Timothy Birdnow
I hate to have to keep doing this, I really do; I seem to be getting a reputation as a "gay basher" when I am the furthest thing from that. I've had friends who have been gay, and I know the struggles they have faced and the pain they suffer. One friend told me that when he came out to his family they pretty much disowned him, and his brother disinvited him to Thanksgiving. That says more about his family, who apparently have qualifications on their love. Jesus would not have treated anyone that way and none of us are Jesus, and so we definitely do not have that right.
But there are people who are gay and there are the movement types, the political ones hell bent (to coin a phrase) on forcing their lifestyle and their personal problems down everyone's throats. These are the destroyers, sort of a body of Satan in mockery of the Church being the Body of Christ. And since this group continually assaults the latter I am forced to defend those of us who think homosexuality is a sin (and it is, but so too is fornication, adultery, gluttony, drunkenness, and a host of other things, some of which I really don't want to think about because I am as guilty as everyone else of at least some of them). Being gay is a sin. All sins are forgivable, but not if one elevates them to the status of a virtue, which is what the political homosexual lobby is doing. Like alcoholism, one must first admit he or she has a problem. In modern America we have become expert at twisting our problem into social policy.
Recently Jack Kemp wrote a blogpost http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/ed_schultz_proves_tal_fortgangs_point chronicling the "white privilege" argument, and how it even applies to Jews who came here as refugees from Nazi death camps. Ed Schulz of MSNBC, in a tweet sent out to his followers, argued that homosexuals were the primary victims of Nazi atrocities and that Jews or Catholics or Gypsies or any dissidents who were interred or even murdered are a bunch of crybabies. (My words, his implication.)
Is that so?
Yes, there were the "pink triangle" prisoners, homosexuals who were guests of the tender hospitality of the Third Reich, but is that the whole story? Were the Nazis just a bunch of gay hating misanthropes?
Well, many of the Nazis WERE gay misanthropes. Here is an essay by author Scott Lively, who did a rather exhaustive bit of research on the homosexual roots of the Nazi Party and the sexual sadism of the Third Reich. http://www.lifeandlibertyministries.com/archives/000278.php
According to Lively:
"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."
End excerpt.
And the head of the Brownshirts, Ernst Rohm, the man who led the enforcement arm of National Socialism, was openly gay. Now, Hitler eventually purged the Brownshirts, but he did that because he did not have control of them and not because of their homosexual proclivities. (They were demanding that the army be disbanded and the Brownshirts installed in their place - something Hitler knew would be disastrous to his plans for conquest.)
So why were the pink triangles sent to Nazi camps?
According to Lively:
"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)."
End excerpt.
And indeed many of the homosexuals arrested by the Nazis were "enemies of the State".
Hitler had good reasons to go after homosexuals outside of his movement; he needed the support of the German public, and the easiest way to get that is to act as champion of "virtue". Also, he did not want German seed wasted; he wanted a population explosion in Germany, and homosexual sex was an unproductive exercise. So the average Joe would be forbidden to indulge himself, although it would be acceptable for those who are politically connected. This is as old as civilization; laws are made for those who are not the lawmakers. Just look at the exemptions Congress has granted itself over the years; they weren't under social security, for instance. They tried to exempt themselves from Obamacare, and Obama "granted" them a subsidy even though most staffers and whatnot would not be eligible for one. Anyone who thinks that Hitler was simply anti-gay does not understand how politics works - especially in a fascist system. Fascism is all about currying favor with the political class.
So it was part of the Nazi machine, making gays into good Nazis or else.
And Lively argues that there were two classes of homosexuals in Germany at that time (and it has always been true) - the Butch uberman types and the effeminate. It can be said that these two groups have different motivations; the butch types see themselves as glorious rebels, men of Will who can choose to reject the restrictions of biology and indulge their dominant personas. These types would also tend to be sadistic, enjoying the thrill of wielding power over another man. A kind of homosexual communion would be at work where sex would be used as a way of forming bonds. The other types - the femmes - are men who identify more with women and femininity, something that a gay Nazi would find revolting. As was said in The Sopranos when the crew learned that one of their Capos was gay "I really had hoped he was pitching and not catching." That seems to be the concensus among Nazis at any rate.
This isn't surprising; history is replete with homosexuality used to intensify masculinity. It was said that Alexander was one to hook up his battery at the opposite poles, and it is said he would indulge his men in celebratory orgies sans women. He got this, of course, from the older Greek culture. The Spartans were notorious for sodomizing young students, and a "mentoring" was expected by older Spartans for young apprentices. (I never did know why the condom company was Trojan; it should have been Spartan.) There are many other examples of this in history - up to and including today, where Muslim men in Afghanistan enjoy their "dancing boys" because they see homosexual sex as "cleaner" than sex with women (considering where they are putting things one has to wonder at their mental acumen.) Despite strict prohibitions against homosexuality Islam has been rife with it, and for the same reasons. The Turks used to capture Christian children and put them into military organizations - the Janissaries - designed to repel Christian counter-attacks (sometimes leading a child to facing his father on the battlefield). Generally sodomy was to tool employed to wed the young man to the group, and to his new masters. The Mau-Mau did something very similar. The idea is that, if you have crossed that particular sexual Rubicon, you will find acceptance among those who have participated in the same rituals.
At any rate, there seems to have been a rather schizoid view of homosexuality among Nazis.
So when Conservatives speak of "gay Nazis" this is not something to be dismissed with a snear, as do most Leftists. There actually were gay Nazis, and the type of thinking that went with this particular ideology is alive and well in certain circles in the gay community.
As a side note, Hitler has often been accused of being homosexual, but there is no real proof of that. Hitler had at least four women lovers (one was his niece) although the man seems to have been chock-full of other perversions (he apparently enjoyed copraphilia, for instance, or so I have read.)
The top brass of the Nazi Party were members of the Thule Society, a neopagan order that practiced a variation of Theosophy. Rosenberg, Himmler, Goehring, Rudolf Hess, and a host of others were members of this occultic group, and it is said that they perhaps practiced homosexual rituals there. I don't think there is any evidence of this, but certainly the Nazi lightening bolt SS insignia, the Eagle, and the Swastika are all Theosophistic symbols. Theosophy is not inherently Satanic or evil - it says that all religions have a part of the truth. Theosophy is a religion for the modern age; you can pick and choose what you want from it. The Nazi variation stressed German mysticism and racism, something that they buttressed with the "science" of eugenics.
There is no evidence Hitler was a member, however. Also, Hitler may have been a more "advanced" adept, eschewing pleasures of the flesh.
Madam Blavatsky, one of the founders of Theosophy, once said of sexuality:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_theo.htm
""...but the real adepts - as we are reliably informed - are the most happy of mankind, since their pleasures are connected with the higher existence, which is cloudless and painless. The earliest among the changes felt by the true Chela [student] is a sense of unmixed joy to be rid of the caring cares of common life, and to exist in the light of a supremely great Ideal. Not that any true adept would say aught against the naturalness and sacredness of pure sexual relationships; but that, to become an adept one must expand the finite into the Infinite, the personal into the Universal, man into Parabrahm - if one so choose to designate that Thing Unspeakable."
End excerpt.
So Hitler may well have had minimal interest in women for religious reasons. Of course, he may not have had any reason other than that he didn't want to bother with the difficulties of maintaining a relationship.
Hitler tended to magnify himself over everything else; why would he be interested in anything but a passing fancy on rare occasions?
I once read an interview with a woman who had gone on a date with Hitler. She said he was affable and a gentleman, but when she ordered a steak at dinner he looked at her in horror and said "you eat CORPSES!" It rather killed the mood, I would imagine, as would much of Hitler's personal quirks.
Hitler was a vegetarian - something befitting the animal-rights friendly Third Reich. He also hated smoking but admitted once he could not ban it without a rebellion.
It is interesting to note that most gay people are liberals, quick to demand such things as smoking bans and other regulations of people's personal lives while exempting themselves. This is not a slam at all gay people; there are some conservative homosexuals. But the political gays are a solid block in the Democratic Party, and yet they live very unhealthy lives, as a casual glance at actuarial tables will show.
The upshot of this is that there are gays and there are Gays. Forcing photographers to shoot your wedding, or bake you a cake, in violation of the religious beliefs of those people, certainly fits in with the Nazi vision of a society under the heel of the ruling class.
I wonder how many gay people ever consider that?
