Comments on: A historian’s analysis of The Pink Swastika, part 2

By: A historian’s analysis of The Pink Swastika, part 1 — Warren Throckmorton

Fri, 14 Jan 2011 17:27:29 +0000

[...] June 9 – A historian’s analysis of The Pink Swastika, part 2 [...]

By: The SPLC hate list and the Nazi card — Warren Throckmorton

The SPLC hate list and the Nazi card — Warren Throckmorton — Sun, 28 Nov 2010 06:39:28 +0000

[...] on this blog by my friend and colleague, JonDavid Wyneken, history professor at GCC (part 1 & part 2). Referring to claims made in Lively’s book, The Pink Swastika, SPLC’s Evelyn Schlatter [...]

By: Peter

Peter — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 16:00:34 +0000

Hi everybody:
Just wanted to add, I saw a documentary last night on the peat-bog mummies, and how the Nazis tried to use mummies as a part of their “archeological evidence” that the Aryans once founded civilization 10, 000 years ago.
Himmler referred to the Dutch mummies as homosexuals who had been drowned for their “disordered state”.
Of course this is but one interpretation of what most experts call sacrificial customs, and therefore it’s not archeology, but ideology.
In any case, it seriously challenges the notion that homosexuality was never or hardly mentioned by the Nazis.

By: Bryan Fischer and the Nazis: This is what I meant by vilification — Warren Throckmorton

Fri, 28 May 2010 16:26:27 +0000

[...] June 9 – A historian’s analysis of The Pink Swastika, part 2 [...]

By: Peter

Peter — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:10:44 +0000

On hardening the narrative: Escapism for the middle-classes.
I keep questioning, what is so different between such “hardening” texts and conventional “conspiracy theory”? I think the latter goes into the superlative, sometimes to the point of science fiction. The former responds to liberal discourse as it understands it. Texts like TPS actually purport to equal the playing fields in a liberal context. However, the reader must first realize that they have been unequally tipped, and here such texts fail to be convincing. I don’t think too many people are convinced that gays or aborigines have enjoyed too many rights in the past 100 years, rather than too few, or unequal rights!
I’m talking wider context here, and outside the specific texts. What they do attempt to say is that if one can link groups of people with certain judicial interests to e.g. Nazis or cannibalism, or STD viruses, then their other arguments for civil rights should be reconsidered to protect “society” at large. What is then also implied is that victimization is concocted by these groups, who are themselves perpetrators. However, that is an unsound (yet powerfully emotive) argument. Surely historical treaties and constitutions forbid collective punishments, and at least in the US “all men are created equal”. So perhaps “hardening” the narrative type texts show a degree of anti-government sentiment where current cultural constructs are reinforced through populism to the point where “out-groups” become visible symbols of disatisfation with constitutional and juristic processes. Unlike blatant hate-speech, they are usually softened by the odd sentence that highlight appeals against extremism (it’s the other side that is, after, all painted as “extreme”). Perhaps the “hardening” is escapism for the (white) middle classes. I do think that faction of global society needs a bit of an ego-boost, but going the path of how bad the world is, and how bad other groups are, is the ultimate hallmark of cult-speak.

By: Peter

Peter — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 18:29:57 +0000

Just thinking of the assertion in TPS (The Pink swastika) that homosexualists and gays want to destroy Judeo-christian civilization. I believe that Da Vinvi and Michelangelo were gay gay men of their time (well they certainly weren’t conventional heterosexualists). Despite the babble on “secret societies”, which should still rule modern religions for those who subscribe to the conspiracy theories, I LOOK AT THE SISTINE CHAPEL AND THINK – IS THIS HOW GAYS DESTROY CIVILIZATION – WITH LASTING BEAUTY? What a load of you know what.

By: Peter

Peter — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 18:10:26 +0000

I have developed quite a taste for this literature, even if not always an understanding. I’m trying to fuse it under a genre title, but finding it hard. Much of it is different from past “conspiracy theory” in that grand conspiracies are diffused, reworked and re-connected. Also, not all info is necessarily untrue (just de-contexctualized). But mainly, the people are in-groups within states, rather than any nationalistic conspiracy. The groups largely fall within a left-wing/right-wing dichotomy, with conspiracy used to typify the “other” side. I like to call it “Hardening the narrative”. I like that phrase, because the “hardening” implies an active process of using a simple dislike to create an elaborate exposition of physical and cosmic evil. The authors usually represent their own group as victimized. Well, I’ve just read “Slavery, Terrorism and Islam” by Peter Hammond (see http://www.frontline.org.za), and the strange thing is, I cannot totally dismiss it, although I also see problems with it (such as whitewashing Christian crimes against Muslims and representing Christian churches as historically unified fronts against Islam – thus glossing over Christian-on-Christian wars, such as the 30-year and 100-year wars). Well, I think thoughts which were once considered extreme in the 1980s are “hardening” in the genral populations. And what is this narrative but a framed historicism within an autiobiographical present? The authorial intro, bio, pics experiences instigate what is to follow. And autobiographical narrative is always created by significant events (nobody includes everything). These events are culturally chosen eg. in native culture names may reflect events concerning animals and nature. So when Hammond writes on Islam, or similar texts like TPS (The Pink Swastika) about homosexuals there is a degree of self-definition (justification) of the self going on too.
Perhaps a perk of internet overflow is that we can tailor-make our own prejudiced narrative these days. We can pick and choose from the vast array of the conspiracy buffet.
What is quite hypocritical and annoying is when Muslims and Christians use each other’s texts to condem homosexuality, but yet in the next book they condem each other!

By: Peter

Peter — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 03:43:11 +0000

Just re-reading the “Annotated Pink Swastika” (1997, annotated by Citizens for Civic Action, just google the titile, source online), which has also been mentioned towards the beginning of this site. This really goes a long way towards exposing the many falsities of the text. I only want to touch on where my mind has wandered, as I attempt to use the text as an example of conceptions surrounding gay masculinities in my research on HIV/Aids and idenity. The annotations and historians on this site or Wikipedia (Wikipedia-The Pink Swastika) do a much better work of responding in specific detatil than I ever could. What I find ironic is Lively’s “Introduction,” which repeats exactly my point in the above post: “I had known for a long time that it is this axiomatic that when name calling (as opposed to reasonable debate) happens, the names one calls others usually reflect the things one dislikes about oneself” (Scott Lively’s Intro, TPS 1997, p. x). Well I guess I’m glad I saw that tonight, before I plagiarize myself. Of course we can all rant and be reasonable at various times, unless we have truly become monotone and robotic due to some ideological front. Lively and Abrahms probably feel that their collection of half-truths and falsehoods are the height of “reasonable debate”. A main argument (which is also found in slanted reader critiques) is that the “homosexualist” Nazis opposed the Judeo-Christian paradigm. This issue of the Judeo-Christian paradigm is interesting, and it is also a central condition for understanding the text. I have suggested the PS and this site to several people, in the hope of getting some more responses and debate. However, most people just find it simply baffling and confusing. One can only really understand it if one comes with a belief in, or understanding of a fundamentalist leg of the contemporary conservative evangelic movement. This movemnt views Judaism and Christianity as historically harmonious world-views and connected theologies. This is certainly not the history that most people remember, which is one of Christian anti-Semitism expoused both by the early church and its propaganda of the “Jewish blood libel” and Jews as “Christ killers”, as well as protestant anti-Semitism that began with the blood-chilling statements of Martin Luther himself. Conversely, there are accusations against the Jews (and some Jewish writings indicating as much), that the Jews regarded the Christian gentiles as little more than beasts. So, to find a third enemy (the gays and homosexualists) is quite convenient for those who want to white-wash Christian/Jewish relationships as harmonious. However, most people learnt of the historical tensions and pogroms, and they would rather apologetically recognize this. Thus to come with a theory of Judeo-Christian harmony vs satanic (occult) Nazi/homosexualism is outrageous. Nazism was the culmination of secular and religious anti-Semitism, reaching back to pagan Europe (the Jews refused to worship the pagan gods) – at least this is the massive evidence of history. Therefore, to most people (that I know) the idea of Judeo-Christian is foreign. At least since Constantine, Judaism was clearly delineated from Christianity, the belief in a Trinity and eventually the paganization of the Jewish Sabbath and “Christian” holidays like Easter or Christmas. One would first have to study the recent evangelical, messianic content of people like John Hagee to understand that some Jews and Christians consider each other useful allies, and for Christians this entails a rather patronizing view of the Jewish state as ushering in their end-time prophesies. It certainly does not represent the pre-War preaching against Jews in the US, or significant factions of “Christians” like Des Griffin, who continue to insist that the Jews are out to undermine and mock Christian civilization. Strangely, both in SA and the US Jews were over-represented in anti-fascist left-wing libration movements for equality (especially gay Jews in SA), and both this proud history and the lack of any specific anti-Semitism from the gay movement makes the PS hard to swallow. Embarrasingly for Lively and Abrahms, anti-Semitic theories continue to flow from homophobic WASP Christian factions.So the actual audience for the PS is quite limited. Who knows, perhaps the Judeo-Christians also think Luther was a closet gay? For myself, Richard Dawkins effectively argues against the notion that Hitler was anything but mainstream Christian in background and effect, and that he certainly wasn’t an atheist or practicing occultist. Also, when most people think of Nazis, homosexual stereotypes simply do not come to mind. As far as the authors make a connection between film stereotypes and Nazis in their final chapter, this does not seem to have been pervasive enough to spread from the view of Nazis as suffering from “maniac machismo”. The constant trope of “gay” pornography and Nazism is undermind by the plethora of Nazisploitation film, that was marketed from the late 1960s to a distincly hetero market. Wikipedia writes on Nazi Exploitation “porn”: “The tortures inflicted are often of a sexual nature; and the prisoners, who are often female, are nude. ..The quintessential film of the genre which lanched its popularity and its typical tropes was ‘Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS’ (1974), about the buxom, nymphomaniacal dominatrix Ilsa torturing prisoners in a stalag.” (see Exploitation film-Wikipedia). If anything, gay fetishes, just like gay gender expressions follow, rather than create heterosexual norms. Lastly I was just listening to a collection of gay and lesbian music from the German period 1908-1933 (“Die Scwule Plattenkiste: Vom Hirschfeldlied zum Lila Lied”, Berliner Musenkinder, available via Bear Family Records). The songs here alone challenge many of TPS assumptions. It includes “chanson” songs from the gay scene before the Nazi oppression in 1933, including songs by queer artists about the gay Weimar lifestyle and instances where “schwul” (gay, queer) is mentioned. In the devastatingly satirical song by Friedrich Hollaender, “An Allem sind die Juden schuld”, Annemarie Hase sends up anti-Semites (1931) who blamed the Jews for the most trivial things, even if the sausage tastes like soap, and the Prince of Wales is queer – it WAS the fault of the Jews, somehow. Interesting verse about the Prince of Wales being gay (which he wasn’t), but it would have been the fault of the Jews. So there was a concept then (as with anti-Semites now) that the Jews are to blame for homosexuality! The “Hirschfeldslied” sends up the spread of Freudian theory and its sexualization of ALL ordinary human interaction (in a fun way, without references to Hirschfeld and Freud being Jews – a fact conveniantly ignored in TPS, but not by the neo-Nazis). The booklet to the CD by Raoul Konezni points out that both Hirschfeld or gay scandals from the period of Kaizerzeit-monarchy failed to popularize the gay cause at large in Weimar Germany. Hence, it was still popularly claimed in the journalist PEM’s (no other details) “Heimweh nach Kufuerstendamm” (Home-sickness for Kufuerstendamm) that mutineering sailors brought homosexuality to Germany during World War I. Wow, now that’s not in TPS! Anyway, if gays are against the Judeo-christian movement, what exactly is it, if not some post-modern oxymoron? Where did most religions come from, if not occultism? Where is the evidence that all Christians were persecuted en masse by the Nazis, or other fascists? As far as I note, various Jews and Christians have tolerated each other for periods (and fortunately largely do so now). As Abrahms argues, perhaps Jewish homosexualists must be so without specific backing from scripture, but what backing does Christianity have from Judaism to speak of a “Judeo-Christian” civilization? According to Wikipedia secular and converted Jews remain Jewish, so gay Jews remain Jews. Similarly, nothing in Christianity casts out gay Christians, or any other “sinner”. So what does this mean: gays are anti-Judeo-Christian? There is a great yearning from large segments of the gay communities to be recognized by their respective traditions. Most occultism is quite heterosexist (even original Wicca), and I am yet to read of one prominant “Satanist” who is gay and views him/herself as anti-religion per se. Therefore, to people who don’t already hate homosexuality, the text is just wierd and insane.
Luv,
Peter

By: Peter

Peter — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 19:10:20 +0000

True Warren. And that really repeats the statemant and wisdom of the Christian saviour (and possibly others-I don’t know), to paraphrase, “judge not lest you be judged”, “let him without sin cast the first stone”.
However, these kind of loaded “historical” books bring in historical confusions to the effect that these “peoples” are unreal fakes as “ethnic” identities. Anti-Semites argue that the Jews of central Europe are not the Biblical tribes but members of the obscure Khazars, homophobes highlight some innate difference between masculine gays and feminine gays, racists argue that aboriginals and South African blacks were foreign settlers from the North who displaced the true “natives”, and atheists will always argue that there was never a singular concept of Christianity. Perhaps academics are on to something when they say alterity is always defined by the “other”, and hence fractured identity is kept together by opposing a more recognizable and delineated common enemy. So these texts are a process of identity construction. (Call it also perhaps, us vs. them, in-group vs. out-group.)
So perhaps such discussions lead us to a deeper understanding of what Jeheshua may have meant – what we hate in others is really what we hate in ourselves, especially guilt, so our view of others reflects back onto our own issues of unworthiness, which we are encouraged to resolve.
Luv, Peter.

By: Warren

Warren — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 18:26:05 +0000

Peter asked:

Are there any people or a society without scandals?

Exactly, none I know of…