sacrificial death & vicarious attonement of Jesus hanging on the cross, for the sins of Christiandom, there can be and would be no salvation for any Christian. A rather schizophrenic attitude to say the least, don’t you think?
To be sure, human sacrifice in any form for the attonement of sin is not a sound precept of Biblical ethical monotheism. Also, pagan cannibaalistic rituals are also anathema. The word caan-iba’al, for instance, derives from Priests of Ba’al, as in Priests of Ba’al Peor.
JBrown
Jan. 3rd, 2011 at 11:59 pm
Firstly, I’m really not arguing in favour of “blame-shifting.” Some Nazis were homosexual, some weren’t, it had no causal connection with their ideology or what they did.
Secondly, Western Civilization is nebulous but Christianity is somehow a more concrete entity? The term encompasses a huge array of groups from Catholics to Lutherans to Anabaptists to Orthodox with widely diverging beliefs. I’m not a Christian. But I find your attempts to blame “Christianity” offensive to the men and women who died for authentic Christian values. This isn’t about what I deem “proper,” this is about what the core of Christianity is. I’m arguing for a definition of Christianity that does not include everyone based on self-affiliation. The Nazis were not genuine Christians. It’s not a cop-out, it’s the truth, regardless of how convenient it is for my argument.
You need to distinguish between Christianity and the institutions (e.g., the Catholic and Lutheran churches) that claimed to represent it (and even to distinguish between the various branches and individuals within those institutions). The Nazis may have been members of the Lutheran or Catholic churches, but this does not necessarily make them Christians. You would be better off targeting the Lutheran or Catholic churches of 19th and 20th centuries (and earlier) rather than “Christianity” as a whole.
Regarding the New Testament being “full of anti-Semitism”: Yes, there are passages with anti-Semitic interpretations. Yes, the authors were Christians. But the authors were also all (ethnic and “racially”) Jews. New Testament “anti-Semitism” is a completely different issue in a completely different context from Nazi race-based anti-Semitism.
JBrown
Jan. 3rd, 2011 at 8:12 am
Please delete the above post. I left some of my rough work in by accident.
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Jan. 3rd, 2011 at 8:57 am
@JBrown: Done.
Elm
Jan. 2nd, 2011 at 4:50 pm
The roots of Nazi Fascism are to be found in the occult and economic ideology. Groups like the Thule Society, Armenan Order and Vril Society, are all vortexs of energy which gave expression to applied National Socialism. And of course, there are also the British born Malthusian Darwinists, upon whom Nazi notions of eugenics and genocide were largely based & practiced. True, Nazi ideology was largely anti-Christian, but was it anti-Roman?
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Jan. 2nd, 2011 at 4:54 pm
That is patently and demonstrably untrue, Elm. Why do you keep bringing up complete fabrications and presenting them as fact? Is that the best you can do?
Perhaps the best witness we can call to the stand against this claim is Hitler himself, who stated in no uncertain terms,
“It seems to me that nothing would be more foolish than to re-establish the worship of Wotan. Our old mythology had ceased to be viable when Christianity implanted itself. Nothing dies unless it is moribund.”[1]
Compare and contrast with:
“The Ten Commandments are a code of living to which there’s no refutation. These precepts correspond to irrefragable needs of the human soul; they’re inspired by the best religious spirit, and the Churches here support themselves on a solid foundation.” [2]
While Hitler shoveled dirt on Paganism’s grave, he stated in Mein Kampf that he drew his inspiration for a zero-tolerance policy on competing worldviews directly from the history of Christianity, not, significantly, from the tolerance of Pagan societies.
I will point out too that like the homosexuals, Germany’s neo-pagans ended up in concentration camps, not running Germany.
Please do try harder with facts if you wish to be taken seriously.
[1] Adolf Hitler. Hitler’s Table Talk 1941-1944 Trans. By Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens, Hugh Trevor Roper, ed. NY: Enigma Books, 2000 [1953], 61, conversation of 14 October 1941.
[2] Ibid, 85, conversation of 24 October 1941, p. 85.
Elm
Jan. 2nd, 2011 at 5:23 pm
Please tell us Hrafnkell, was the rabid pederast, pornographer & Jew baiter Julius Streicher, a “Christian?” To what god did he pray when he went to the gallows at Nuremberg?
And if Germany was so Christian, why was it it took the Christian forces of the British Commonwealth & America to defeat him? Are you not confusing pagan Rome, with Biblical Christianity?
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Jan. 3rd, 2011 at 9:10 am
You’re actually making the argument that in all of history, Christians have never fought Christians?
Elm
Jan. 2nd, 2011 at 5:14 pm
But of course, the Nazis would view moral self-restraint and dignity in human sexual affairs, as a “slave morality.” Rather, the Nazis & their Corporate sponsors, viewed all designated “inferior” classes as a pool of slave labor, to be exploited for the benefit of the “master race.”
James H.
Jan. 2nd, 2011 at 8:41 am
Great read just another avenue to broaden the mind. It’s kind of scary how alike those quotes are with each other between Hitler, Bill O. and Ann Coulter.
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Jan. 2nd, 2011 at 9:57 am
Thank you, James. And how unalike the comments from the liberals who are supposedly today’s Nazis…yet we’re supposed to believe 1930s right-wing and 2011 right-wing are totally different things. I say if it quacks like a duck…
Salt_Snorter
Jan. 2nd, 2011 at 11:12 am
I have to say that I was impressed by this article and by you as a writer. Its not often that you see someone draw these kinds of comparisons without weighing their writing down with so much distaste for the opposition. Your parallels were distinct, your point was clear, and your writing held its composure.
More than anything, reading this article gave me hope that it is still possible to make comparisons in areas with such deep-seated connotations without adopting a polarized stance.
Reply
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Jan. 2nd, 2011 at 4:16 pm
Salt_Sorter, thank you. I appreciate that. I like to think the facts can speak better for themselves if you can find a way to present them so that people can weigh and compare them.
English Saddle
Jan. 2nd, 2011 at 9:11 pm
DON’T FEED THE TROLL!
It’s just crazy and he’s spamming this post now.
Elm
Jan. 2nd, 2011 at 9:33 pm
English Saddle – Yes, I agree. Falsehood is always an opportunity for truth, insight and understanding.
DED
Jan. 3rd, 2011 at 12:04 am
While I agree with your critique of the book, I am a little disappointed that you would conclude that the anti-semitism of Nazi Germany was solely the out come of a Christian social structure. It is true that anti-semitism has been common throughout western culture and history, but few nations, if any, reached the peak of anti-semitism seen in Hitler’s Germany. My point is that the cause of all the atrocities in that time and place are harder to understand than your article implies. Don’t get me wrong, I see the connection and Pope Pius XI’s culpability in the matter. But, isn’t it inaccurate not to mention the Roman Catholic hierarchy of the Netherlands who officially condemned anti-semitism and Nazism in 1941, and the Polish Roman Catholic hierarchy that saw many clerics sent to concentration camps, or outright killed, for hiding Jews. Now, of course, those fact do not directly refute your point, but I think they bring to light how complicated it is to try to describe any historical event. Thanks for the review, I agree with you about the uselessness of the book.
DED
Elm
Jan. 3rd, 2011 at 1:49 am
DED – Why do you agree with the “critique of the book?” And on what informed premise do you agree with the “uselessness of the book?” What excately do you agree with, and have you read the book from cover to cover with an mind open to possibilities beyond your current perceptions?
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Jan. 3rd, 2011 at 9:15 am
DED, thank you for commenting. I agree that as with most historical problems, this is a complicated issue. But we cannot historically compare attitudes towards Judaism before and after Christianity.
Yes, Hitler killed more Jews than anyone else but he had the means no one else had. Jewish pogroms took place through all of Christian history. They were regularly slaughtered in Spain and elsewhere; Crusaders would warm up for the Crusades by slaughtering Jews in the Rhineland. It isn’t Pagan folk or homosexuals who created this feeling towards Jews – it is the Christian – solely Christian – idea that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus.
The Roman empire did not look at Jews in at all the same light. Jews were not vermin, they were not a disease, they did not threaten the body politic, their religion was not banned or proscribed – no pogroms either. No, this anti-Semitism we are dealing with is Christian baggage. It grew up in an environment that for 1500 years or more was controlled in a 100% Christian environment. Christianity had made certain of that, because before they went after the Jews, they killed or forcibly converted all the Pagans.
Elm
Jan. 5th, 2011 at 6:32 am
For additional insight into how homosexuality was approached in the Third Reich, see Geoffrey Cocks’ book, “PSYCHOTHERAPY IN THE THIRD REICH; THE GORING INSTITUTE.”
The Nazi regime condemned psychoanalysis as a threat to the state’s ability to control the individual, however, the cousin of the powerful Nazi leader Hermann Goring, was permitted not only to operate, but flourish in Nazi Germany.
This is the little known story of Matthias Heinrich Goring, founder of The German Institute for Psychological Research and Psychotherapy, quickly dubbed The Goring Institute, which was destroyed in 1945.
Cocks writes, “The Goring Institute not only treated a great number of the mental casualties produced by the war, it also provided psychotherapy for a large number of homosexuals, many from the Nazi youth organizations – The attitude of German physicians toward homosexuality was of course also conditioned by their scientific conviction that it was an analyzable and treatable disorder. This conviction, a concensous everywhere among physicians during the era, prompted them to favor treatment over punishment, while at the same time it bolstered a prevailing cultural bias that saw homosexuals as a “problem” to be solved – The Nazi regime of course added its own ideological and practical imperatives along these same lines. Thus homosexuals sent to the Goring Institute were to be treated, cured, and sent back into the community as normal productive members of society – Under Hitler the problem of homosexuality was linked to another priority: that of combatting the declining birth rate. Heterosexual activity, like health, had become a duty.” Simply stated, heterosexuality, & the growth in population it inculcated, was one of the main reasons for a Nazi rejection of homosexuality. Homosexuals it was observed, did not perform their seminal duties. Thus, Cocks writes, “on 15 November 1941 Hitler decreed a death penalty for homosexual members of the SS,” and further to encourage a higher birth rate, “in 1941 the Interior Ministry prohibited the manufacture and/or sale of contraceptives and abortion paraphernalia.”
So, whereas the Nazis persecuted homosexuality among themselves for purposes of encouraging a higher birth rate – especially among the elite SS, they had little concern about homosexuals or homosexuality among racial “inferiors.” Thus, there is no documentation of an organized persecution of homosexuals in occupied lands by the Nazi regime. The paradox is this. What started out as a force of militant gays under Ernst Roehm – largely responsible for propelling the Nazis into power in the first place, did in progressive steps became a liability due to a shrinking war time population. So, the most harsh measures enacted against homosexuals under Nazi Germany came from, and was applied within the Nazi ranks themselves. Unlike designated “inferior races,” there were no organized persecutions of homosexuals by the Nazis, other than in the Night of The Long Knives – June 30th, July 1st 1934, in which Ernst Roehm & the SA leadership were eliminated. So, the Nazi persecution of German homosexuals, was predicted upon their “failure” to reproduce. Ironically, homosexuality was made a crime against the Aryan race – a negative race crime.
With today’s emerging concerns about over population, I don’t believe homosexuals have much to worry about, at least in terms of being coerced into contributing to an increase in population.
Paul Y. Rusiecki
Jan. 6th, 2011 at 9:50 pm
Judith Reisman strikes one as the type of person who couldn’t make it on the Captain Kangaroo show and so turned to academia, using her Captain Kangaroo experience for her PhD in Communications. That’s probably because she was on the Captain Kangaroo show as a singer, couldn’t make it, and went on to get her PhD in communication, not sexology, not physiology, not scientific methodology, and certainly not as a research scientist in any of these fields.
That doesn’t make her a respected scientist; it does make her a great ideologue and there’s big bucks in that today. She got close to a million dollars from the federal government to do a study on pornography for the old Meese Commission, a study so flawed that even the conservatives around Meese didn’t use it.
She was called as the major prosecution expert witness on an obscenity trial involving the works of Robert Maplethorpe and got show down there.
She’s developed the theory of “erotoxins” that’s being used to pump for major attacks on freedom of the press and to disenfranchise millions of voters. She writes how the “porn industry” can be shut down in civil trials by its “victims” who developed those “erotoxins” from reading porn; she’s argued that the “erotoxins” may stop the victims from being fully rational adults and so should not be accorded those rights.
So “highly respected?” The woman is the Bozo the Clown of sexology.
More to this point, if she’s “highly respected” in the scientific community name a single scientist, however conservative, who put their scientific reputation on the line formally endorsing either her Meese work or her theory of “erotoxins.”
Elm
Jan. 6th, 2011 at 10:56 pm
Paul Y. Rusiecki – Have you written songs for Captain Kangaroo? Didn’t think so. Your “analysis,” is little more than a crude & arrogant personal attack upon Dr. Reisman, not a refutation of anything contained in her research. Why don’t you do some research & report back? Have you read her book, KINSEY: CRIMES & CONSEQUENCES; The Red Queen & The Grand Scheme, or do you regard formal study beneath you?
Allan L. McEwen
Jan. 10th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
Hitler courted the Roman Catholic Church because he was convinced he was the Biblical Anti-Christ; that the roman Church’s Pope would serve as the “False Prophet” spoken of in the Book Of Revelation.
The Roman Catholic Church, under the leadership of Pope ( his name escapes me; I don’t have time to look it up & re-type this piece) believed Hitler was the Biblical Anti-Christ and “hooked their star” to the Nazi party & Hitler. Why ? Because they (read the Pope and college of Cardinals wanted the Church to survive into the Anti-Christ’s reign.