Monday, June 02, 2008

Berlin Monument Upholds Homosexuals as Nazi Victims - but research suggests Nazi Party steeped in homosexuality

Berlin unveiled a monument yesterday to honor homosexuals as victims of Nazi persecution, despite a growing body of research suggesting that many prominent Nazi authorities, including Adolph Hitler, were themselves actively homosexual. A report yesterday from the Associated Press on the new Berlin concrete monument, which features a video of two men kissing, claimed that up to 15,000 active homosexuals were killed in Nazi concentration camps. "This is symptomatic for a society... that did not abolish unjust verdicts, but partially continued to implement them; a society which did not acknowledge a group of people as victims, only because they chose another way of life," said actively homosexual Berlin mayor Klaus Wowereit.

The latest push to portray active homosexuals as victims of systematic Nazi attack contrasted with a recently growing body of evidence indicating wide-scale Nazi embrace of homosexuality. In her 2006 study “The Pink Swastika as Holocaust Revisionist History,” renowned expert on sexuality Judith A. Reisman of the Institute for Media Education revealed that the 1995 “The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party” by Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams demonstrates that many key actively homosexual Nazi officials protected many homosexual individuals from harm. “Lively and Abrams… document the homosexual movement as the agents that ensconced National Socialism (the Nazi party) and Adolf Hitler, thus triggering a holocaust which engulfed all of Europe,” wrote Resiman.

While Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” degraded Jews, Marxists, Negroes, Chinese, Arabs, women, and Eastern Europeans, the Fuhrer had no negative remarks for homosexuality. Instead, Hitler chose actively homosexual men as influential youth leaders.

An actively homosexual teacher, Karl Fischer, founded the “Wandervogel” boys’ group that became the Hitler Youth in 1933 under renowned pederast, Hans Blueher. Similarly, convicted Nazi pederast Edmund Heines was given leadership over Schiller Youth. “Other homosexual and bisexual leaders cited by these and other authors included Bladur von Schirach, Hitler Youth Leader; Hans Frank, Hitler’s Minister of Justice; Wilhelm Bruckner, Hitler’s adjutant; Walther Funk, Hitler’s Minister of Economics; friend and advisor Hermann Goering, Hitler’s second in command (who dressed “in drag and wore camp make-up”),” added Reisman.

“The Pink Swastika” convincingly undermined comparisons between the persecution of Jews and of homosexuals, contended Resiman. “Lively and Abrams report that basic mathematics refute the idea that homosexuals were killed for being homosexual. If homosexuals were treated like Jews, 2-3 million out of 2-3 million German homosexuals should have lost their businesses, their jobs, their property, their possessions and most should have lost their lives.” “Homosexuals would have been forced to wear pink triangles on their clothing in the streets, they would have had their passports stamped with an “H,” barred from travel, work, shopping, public appearances without their armbands, and we would have thousands of pictures of pink triangle graffiti saying ‘kill the faggots,’ and the like.”

Lively and Abrams were not the first to identify the homosexuality that permeated the highest Nazi ranks. “Adolf Hitler’s homosexuality has been demonstrated beyond question by German historian Lothar Machtan’s massively researched new book, The Hidden Hitler….But the crucial role within the Nazi movement of the most vicious and lawless types of homosexuality, which Machtan also shows, is even more important than Hitler’s personal preference,” Resiman quoted Dr. Nathaniel S. Lehrman, former clinical director of Kingsboro Psychiatric Center.

Resiman also noted that the work of Lively and Abrams contains important lessons about the Nazi-like tactics of the contemporary “gay” agenda. “The Pink Swastika finds that serious ‘Judeo-Christians’ are the likely targets of this resurgent homosexual movement. In 1934, all German school children were receiving textual, verbal and cinematic classroom indoctrination into Fascism.”

“The libraries purged anti Nazi books and teachers, just as our libraries are purging anti-homosexuality books and teachers. And, like our current status, by 1936, sexuality advocate, Wilheim Reich warned that the wide availability and juvenile use of pornography was creating heterophobic German children--boys and girls who feared and distrusted the opposite sex.”

“The Pink Swastika should be studied in all our schools, primary to university,” concluded Resiman. “Historical research on Nazi homosexual power should be pouring out from our institutions of higher learning. That universities are captured by “politically correct” homosexual/feminism only proves how dangerous fraud in science has been and continues to be for our nation.”


There have of course been attacks on the "pink Swastika" research by Leftists but it is an uphill battle for them. In addition to such well-known homosexuals as Roehm and Schirach at the top of the Nazi hierarchy there were others such as Heines -- whom Shirer ("The Rise and fall of the Third Reich") describes thus: "Edmund Heines, the Obergruppenfuehrer of Silesia... a notorious homosexual" (p. 307). Silesia is of course a major industrial area of great historic significance so command of the Nazis there was no mean post. Could a "notorious homosexual" get a prominent party job anywhere else in the world at that time? I think not. So Nazism did in its times embody an exceptional degree of "gay lib". Arguably it was in fact the first flowering of "gay-lib"!

Affirmative Action and Blood Guilt

The heinous idea of blood guilt is alive and well today in the United States. Yes, the same kind of fundamental mindset that characterized the policies of the governments of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union is today advocated by proponents of affirmative action.

The idea of blood guilt is not new; it has recurred time and again in societies from the ancient times to the present day. Those who believe in blood guilt think that an individual may be held liable for the transgressions of his kin - however broadly defined. In the Soviet Union, this idea translated into denying the children and grandchildren of the expropriated bourgeoisie admission to universities or imprisoning them. During the Stalin years, millions of people were deported to hard labor camps and even executed for no other crime than being related to "enemies of the people." Sometimes entire nationalities - including Chechens and Ukrainians - were hunted, deported, and decimated because some among them opposed the Soviet regime's policies.

In Nazi Germany, the legal concept of "Sippenhaft" or kin liability led the government to arrest, imprison, and often execute the family members of political dissidents. This is not to mention that anybody not belonging to the "pure Aryan race" was considered automatically evil and an enemy of the German people for no reason other than his blood and ancestry.

Although the penalties under it are less grievous, affirmative action today works on the same basic premise. A "white" American today may be denied admission to a university or a job for which he is qualified if his great-great-grandfather happened to be a slaveholder - as if the possible transgressions of a man he never knew might have at all stained his moral character. But he need not even be a descendant of a slaveholder to be subject to this punishment. His ancestors might have lived in the Northern states and might even have fought to abolish slavery during the Civil War. Or they might have immigrated to the United States long after the Emancipation and thus have had no direct contact with slavery at all. Under the premise of blood guilt, this man - who has not done one thing to infringe on the rights of any African-American individual - will still be punished, because there exists an extremely indirect genetic connection between him and white slaveholders in the American South during the Antebellum period.

On the other hand, under the premise of blood guilt, an African-American man alive today, who has never been a slave, is entitled to preferential treatment just because his ancestors might have suffered under slavery. It is also possible that his ancestors have never been slaves and were among the free blacks living in the North, or immigrated to the U. S. from Africa after the Emancipation. This does not matter to those who believe in blood guilt; this man's loose genetic affiliation with former slaves renders him entitled to being compensated as a "victim"- unless, of course, he challenges the entire premise of blood guilt and insists on being treated as an individual person, in which case he is denounced as an "Uncle Tom" and a "race traitor."

It is quite curious that people who like to think of themselves as "progressive" and free of superstitions would fall prey to this most backward and most absurd superstition of all - the one that has spilled the blood of the most innocents throughout history. Every rigid caste system, every tribal war, every genocide throughout history was made possible by the attitude that people can be punished simply because of their race, ethnicity, class, or family. Those who today call themselves "liberal" might be rightly appalled at a social structure where everyone is assigned a fixed "place" on the basis of birth - but many of them oddly fail to recognize that affirmative action is founded on the exact same principle.

The alternative to blood guilt has been well known ever since the American founding. It is individual self-responsibility - the idea that each person has rights as an individual and is bound as an individual to respect the rights of others. If he violates the rights of others, it is he and he alone who must be punished. If his rights have been infringed, it is he and he alone who is entitled to compensation. A father's transgressions do not render his children any more legally or morally culpable than they otherwise would have been. If one person of a certain racial or ethnic group commits murder or genocide, this has no bearing on the other members. This idea has largely freed America from the racially and ethnically motivated atrocities that have plagued virtually all of the world prior to the American founding and continue to persist in parts of the world today.

It is imperative for all civilized, sane, and rational people to reject the barbaric idea of blood guilt and to purge it from all existing institutions. Affirmative action must be abolished and replaced by the evaluation of each individual on the basis of his personal merits alone.


BOOK REVIEW of "Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population" by Matthew Connelly


In the 20th century, a global network of colluding activists, institutions, and governments sought to engineer solutions to various real and perceived social problems by, as Matthew Connelly puts it in his new book, planning "other people's families." In its most egregious expression, this movement led to the forced sterilization of millions of people around the world, including many thousands in the U.S., on the grounds that they were - genetically or otherwise - unfit. California alone had sterilized 7,500 people by 1931, and the practice continued in other states up until the 1970s.

This movement also, through philanthropies and government-directed foreign aid, spent billions of dollars distributing sometimes-dangerous birth-control devices and funding abortion clinics throughout much of the developing world, even though fertility rates across the globe were already plummeting. Connelly writes: "The great tragedy of population control, the fatal misconception, was to think that one could know other people's interests better than they knew it themselves. . . . The essence of population control, whether it targeted migrants, the `unfit,' or families that seemed either too big or too small, was to make rules for other people without having to answer to them."

Connelly, a professor of history at Columbia University and the youngest of eight children in a Catholic family, offers a new history of the population-control movement that is evenhanded and sensitive to historical context, if also naive in its ideal of libertarianism in population matters. His chief scholarly claim is to have been the first to explore the relevant archives of the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, the Population Council, International Planned Parenthood, the World Bank, key U.N. agencies, and other institutions deeply involved in efforts to curb world population growth. From this research, he emerges with the conclusion that while no formal, genocidal conspiracy existed, "some of the leading protagonists did, in fact, act in underhanded ways, pretending to be advancing one agenda while secretly harboring another."

Unfortunately, Connelly's heavy reliance on archival material from these institutions has led him to write a narrative that for the most part depicts the population-control movement as an endless series of international conferences - from the sixth "International Neo-Malthusian and Birth Control Conference" in New York in 1925 to the 1994 U.N. "Cairo Conference" - at which various factions engaged in doctrinal debate. This institutional perspective is important, but often makes for dull reading and misses the deeper psychology behind the actors in the movement. Connelly does discuss, of course, the large personalities involved, such as Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger and Population Bomb author Paul Ehrlich. But their stories appear in fragments throughout the book and Connelly makes little effort to sum up or judge their underlying motives and character.

For example, while discussing how the Holocaust affected public opinion on population matters, Connelly mentions Sanger's view only in passing. Quoting a 1950 address to Planned Parenthood by Sanger, he lets drop that this icon of today's feminist Left "pointed to the death camps as conclusive proof of the `widespread devaluation of human lives' and the urgent need for policies to improve them, `beginning with the sterilization of those with dysgenetic qualities of body and mind.'" Was this, truly, the meaning of the Holocaust for Sanger, and if so, what does it say about her?

Connelly does, however, get the broad outlines of the population-control movement right. It originated in the late 19th century, when Western elites began noticing their own falling fertility and the increasing population of "the unfit" (both at home and in Western colonies). Some, like Theodore Roosevelt, responded to the threat of what he and many others called "race suicide" by exhorting educated women to have more children. Later, many Western governments, including Germany and Italy under fascism, turned to, and today are returning to, pro-natalist policies, such as offering large family allowances and "baby bonuses."

But during most of the 20th century, the dominant strain of the population-control movement rejected pro-natalism and embraced a negative eugenics. In a passage Connelly does not quote, for example, Sanger wrote in 1922: "The lack of balance between the birth-rate of the `unfit' and the `fit,' admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes." Rather than haranguing the well-to-do about their small families, Sanger argued that "the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective. Possibly drastic and Spartan methods may be forced upon American society if it continues complacently to encourage the chance and chaotic breeding that has resulted from our stupid, cruel sentimentalism."

Into this mix of motives came two other strains of ideology, particularly as the century wore on: a libertarian strain of feminism emphasizing reproductive rights, and a Malthusian form of environmentalism. Sanger, when she wasn't talking about the need to improve "the race," justified birth control as a right of women to control their own bodies. She sometimes did this in the same sentence, as in: "Only upon a free, self-determining motherhood can rest any unshakable structure of racial betterment."

Meanwhile, as world population doubled, then doubled again in the 20th century, figures such as Paul Ehrlich justified negative eugenics (the effort to weed out "undesirable" traits) in the name of avoiding world famine and preserving the planet, including the vanishing habitats of his beloved butterflies. Responding to Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi's policy of coercing millions of her countrymen to undergo vasectomies in the Seventies, Ehrlich regretted that Western governments had not done more to facilitate the campaign. "We should have volunteered logistical support in the form of helicopters, vehicles, and surgical instruments," Ehrlich wrote (in another comment not quoted by Connelly). "We should have sent doctors to aid in the program by setting up centers for training para-medical personnel to do vasectomies. Coercion? Perhaps, but coercion in a good cause."

Connelly goes easy on Ehrlich and others who share his Malthusian mindset. Indeed, he proclaims what is (to me at least) an obnoxious moral equivalence between supporters of forced sterilization and social and religious conservatives opposed to birth control and abortion. But he does score two strong points against the negative-eugenics movement that are highly relevant to how we should think about population control and the environment.

One is that fertility rates were in steep decline in both the developed and the developing world long before the introduction of modern birth-control devices. Indeed, in countries such as Brazil, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, in which contraceptives were difficult to obtain, birthrates fell just as quickly as in countries that made massive efforts to suppress population growth.

Demographers now agree that human beings have long known how to control their own fertility and have done so when it made individual economic sense - as it does now for most of the world's inhabitants. Today's global decline in birthrates results primarily from the rapid urbanization of the Third World and the increasing educational attainment of women, both of which have dramatically raised the direct and opportunity cost of children. Also at work, many demographers say, is the diffusion of individualistic, and by extension anti-natalist, values through television and other global media.

(An aside: If birthrates were plummeting around the world, why did population grow so much in the 20th century? Mostly it was because of dramatic reductions in infant mortality, especially in the developing world. But while we are still far from eliminating infant mortality, its incidence is already low enough that continuing progress on that front adds little to population. This, combined with continuing falling birthrates, particularly in developing countries, leaves global population aging rapidly and on a course toward absolute decline by as early as mid-century.)

The other important point Connelly makes is that while growth of human population is not the problem many people once thought it was, growth in the world's number of cars, air-conditioned houses, and other sources of energy demand and pollution undeniably is a challenge, and population controllers are in large part responsible. As families have grown smaller throughout most of the world, their standard of living has increased, and so too has their environmental footprint. Not only does a population of small families and childless individuals require more housing units per person, the resources freed up by low fertility typically increase per capita consumption of everything else, from beef to oil and coal. Nowhere is this truer than in the two countries where population controllers had the most influence: India and China. In India, fertility rates dropped 22 percent between 1990 and 2003 and are now below replacement levels in the southern provinces. At the same time per capita carbon-dioxide emissions increased by 50 percent as more and more Indians achieved Western living standards. Meanwhile, China, with its famous "one child" policy, saw its per capita CO2 emissions increase by 53 percent, according to the World Bank. Each of those single-child "little emperors" who constitute the rising generation in China produces far more pollution than his peasant forebears.

Those who today point to the specter of global warming in hopes of reinvigorating the negative-eugenics movement of the last century should be careful what they wish for. The first-order effect of Zero Population Growth, let alone negative population growth, would most likely be a further increase in greenhouse-gas emissions, as individuals diverted investment in children into higher personal consumption. At the same time, the specter of global aging and population decline, particularly in the West, will undoubtedly strengthen the voices of those on the other side of the population-control debate who have long sought stricter limits on birth control and abortion. Consistent with the long history of mankind, population control is not about to go away.


Australia: More contempt for the Bible from the Church of England

Though I think it is more the Church of the Environment these days

VICTORIA'S first female bishop has vowed to listen, lead and stand as an example of what women can achieve. The consecration of the Rev Barbara Darling, the second female bishop in Australian history, was marked with loud applause from hundreds of supporters at Melbourne's St Paul's Cathedral yesterday.

Bishop Darling said she hoped her new role would provide inspiration for others. "I hope it means that, like having a new woman to be a governor-general or deputy prime minister, there are openings for women in many different areas," Bishop Darling said. "I want to be able to walk alongside people, to hear them, to listen to them, to join in their joys and their sorrows."

Bishop Darling said the long road to recognition for women in the church had been beneficial. "It's been helpful that it's taken a while because those of us in ministry have had the experience." Bishop Kay Goldsworthy - who became Australia's first female bishop St George's Cathedral in Perth in May - attended the service.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For times when is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.


No comments: