Where's the birth certificate

Free and Strong America

Saturday, March 6, 2010

The Pink Swastika part II

Proposing the theory that early members of the National Socialist Party in 1930's Germany skewed disproportionately homosexual amongst it's leadership for discussion in this forum has turned out to be quite interesting to say the least. Especially interesting have been the unfounded personal attacks in which my sexual preference is questioned. Ginx hasnt sounded this bright since he inquired if I might be better off dragging someone of another color from my pick-up. It's especially interesting in light of the fact that I am involved in a bi-racial marraige and I doubt that anyone who knows me would say that I'm homophobic or a racist. What I can do is divorce myself from the emotion swirling around an issue and examine the facts and make a determination based on evidence, not political correctness.

Apparently some in this forum have issues with the credibility of the book entitled The Pink Swastika that I mentioned in a previous thread. In order to move the discussion along, let's set Pink Swastika aside for a moment and examine other evidence pertinent to the discussion. First and foremost would being be the writings of one William L. Shirer (pictured above). Having worked with the likes of "James Thurber, Elliot Paul, Hemingway, the Fitzgeralds, Isadora Duncan, Ezra Pound and...Gertrude Stein" would give nearly anyone instant credibility as a writer. Also, having been stationed in Berlin beginning in 1934 as the Nazis first rose to power along with Vienna during the time of the Anschluss (annexation) of Austria, he had a front row seat for the events that he described in his writings which became the benchmark work on the subject of Hitler's Germany titled, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Having completed such a highly referenced and footnoted tome (over 1,200 pages), Shirer won "the 1960 National Book Award and a special Sidney Hillman Foundation award in 1961, (and) his intimate involvement with Hitler’s Germany made him a foremost U.S. authority on the Nazi era and his expertise led to several decades of writing and lecturing".

Shirer wrote the following in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich...

""Most people don't realize that male homosexuality does not always lean to the effeminate. Historically, male homosexuality was much more often associated with hyper-masculine warrior cults which were usually very brutal and very politically aggressive. The most recent example was in Germany. Hitler's initial power base when he launched the Nazi Party was a private homosexual military force organized and trained by a notorious pederast named Gerhard Rossbach. Rossbach's homosexual partner Ernst Roehm, who was also Hitler's partner in forming and building the Nazi Party, converted the "gay" Rossbachbund into the dreaded SA Brownshirts."

Now what axe could Shirer possibly have had to grind in this case? I think that if there was any doubt as to the veracity of Shirer's claims, they would have debunked his writings by now, but apparently, no one has. (Yes, I tried typing the words [William L. Shirer debunked] into a common search engine and nothing meaningful came up).
Another source I would like to quote is Walter C. Langer, a psychoanalyst for the OSS, (forerunner of the CIA) who was asked to analyze Hitler and the early Nazi leadership and he wrote the following...

"The belief that Hitler is homosexual has probably developed (a) from the fact that he does show so many feminine characteristics, and (b) from the fact that there were so many homosexuals in the Party during the early days and many continue to occupy important positions. It does seem that Hitler feels much more at ease with homosexuals than with normal persons, but this may be due to the fact that they are all fundamentally social outcasts and consequently have a community of interests which tends to make them think and feel more or less alike. In this connection it is interesting to note that homosexuals, too, frequently regard themselves as a special form of creation or as chosen ones whose destiny it is to initiate a new order."

Again, I highly doubt that Langer, in the interests of providing his bosses and his country with the most accurate assessment of the actual situation inside of the leadership of the Third Reich, would want to put out any misleading information. I don't think that he had an axe to grind or a dog in this fight and merely reported to the best of his ability.

Let me head off a potential objection that goes something like this. "The American government wished to discredit the Nazi leadership by portraying them as disproportionately homosexual". I looked, but I didn't see any type of reports that allege a similar smear campaign against Hirohito or Mussolini. If that were the case, you could establish a pattern and thus conclude that they were at least be consistent in their approach, but that isnt the case here.
I'm open to discussing the matter, but please come armed with facts. Not meaningless personal attacks that don't lead to intelligent discourse on the subject.

43 comments:

Ginx said...

Went out to the truck stop for more anonymous blowjobs and came back feeling guilty again?

Glen20 said...

I don't know about American propaganda during the war - but to sum up English propaganda.
Hitler was a whiny girly man.
Hirohito was a inhuman animal (often with rat-like teeth)
Mussolini was brainless.

On the other side of the pond, I remember seeing German propaganda that portrayed Churchill as a drunk madman and Attlee as a weakling and a hater of Christianity.

Froggie said...

JD,

That was a very well measured respose to all the ridicule you've been getting recently. Well handled.

You started this post with:
"Proposing the theory that early members of the National Socialist Party in 1930's Germany skewed disproportionately homosexual amongst it's leadership................."

The operative words here are "early members."

So what are you trying to prove?

If, indeed, Hitler did originally use this this group to help him come to power, they did not retain his favor.

It seems that you are using these events to meet some agenda, in that are you proposing that somehow gays are nazi sympathetic?

I would love to see you accuse members of the Americam Nazi party of being gay.

Ginx said...

It seems that you are using these events to meet some agenda

It's penance for having his shit pushed in by a rough trick in leather.

Ginx said...

[It's not like I don't believe there were gay Nazis; I'm posting on the blog of one right now.]

Froggie said...

Awe, heck, Ginx.
Give JD a chance. I think he's serious, and more importantly, he runs an uncensored blog and seems to want to discuss, and stick to the topics.

ATVLC said...

I been reading this blog for only a short while and I don't think he's serious.
I think he's just trolling right wing Christians who love the Nazi party. There's at least one who has posted here.
And also I think JD likes the 'controversy' of posted ridiculous ideas. (It gets attention.)

JD Curtis said...

Ginx. Take a look at all of the people on the right margin that I provide links to and always have since I started this blog..

A. Ellis Washington, black
B. Larry Elder, black
C. Michael Savage, a former Jew
D. Thomas Sowell, black
E. Walter E. Williams, black
F. Deroy Murdock, black AND gay
G. Jonah Goldberg, Jewish
H. Mychal Massie, black
I. Adam Brodsky, Jewish

Now, either show me where I am a racist or retract your statement. I never posted any nasty stuff on your blog and if I ever did, I would be expected to back up my statements.
Also, I would challenge you to show me another blog where the number of links to columnists rivals mine in terms of diversity.
Deal with this first before you comment on anything else.

JD Curtis said...

So what are you trying to prove?

I think JD likes the 'controversy' of posted ridiculous ideas. (It gets attention.)


Deep inside of me there's a history professor that's trying to get out. I've had the original article for a couple of years now and it only came up for discussion on another blog so I just thought I'd throw it out there. I like history and yes, this subject is considered taboo by some. However, 8 comments into this thread and there isnt one single credible source put forward that refutes either Shirer or Langer. Such silence is deafening on this matter.

Glen20, I was referring to a homosexual type smear campaign against either Hirohito or Mussolini.

I would love to see you accuse members of the Americam Nazi party of being gay

I don't know that there's credible evidence out there alleging that the leadership of the American Nazi party are disproportionately gay. If you know of any, cite it here and we'll take a look at it.

are you proposing that somehow gays are nazi sympathetic?

The Pink Swastika states that the homosexuals amongst Nazi Party leadership were "masculine" homosexuals and not the effeminate type. I wonder how that fits into the whole picture. I'm not a psychologist but it's interesting to say the least.

JD Curtis said...

I think he's just trolling right wing Christians who love the Nazi party

This is just breathtakingly stupid ATVLC. Please explain your view of the political spectrum in which National Socialists can even remotely be considered "right-wing".

These are, after all, the same National Socialists that tried to nationalize "education, health care, transportation, national resources, manufacturing, distribution and law enforcement." Add to it their obsession with misappropriating private property and their obsession with gun control and all of this spells out something not anywhere near the small-government conservativism that I very much prefer.

JD Curtis said...

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler, May 1st 1927

ATVLC said...

The political determinants are more subtle, but extreme nationalism is usually identified with the reactionary right, as is racial/ethnic "superidentity". The left is generally very much unconcerned about ethnicity.

The Nazis were purely right wing, said so, and every single scholar categorizes them there. They nationalized no industries, outlawed trade unions within 120 days of taking office in 1933, came to power in a coalition with other conservative parties, suppressed socialists and Communists, and murdered what few left wingers remained, mostly June 30, 1934, the "Night of the Long Knives". The only businesses they confiscated were those of Jews and leftists.

The Nazis made rude jokes about the inclusion of the "S" word in the party title, albeit Goebbels said it was sometimes a "convenience". The word was a leftover from a merger of central European parties about 1919.

Himmler: "We are of the right, of the establishment, and merged with the capital businesses and industries of the Reich." (Nuremberg, March, 1938)

Next you'll be telling me the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is Democratic.

Glen20 said...

The Socialist wing of the party, and one of the Strasser brothers, was assassinated on the Night of Long Knives in the early 30's.
To get into power, the party formed a coalition with the (other) right-wing conservative parties.

Nazism is usually described as Far Right.

Glen20 said...

JD said:
Let me head off a potential objection that goes something like this. "The American government wished to discredit the Nazi leadership by portraying them as disproportionately homosexual". I looked, but I didn't see any type of reports that allege a similar smear campaign against Hirohito or Mussolini. If that were the case, you could establish a pattern and thus conclude that they were at least be consistent in their approach, but that isnt the case here.


I said:
I don't know about American propaganda during the war - but to sum up English propaganda.
Hitler was a whiny girly man.
Hirohito was a inhuman animal (often with rat-like teeth)
Mussolini was brainless
.


JD said:
Glen20, I was referring to a homosexual type smear campaign against either Hirohito or Mussolini.

I was very young during the war.
They wouldn't have done a homosexual smear campaign against Hirohito because our English propaganda depicted him as less than human and more rodent than a man.
I didn't see much propaganda depicting Mussolini.

The consistency in their approach was that Germen men were girly. This made sense. I don't want to be racist but Germans were cleaner and sharper dressers than us. They had a reputation of being more "fair" in battle so a homosexual smear campaign makes sense.

It doesn't make sense to depict everyone you are fighting as homosexual. To be effective, propaganda must be believable. To say that the Japanese were homosexual would be saying that they were human and no inhuman masses that spawned endlessly, wanting to consume the world, which is how the Japanese were depicted back then.

It took an effort the shake the effect and racism the war-time propaganda had on me.

JD Curtis said...

The consistency in their approach was that Germen men were girly

Do you have a link to support this?

I don't want to be racist but Germans were cleaner and sharper dressers than us

Yes they were snappy uniforms. One of the conclusions offered at the end of The Pink Swastika is that such Nazi fashion is popular in gay circles till this day.

None of this amounts to any sort of "serious scholarhip" that dismisses that which Shirer and Langer wrote (unless of course you would like to offer some for consideeration).

JD Curtis said...

ATVLC, let me propose a simple political spectrum for you (from left to right)..

Fascism Communism-->Socialism-->Liberalism-->Centrists(Moderation)-->Conservatives-->Libertarians

Please tell me where National Socialism as espoused by the Nazi Party in Germany in their platform falls along these lines.

Let me give you a hint, Nazism is Socialism

JD Curtis said...

extreme nationalism is usually identified with the reactionary right, as is racial/ethnic "superidentity". The left is generally very much unconcerned about ethnicity

There are 2 glaring error here.

1) Insofar as the "reactionary right", why (in the Nazi Party anthem Horst Wesssel Lied) is our protagonist battling against "reactionaries"? If reactionaries are, as you put it, on the right, where did that put a Nazi hero like Wessel?

2) Regaring ethnicity and the left not being concerned with it, are you of the belief that anti-Jewish pograms never occured inside the Soviet Union?
Is it small-government conservatives who are trying to push a bill through the American congress to recognive the hodgepodge of ethnicities on the Hawaiian Islands as a "tribe" or is it liberal democrats doing so?

tinkbell13 said...

Having worked with the likes of "James Thurber, Elliot Paul, Hemingway, the Fitzgeralds, Isadora Duncan, Ezra Pound and...Gertrude Stein" would give nearly anyone instant credibility as a writer.

Deep inside of me there's a history professor that's trying to get out.- Love this. But, you know, being a history professor requires objectivity, being open minded, actually being able to understand the facts, and intelligence and hard work. You possess not one of these qualities in your approach to history.

Working with "writers" does not give you crediblity. If that was the case, the people who work with writers- like agents, typists, and even receptionists have credibility. You do not understand that term.

I love the Internet. But, it also opened the world to trash like this allowing you to think that you are "smart" enough to be broadcasting your skewed and childish ideas. Unreal.

ATVLC said...

ATVLC, let me propose a simple political spectrum for you (from left to right)..

Fascism Communism-->Socialism-->Liberalism-->Centrists(Moderation)-->Conservatives-->Libertarian
s

Fascism is a right wing ideology. A far right ideology. [1]

Mussolini regarded it as such.

From the Doctrine of Fascism
"We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'Right', a Fascist century."

And on page 15 begins by describing fascism as the opposite of everything left wing and and ends with "The Fascist negation of socialism, democracy, liberalism, should not, however, be interpreted as..."

I'm beginning to feel like I've been trolled.

[1] Stanley G. Payne, Fascism: Comparison and Definition. 1983.
Lyons, Matthew N.. "What is Fascism? Some General Ideological Features"
Eatwell, Roger, Che cos'è il fascismo? Interpretazioni e prospettive di ricerche, 2003
...so many books describe fascism as right-wing that I couldn't cite them all.

ATVLC said...

One of the conclusions offered at the end of The Pink Swastika is that such Nazi fashion is popular in gay circles till (sic) this day.

What about soldiers uniforms? And navy uniforms? I hear they are popular is homosexual fetish circles. What does that say about the founding of the military?
And so is police uniforms, I hear. What does that say about the founding of the police force?

What you basically been asking people to do is prove that the Nazis weren't homosexual.

I was tried to illustrate the lunacy of trying to prove historical figures weren't homosexual by asking you to prove Jesus wasn't homosexual.

ATVLC said...

There are 2 glaring error (sic) here.

1) Insofar as the "reactionary right", why (in the Nazi Party anthem Horst Wesssel (sic) Lied) is our protagonist battling against "reactionaries"? If reactionaries are, as you put it, on the right, where did that put a Nazi hero like Wessel
?

I said "reactionary right" not that all reactionaries are on the right.

Wessel was murdered by Communist reactionaries called the Redfront. Hence this lines.

Kameraden, die Rotfront und Reaktion erschossen,
Marschieren im Geist in unseren Reihen mit
!

Our friends shot by the Redfront Reactionaries march with us in spirit today!

tinkbell13 said...

I already gave him the stats to realistically support a little bit of his insanity, but he refused to acknowledge them. Probably for two reasons. 1. He didnt understand. or 2. He really wants to promote this bullshit. Or a little of both.

tinkbell13 said...

I just saw a commercial that embodies JD so well. It encapsulates him so well that I had to get up and post this right away. He suffers from puffery. Puffery is statements based on grandiose and exaggerated statements and opinions, not on fact. Love it, could not have coined that better myself.

Glen20 said...

Maybe a political discourse which shorthands everything along a single dimension (left and right) is an impoverished discourse that grotesquely oversimplifies everything.

Nonetheless given that we've been operating with precisely this mental map since the 18th c. or thereabouts, and given that Nazism and fascism have been fixed stuck nailed to the right-ward end of this spectrum for as long as we've all been writing and thinking about them, J.D. and co. notwithstanding, well: you're the one who has to deliver the profound insights that prove we've all been doing it wrong all these years.

JD Curtis said...

Wessel was murdered by Communist reactionaries called the Redfront

Let's see here, the key words here are die Rotfront und Reaktion erschossen. TRANSLATION: "the Red Front AND reactionaries"

Exactly where did you come up with the concept of "Communist reactionaries"? A google search turned up nothing.

Answers.com reveals... Reactionary: "The Nazis did not consider themselves reactionary, and numbered the forces of reaction (Prussian monarchists, nobility, Roman Catholic) among their enemies right next to their Red Front enemies in the Nazi Party march Die Fahne hoch".

So were these "Communist reactionaries" you described trying to restore Prussian monarchy and uphold Roman Catholicism? If you could show that you can rewrite history ATVLC and stand history departments worldwide on their heads. It seems nobody else is privileged to this information other than yourself.

JD Curtis said...

I still havent seen a single refutation of the above 2 men, Shirer and Langer. If anyone knows of any, post it here and we'll check it out.


Glen, I can see where you are coming from. I think I'll make my next entry on the political spectrum that I posted in my above entry timestamped at 5:31. It's a seperate issue and I'll give it it's own thread.

Glen20 said...

"Kameraden, die Rotfront und Reaktion erschossen"

It's worse than that.
There's no particle before "Reaktion"
And "erschossen" is ambiguous.
So the sentence could mean:
"Our comrades who were shot by the Rotfrontkämpferbund"
or
"Our comrades who have shot the Rotfrontkämpferbund"
(Erschossen is past tense)

I believe the reactionaries were the liberal democratic German government of the Weimar Republic period, which made several unsuccessful attempts to suppress the SA.

Glen20 said...

British Union of Fascists would sing a version of the song.
(I could only remember two lines but I've found the rest with Google. The BUF offically disbanded in the 1940's but actually became other organisations.)

Comrades, the voices of the dead battalions,
Of those who fell that Britain might be great,
Join in our song, for they still march in spirit with us,
And urge us on to gain the fascist state!
(Repeat Last Two Lines)

We're of their blood, and spirit of their spirit,
Sprung from that soil for whose dear sake they bled,
Against vested powers, Red Front, and massed ranks of reaction,
We lead the fight for freedom and for bread!
(Repeat Last Two Lines)

The streets are still, the final struggle's ended;
Flushed with the fight we proudly hail the dawn!
See, over all the streets the fascist banners waving,
Triumphant standards of our race reborn
!

JD Curtis said...

I was mostly referring to the word 'und' which would suggest that there were two seperate groups in play here.

tinkbell13 said...

You really expect us to argue something that is so completely off base that it is irrational? What you have done is completely backwards.... You posted bullshit extremist propaganda that is slightly (1/10) rooted in reality, if you see my first postings. Then, instead of defending it, you expect us to refute it. And, to make it worse, you will consider this posting a personal victory because (in your eyes) none of us bothered to engage you with what is, to a normal person, a completely unfounded position based on the opinions and pontifications of a few writers.

Why don't you look for something credible and canonized instead of this. This is why you could never be an academic. You choose sources to suit what you want to say. What normal people do is consult sources, and based on the information that they find, develop and opinion and refine what they say based on their research.

JD Curtis said...

Allright Tink. Who in the Western world is considered a more credible source that Shirer?

tinkbell13 said...

You tell me, Nazi Gay Expert.......

tinkbell13 said...

If I were to go and consult sources to begin to develop an idea on Nazi Germany, I would consult the following list.

1. Professor Richard J Evans- a renowned historian and one of the leading experts on the Nazi period, and also the recently appointed Regius Professor of Modern History at the University of Cambridge.

2.Nazi Germany (Short Oxford History of Germany) by Jane Caplan. This book, because Oxford has published it is considered to be up-to-date level by experts who have established reputations from major research publications on their area.

3. I would also go to scholary databasese like OVID, etc, and search for the latest research publications that have been done on the topic that I am looking for.

4. Then, if all else failed, and I still needed info, I would go to Google Scholar and see what else is out there.

Then, I would present my findings, and be prepared to support my conjecture with references within what I read. Do you like my answer?

Research involves more than Googling sweetheart.

tinkbell13 said...

And, moron, while "laypeople" like you may consider Shirer to be an expert, I would suggest that you compare the writings of Evans with Shirer's list. Evans has a long list of publications that were published and supported by universities, all academic writings. Shirer has a long list of books that were published away from academic support, and a list of non fiction as well. Shirer worked as a reporter and journalist, Evans has devoted his life to academic pursuits.

In other words, the work of people like Evans is what Shirer reports and writes about.

tinkbell13 said...

That is where you will always go wrong, why you can never hold in your own in any debate.

You do not make the distinction between experts and journalists. I see you do this all of the time. Journalists are good researchers, they are good at unearthing the facts, condensing them into a form that is easily understandable, and relaying them to the general public. Experts are getting down and dirty in universities, They create the facts that the journalists so easily skew and misinterpret. They actually do the work (Professor Evans).

You really have no idea about the research process. That is why your arguments are the rhetorical equivalent of a house of cards. You do not have a foundation because you are too lazy to do the work.

tinkbell13 said...

And, you know, what you have also failed to notice is that not one of us has denied that there was gay Nazi's. To suggest that there was not is completely insane because that is statistically impossible. What we are all laughing at you for is your inability to see through the agenda of the information and the way that they have purposely skewed this information to suit their needs. Consequently, the real punchline is that you are incapable of this because you so readily accept bad information as being feasible.

ATVLC said...

And, you know, what you have also failed to notice is that not one of us has denied that there was gay Nazi's. To suggest that there was not is completely insane because that is statistically impossible.

Even the Nazi symphasiser in the last thread didn't deny there were gay Nazi's.

JD Curtis said...

What we are all laughing at you for is your inability to see through the agenda of the information and the way that they have purposely skewed this information to suit their needs. Consequently, the real punchline is that you are incapable of this because you so readily accept bad information as being feasible

What is so lazy here is nobody wants to do the requisite works and show that their leadership was NOT disproportionately gay. I just asked if there was any information refuting it. That doesnt seem to be the case.

Yes, I did check out the Throckmorton site provided. It does little to dispell anything. It cites exactly 2 sources. One, speaks of the "Rohm purge" but doesnt mention that many of those that carried it out were said to be homosexuals themselves.

Furthermore, it's becoming is now being said that Hitler himself was a homosexual.

"The respected German historian Lothar Machtan even claims in his book that Hitler ordered the deaths of several high-ranking Nazis to prevent the secret of his homosexuality from surfacing.

He refers to scores of historical documents to support his thesis. In 1915, the young Hitler was a dispatch rider at the front in France. Years later, yet before Hitler became infamous, one of his fellow soldiers, Hans Mend, wrote in his memoirs: 'At night, Hitler lay with Schmidl, his male whore.' Schmidl, otherwise known as Ernst Schmidt, and Hitler were 'inseparable lovers' for five years, according to Machtan.

Police reports from Munich after the First World War also suggest that Hitler was pursued by police because of his sexual orientation. 'As a "brown" [fascist] activist, Hitler managed to lure many young men to his side, but not only for political reasons" Link

tinkbell13 said...

Once again, completely over your head. No shock.

tinkbell13 said...

Oh yeah genius, if me agreeing that there was gay Nazi's makes me a sympathizer, so be it. Must be good to sit in a world where you can summarize one's political sympathies based on two sentences.

ATVLC said...

No, Marchus is the sympathizer.

ATVLC said...

Correction, Marcus Wellington.
He seems to be one of those "Christian Identity" types.

Here's a random Marcus quote:
Hitler was a good Christian man carrying out God's work...
A lot of people are influenced by the jew and his writtings and he accepted the myth that somehow Hitler was bad.
Nothing can be further from the truth.
Remember the jews gave up there protection from God's wrath when they killed Jesus.
Remember?
"Then answered all the Jews and said, "His blood be on us, and on our children!" (Matthew 27)
God gave them what they wanted
.

tinkbell13 said...

Ok.... Sorry, I was snappy. I do not even pollute my eyes with reading what Marcus writes. I learned that a long time ago. I have no time for that. Funny thing is, JD bans other people for a host of reasons, allows that guy to basically spew hate speech and deface his blog, does not seem to question why a guy like that comes to his blog. He has never come to mine, and I have never seen him anywhere else. Funny thing.