uganda – Page 98 – Warren Throckmorton

Kevin Abrams: The other side of The Pink Swastika

This title is a play on a 1994 article by Kevin Abrams, published in Peter LaBarbera’s Lambda Report, titled, “The Other Side of the Pink Triangle.” Abrams is co-author of The Pink Swastika and organizer of an organization called the International Committee for Holocaust Truth. This organization produced three reports with the same message as The Pink Swastika. As noted in the first paper, the group believes,

Hitler’s plans for a “1000 Year Reich,” is a “Homofascist” Conspiracy which still thrives today disguised as “gay” rights. Today’s Holocaust memorial museums are being co-opted as part of a broader homosexualist strategy.

Current American Nazis would violently take issue with this view, but that is a topic for another post.

The ICHT seems to consist of Howard Hurwitz, Judith Reisman, Christopher Barder, Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams. Hurwitz is a former school principal and heads a small group called the Family Defense Council. As far as I can tell, the FDC does not have a website but has various writings and descriptions scattered on the web (e.g., here and here).

As noted yesterday, the attempt to link Nazis and gays (as a movement) seems to have been triggered by outrage over the “gay holocaust” metaphor and a desire to prevent that metaphor from generating public support for gays in in the 1990s. Abrams piece on the pink triangle was circulated among activists during this period and brought at least one scholarly refutation. Christine Mueller of Reed College wrote a piece which examined and refuted the essential claims of the Abrams’ article. Abrams then replied with a rebuttal.

Mueller points out the massive leaps of logic and fact required to make National Socialism an invention of a cohesive homosexual plot. Here is one example:

The abuse to which he subjects Heiden’s Der Fuehrer [a book about Hitler] is particularly flagrant. To suggest Hitler’s homosexuality, for example, Abrams changes Heiden’s text: “With Roehm and Heines, Stennes helped to impose the rule of the homosexuals over the SA” to: “with Roehm and Heines, Hitler helped to impose the rule of Roehm’s exclusively homosexual clique over the SA.” (58) Abrams has Roehm writing from Bolivia that he intended “to spread the culture,” whereas in the original, he spreads “culture,” i.e. Kultur. (59) In another example, Heiden describes a factional feud inside the party, during which Goebbels, taking sides against Hitler, called him a “vain operetta queen” (60) — a play on Hitler’s popular title, “The King of Munich.” In Abrams’ rearrangement of the text, Goebbels is referring to Roehm and appears to be complaining about his homosexuality (61). Since in German the word queen (Koenigin) has

no reference to homosexuality whatsoever, this error speaks volumes for the quality of Abrams’ scholarly credentials. These selected instances must suffice to show how assiduously Abrams has doctored his quotations; it would be tedious to list them all.

What makes The Pink Swastika and other materials like it difficult to critique for the casual reader is this kind of revisionism. Quotes are slightly altered; or even given properly but then the meaning is altered out of historical context. Readers interested in the details should read Abrams’ initial article, the Mueller critique and then Abrams’ rebuttal. The essence of Abrams arguments comes back to the quote above:

Hitler’s plans for a “1000 Year Reich,” is a “Homofascist” Conspiracy which still thrives today disguised as “gay” rights. Today’s Holocaust memorial museums are being co-opted as part of a broader homosexualist strategy.

Mueller’s response points out the errors of fact and context which are driven by confirmation bias and apparent outrage over a perception that another undeserving group was appropriating the holocaust metaphor.

Prior posts in this series:

May 28 – Scott Lively wants off SPLC hate group list

May 31 – Eliminating homosexuality: Modern Uganda and Nazi Germany

June 3 – Before The Pink Swastika

June 4 – Kevin Abrams: The other side of The Pink Swastika

June 8 – A historian’s analysis of The Pink Swastika, part 1

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

June 11 – American Nazi movement and homosexuality: How pink is their swastika?

June 15 – Nazi movement rallies against gays in Springfield, MO

June 17 – Does homosexuality lead to fascism?

June 23 – The Pink Swastika and Friedrich Nietzsche

List of posts on Uganda and The Pink Swastika

Before The Pink Swastika

To set a stage for an examination of The Pink Swastika, I want to review a bit the context for Lively’s arguments regarding gays and Nazism. In 1998, Arlene Stein, sociologist at the University of Oregon published a paper in Sociological Perspectives which pointed out the use of the Holocaust metaphor by both the right and the left. She noted that some gay activist groups have appropriated the victim status associated with the Holocaust and that far right groups have attempted to brand gays with the bad brush of the Nazis. Who is right?

Over the next month, I will be posting information which I hope will shed light on the issues. With the expert help of history professor and Grove City College colleague, Jon David Wynekin, I hope to demonstrate that gays were indeed victims of the Nazi ideology, even though some of the early Nazis were themselves quite likely homosexuals. Hitler used them as long as they served his evil purposes. They were not victims to the degree the Jews and other groups were but as Gunter Grau says about homosexuals in the book, Hidden Holocaust?,

They were all victims, whether they were interned in a concentration camp, imprisoned by a court or spared actual persecution. For ultimately, the racist Nazi system curtailed the life-opportunities of each and every homosexual man and woman. (p. 7).

It is worth pointing out that the book by Grau cited above is also cited by Scott Lively in The Pink Swastika. Lively cites the Grau book six times by my count. However, there are 104 documents in the Hidden Holocaust? Lively had to skip over sections which demonstrated clear victimization of homosexuals to get to the parts he cited. In uncoming posts, I will quote more from Grau’s book.

According to Stein’s 1998 paper, references to the holocaust theme appeared at various times starting during the 1970s gay liberation movement. Eventually, anti-gay Christian right advocates flipped the metaphor accusing gays of seeking to corrupt society and impose sexual lawlessness. In the early 1990s, anti-gay rights ballot measures were placed before citizens in various states. At the time, Scott Lively was Communications Director for the Oregon Citizens Alliance. According to Stein, both sides traded charges of Nazism. When gays accused the OCA of Nazi intent, the OCA turned it around and made similar claims. Stein documents instances, writing

During these initiative campaigns, the Christian right at times deployed rhetoric and imagery that echoed European anti-Semitism. The Oregon Citizens Alliance film, The Gay Agenda, closely resembled the 1940 Nazi propaganda film The Eternal Jew. Echoing traditional anti-Semitic propaganda which deliberately inflated the power of Jewish bankers, international Jewish conspiracies, and so forth, conservatives suggested that lesbians and gay men have higher incomes than others. A cartoon published by the Oregon Citizens Alliance showed a gay man manipulating the strings of the government and the economy. It was, one gay writer pointed out, “a virtual copy of a Nazi cartoon,” one that replaced “the stooped, hooknosed puppeteer with a fresh-faced gym boy (Solomon 1997:7).” At the same time, the OCA challenged the right of lesbians and gay men to align themselves with the victims of the Holocaust. In the 1994 campaign for ballot measure 13, which sought to deny civil rights to lesbians and gays, a rightwing group calling itself “Jews and Friends of Holocaust Victims” purchased space in the Official Oregon Voters Pamphlet (1994:79) arguing in favor of the ballot measure:

Who’s a Nazi? Americans are watching history repeat as homosexuals promote the BIG LIE that everyone who opposes them is harmful to society. It’s nothing new. They used this tactic in Germany against the Jews…Don’t buy the BIG LIE. Opponents of minority status for homosexuals are not “Nazis” or “bigots”. And homosexuals aren’t “victims” of your common sense morality. Protect our children!

Oregon in the early 1990s is the immediate context for The Pink Swastika. The arguments and misuse of history in that book were used in the political battles in Oregon. Here is the text of Ballot Measure 9 which failed in 1992:

1) This state shall not recognize any categorical provision such as “sexual preference,” and similar phrases that include homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism or masochism. Quotas, minority status, affirmative action, or any similar concepts shall not apply to these forms of conduct, nor shall government promote these behaviors.

2) State, regional and local governments and their properties and monies shall not be used to promote, encourage, or facilitate homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism or masochism.

3) State, regional and local governments and their departments, agencies and other entities, including specifically the state Department of Higher Education and the public schools, shall assist in setting a standard for Oregon’s youth that recognizes homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism and masochism as abnormal, wrong, unnatural, and perverse and that these behaviors are to be discouraged and avoided.

On that same day in Colorado, a similar measure passed which was later ruled unconstitutional in Romers vs. Evans. The Ballot Measure 9 link above is to a website for a documentary regarding the initiative. Below is the trailer for the video (Scott Lively is at 53 seconds into the clip).

In my opinion, the arguments used in The Pink Swastika were in direct response to victimization rhetoric used in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Specifically, in Oregon, the OCA needed a counterpoint to their ideological opponents. As I noted before this rhetorical situation is being played out in Uganda now with Scott Lively as an instigator.

Next, I will discuss Kevin Abrams, Scott Lively’s co-author and his work in revising the historical record regarding homosexuality and Nazism. Before The Pink Swastika, Abrams published a paper in Peter LaBarbera’s now extinct Lambda Report called “The other side of the pink triangle” which generated a flurry of activity at the time. Although I cannot find that article, there was a lengthy rebuttal and counterpoint from Abrams that I will provide. Along the way, look for contributions from Dr. Wynekin and a page devoted to this topic.

Eliminating homosexuality: Modern Uganda and Nazi Germany

Scott Lively has made a career of drawing parallels from Nazi Germany to modern homosexuality. He has gone around the world with the message that homosexuals were responsible for Nazi totalitarianism. Throughout the next month or so, I will provide counter arguments to Lively’s thesis.

In this post, however, I raise the thesis that anti-gay groups in places like Uganda (encouraged by the American led conference in March, 2009 where Lively was one of the speakers) use rhetoric that is disturbingly akin to rhetoric used by Nazis regarding homosexuality. First, examine these developments in Uganda. From an Ugandan news report today:

‘Investigate homosexuality’

Sunday, 31st May, 2009

KAMPALA – The Peoples Development Party (PDP) wants the Government to establish an independent commission of inquiry on homosexual activities to eliminate the practice.

Addressing journalists on Thursday, party president Abed Bwanika said the evil is spreading to every section of the public and that the Government needed to make critical intervention.

He called upon church leaders to guide the country on the matter and said some NGOs were supporting people involved in the act.

This call for an “independent commission” is similar to the kinds of recommendations made back in March by a group led by the Family Life Network’s Stephen Langa. At a meeting following up the ex-gay conference in Uganda, sponsored by Langa’s group, with presentations by Scott Lively, Don Schmierer and Caleb Brundidge, these ideas were considered:

The laws on homosexuality are weak, hence the need to strengthen these laws.

Parents were encouraged to participant in law making decisions in Uganda so that to strengthen the laws on homosexuality.

To establish a unit at Police to deal with homosexuality.

Homosexuality is an abomination; it is evil and should be dealt with

strongly.

During the reactions a prominent pastor also said that they have been talking with an ex-gay activist who has given them a five year plan for dealing with the gay agenda in Uganda. And they have submitted this plan to the ministry concerned, that they await reactions.

Another participant told the audience that parliament is drafting a new law that will be tough on homosexuals.

The message is clear from these anti-gay groups: laws should be passed “that will be tough on homosexuals.” Homosexuality is already a crime in Uganda; these people want to make it even more difficult.

At any rate, there is a disturbing parallel with the Nazis but it isn’t with the homosexuals. Rather, it is more apparent with the manner in which the Ugandan government is responding to homosexuality. Note the rhetoric used in Uganda to describe the crack down on open homosexuality.

Then read this report from The US Holocaust Memorial Museum which describes the Nazi approach to homosexuality.

On June 28, 1935, the Ministry of Justice revised Paragraph 175. The revisions provided a legal basis for extending Nazi persecution of homosexuals. Ministry officials expanded the category of “criminally indecent activities between men” to include any act that could be construed as homosexual. The courts later decided that even intent or thought sufficed.

On October 26, 1936, Himmler formed within the Security Police the Reich Central Office for Combating Abortion and Homosexuality. Josef Meisinger, executed in 1947 for his brutality in occupied Poland, led the new office. The police had powers to hold in protective custody or preventive arrest those deemed dangerous to Germany’s moral fiber, jailing indefinitely–without trial–anyone they chose. In addition, homosexual prisoners just released from jail were immediately re-arrested and sent to concentration camps if the police thought it likely that they would continue to engage in homosexual acts.

From 1937 to 1939, the peak years of the Nazi persecution of homosexuals, the police increasingly raided homosexual meeting places, seized address books, and created networks of informers and undercover agents to identify and arrest suspected homosexuals. On April 4, 1938, the Gestapo issued a directive indicating that men convicted of homosexuality could be incarcerated in concentration camps.

In Uganda, lists of people suspected to be gay have been included in tabloids, and people are calling for the government to create a commission to eliminate homosexuality. In Nazi Germany, the commission was called “the Reich Central Office for Combating Abortion and Homosexuality.” What will it be called in Uganda?

The head of the Reich office charged with eliminating homosexuality was war criminal Josef Meisinger. In a speech in 1937, he had this to say about the political reasons to combat homosexuality.

If one is really to appreciate the hidden danger of homosexuality, it is no longer enough to consider it as before from a narrowly criminal viewpoint. Because it is now so enormously widespread, it has actually developed into a phenomenon of the most far-reaching consequence for the survival of the nation and state. For this reason, however, homosexuality can no longer be regarded simply from the viewpoint of criminal investigation; it has become a problem with political importance. This being so, it cannot be the task of the police to investigate homosexuality scientifically. At the most it can take account of scientific conclusions in its work. Their task is to ascertain homosexual trends and their damaging effects, so as to avert the danger that this phenomenon represents for nation and state. No one says to the police: you shouldn’t arrest this thief because he might have acquired kleptomania. Similarly, once we have recognized that a homosexual is an enemy of the state, we shan’t ask the police—and much less the Political Police—whether he has acquired his vice or whether he was born with it. I should mention here that experience has shown beyond doubt that only a vanishingly small number of homosexuals have a truly homosexual inclination, that most of them by far have been quite normally active at one time or another and then turned to this area simply because they were sated with life’s pleasures or for various other reasons such as fear of venereal diseases. I should also say that, with firm education and order, and regulated labor, a great number of homosexuals who have come to the attention of the authorities have been taught to become useful members of the national community.

In Uganda among Christian groups and government leaders, and encouraged by Lively, homosexuality is considered the root of society’s evils. Two of the American “experts,” Lively and Brundidge supported the notion of toughening laws against homosexuality with compulsory “treatment” considered an option. Treatment protocols are being readied now.

Scott Lively encouraged the Uganda church leaders to view the tiny gay movement in Uganda as related in some way to the same movement that propelled the Nazis to power in Germany. However, if one looks for similarities in rhetoric and policy positions, one can more readily find them by noting how the the goverment in power then in Germany and now in Uganda regarded homosexuality. InThe Pink Swastika, Lively discounts the Nazis’ public rhetoric and policies as a means of distracting attention to the homosexuality in the ranks of Nazi leaders. What could the same rhetoric and public policy objectives mean in Uganda?

I think any parallels between Nazi Germany then and homosexuality now are absurd, including the similaries in rhetoric I point out here. However, those who want to make sinister linkages between Nazi Germany and gays people must be prepared to explain why more obvious similarities, such as noted here, are not indicative of equally nefarious intents.

Scott Lively wants off SPLC hate group list

The Southern Poverty Law Center reports today on Scott Lively’s efforts to get off the SPLC hate group list.

As the U.S. envoy for the international anti-gay hate group Watchmen on the Walls and co-author of The Pink Swastika, a history that falsely asserts gays masterminded the Holocaust, Scott Lively has said some pretty ugly things. But now he says he wants to show the world a kinder, gentler side.

In early February, The North Country Times, a California weekly newspaper, reported that Lively “fervently wants to get off the Southern Poverty Law Center’s [hate group] list,” because the “characterization of him as a ‘hater’ is especially troubling given his profession as a pastor: a Christian shepherd, a man of God.” (The SPLC lists Lively’s Abiding Truth Ministries, in Temecula, Calif., as a hate group.)

“The last thing you want to be called as a Christian is a hater,” Lively said.

Lively chronicles his efforts to negotiate with the SPLC on the blog Hatewatch Watch. As recently as late last month, Mr. Lively contacted the SPLC to complain about Perez Hilton. and a Huffington Post columnist who essentially agrees with him about gays and the Nazis.

So really it is not clear if he wants off the list or just more company.

Stay tuned for more on The Pink Swastika.

Ugandan parliament petitioned to toughen laws against homosexuality

This just in from Uganda Pulse:

Members of civil society organizations (CSOs) have today petitioned Parliament, calling for a select committee to investigate the impact of homosexuality in Uganda and to pass stern laws to punish people involved in acts of homosexuality.
The petition, signed by over 50,000 Ugandans, was presented to the Deputy Speaker of Parliament, Rebecca Kadaga, by the Executive Director of Family Life Network, Stephen Langa.
Langa, who was accompanied by Pastor Martin Ssempa, Deputy Mufti, Sheikh Abdul Musisi and other civil society members, notes that homosexuals have continued to roam the country freely promoting the vice yet homosexuality is illegal according to the Constitution and the Penal; Code Act.
He says that the homosexuals have penetrated into schools and distributed reading tools that promote the vice, citing United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) which was recently put in the spotlight for distributing a book that promotes homosexuality without approval from the Ministry of Education.
Langa revealed that the CSOs have submitted a protest letter to UNICEF expressing disappointment in their actions and have called upon them to apologize to Ugandans and also retrieve the books that were distributed to schools in about 30 districts.
Deputy Speaker, Rebecca Kadaga, commended the organizations for their solidarity against homosexuality, adding that Parliament will look into current legislation to ensure that they are strengthened to penalize acts of homosexuality.
Kadaga promised to push for the amendment of Article 31 of the Constitution which prohibits homosexual marriages. Langa had earlier noted that the article prohibits gay marriages but not the actions.

I wonder what would have happened if the three Americans who went to Uganda in March would have called for decriminalization of homosexuality? I wonder what might have happened if those three Americans said we will not speak at your conference unless we are allowed to advocate for freedom of conscience? I wonder what would happen if American Christian groups made direct contact with the Ugandan church to urge calm and rational policy? If the laws are toughened, I wonder what will happen to religious people who speak in favor in decriminalization there? Will their speech be free?
Maybe nothing would/will change but I just wonder.