Anti-Communist Rockers in Cuba

Viva La-Anti-Revolution

A very interesting documentary on the alternative rock scene in Cuba and how these musicians are thrown in jail for their lyrics. While punk rockers here are singing anti-Bush lyrics and showing movies in-between sets that are conspiratorial in nature – all while wearing Che Guevara shirts and lauding socialist ideals (universal health-care)… these musicians in Cuba are speaking out against real tyrannies and censorship and going to jail for it.

Hot Air (props)

Olbermann Lied While Talking About Lying

Olbermann Caught Lying

The below is brought to you from:

Radar Online

Olbermann Watch

Hot Air

Olbermann All Wet on Waterboarding

Keith Olbermann got a lot of attention for Monday night's "special comment" on waterboarding, in which he described the White House as "a criminal conspiracy to cover the ass of George W. Bush" and told the astonishing tale, first reported by ABC News last week, of former Department of Justice official Daniel Levin. Charged with rewriting the Administration's legal position on torture, Levin actually voluntarily underwent waterboarding in 2004 to better understand the procedure before assessing its legality. Here's what Olbermann said Levin concluded: "Waterboarding, he said, is torture. Legally it is torture. Practically it is torture. Ethically it is torture. And he wrote it down." Then he got fired, naturally.

It's stirring rhetoric from Olbermann, as usual—only it's almost certainly 100 percent not true!

According to the ABC News report Olbermann cited, Levin did not decide that waterboarding by the U.S. is torture; he just thought we were doing it wrong. "Levin, who refused to comment for this story, concluded waterboarding could be illegal torture unless performed in a highly limited way and with close supervision," wrote ABC News's Jan Crawford Greenburg and Ariane de Vogue (emphasis added). "And, sources told ABC News, he believed the Bush Administration had failed to offer clear guidelines for its use." In other words, the man whom Olbermann believes "should have a statue in his honor in Washington right now" for making a liar of Bush about torture apparently thinks that, in principle, waterboarding is perfectly legal.

Which makes him any different from Dick Cheney how, exactly?

A Professorial Slip-Up

What?!

Lamarck, Haeckel, and Darwin (a motley crew)

In Class Debacle

I think the professor was just using a bad example possibly due to lack of sleep. It sounds like he is supporting or making an argument for Lamarckism, which was rejected many years ago, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt.

Definitions

Let’s define what Lamarckism is by looking to a couple dictionary definitions:

Random House Dictionary

• the Lamarckian theory that characteristics acquired by habit, use, or disuse may be passed on to future generations through inheritance.

American Heritage Dictionary

• A theory of biological evolution holding that species evolve by the inheritance of traits acquired or modified through the use or disuse of body parts.

Simple enough. Now let’s throw in an encyclopedia definition:

Lamarckism or Lamarckian evolution refers to the once widely accepted idea that an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring (also known as based on heritability of acquired characteristics or "soft inheritance"). It is named for the French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who incorporated the action of soft inheritance into his evolutionary theories and is often incorrectly cited as the founder of soft inheritance.

Wikipedia

I - again - extend the benefit of the doubt that the professor was just "thought tied" or tired from his teaching schedule when he mentioned what seems to be an outmoded theory. Now let’s watch some students interact with the professor and then the professor making his impossible claim. Take note the audio is horrible, turn down the volume a bit; and there is a small blank spot at the beginning of the clip:

Darwinian Evolution & Lamarckism

Charles Darwin added this Lamarckian theory to his sixth-edition of The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life (yes, Darwin was a racist) to make the argument for the Giraffe’s neck getting longer. I have debated this issue with evolutionary minded university students over the years, so when I heard the professor mention what can only be described as Lamarckism… well… I couldn’t resist.

Lamarck and Darwin

Once scientists began thinking about animals in terms of evolution, the giraffe became a welcome—and seemingly straightforward—example. It is as if the giraffe's long neck was begging to be explained by evolutionary theorists.

One of the first evolutionary thinkers, Jean-Baptist Lamarck, offered a short description of how the giraffe evolved in his major work, Philosophie Zoologique, which was published in 1809:

• It is interesting to observe the result of habit in the peculiar shape and size of the giraffe: this animal, the tallest of the mammals, is known to live in the interior of Africa in places where the soil is nearly always arid and barren, so that it is obliged to browse on the leaves of trees and to make constant efforts to reach them. From this habit long maintained in all its race, it has resulted that the animal's forelegs have become longer than its hind-legs, and that its neck is lengthened to such a degree that the giraffe, without standing up on its hind-legs, attains a height of six meters. (Quoted in Gould 2002, p. 188)

In Lamarck's view, we must imagine a situation in the past where the best food for browsing mammals was higher up in trees, the lower vegetation having been eaten by other animals. The ancestors of the giraffe—which we should imagine like antelopes or deer—needed to adapt their behavior to this changing environment. As Lamarck wrote, "variations in the environment induce changes in the needs, habits and modes of life of living beings ... these changes give rise to modifications or developments in their organs and the shape of their parts" (p. 179). So Lamarck imagined that over generations the habit of continually reaching for the higher browse produced in the giraffe's ancestors a lengthening of the legs and neck.

A little over sixty years later, Charles Darwin commented on giraffe evolution in the sixth edition (1872) of his seminal book, Origin of Species:

• The giraffe, by its lofty stature, much elongated neck, fore-legs, head and tongue, has its whole frame beautifully adapted for browsing on the higher branches of trees. It can thus obtain food beyond the reach of the other Ungulata or hoofed animals inhabiting the same country; and this must be a great advantage to it during dearths.... So under nature with the nascent giraffe the individuals which were the highest browsers, and were able during dearth to reach even an inch or two above the others, will often have been preserved; for they will have roamed over the whole country in search of food.... Those individuals which had some one part or several parts of their bodies rather more elongated than usual, would generally have survived. These will have intercrossed and left offspring, either inheriting the same bodily peculiarities, or with a tendency to vary again in the same manner; whilst the individuals, less favoured in the same respects will have been the most liable to perish.... By this process long-continued, which exactly corresponds with what I have called unconscious selection by man, combined no doubt in a most important manner with the inherited effects of the increased use of parts, it seems to me almost certain that an ordinary hoofed quadruped might be converted into a giraffe. (Darwin 1872, pp. 177ff.)

In many respects this is a classic formulation of how Darwin viewed evolution: every species consists of individuals that show considerable variations. Under certain environmental conditions particular variations will be most advantageous. Natural selection weeds out the unadapted and the best-adapted survive. These variations become dominant in the species and so it evolves. In the case of giraffes, times of drought and arid conditions give an advantage to those animals that can out-compete others by reaching the higher, untouched leaves. They form the ancestral stock of the animals that evolve into giraffes.

Interestingly, Darwin believed in the "inherited effects of the increased use of parts"—a very "Larmarckian" view. Lamarck argued for the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Darwin felt that this was key to explain giraffe evolution; otherwise there is no guarantee that longer features in one generation will have an effect on subsequent ones. But this view of the inheritance of acquired characteristics is rejected by mainstream Darwinists today.

Nature Institute

Lamarck Shown Wrong… Darwin Too?

How was this theory attributed to Lamarck finally disproved? Well, PETA would have been very upset about the methods used. A guy named after a month (August) started to cut off the tails of rats and breeding them and low-and-behold, every rat born to tailless rats had… can you guess… yup, tails.

The German biologist August Weismann… had shown that chopping off a rat's tail did not lead to the birth of tailless ratlets. Experimental protocols have gotten more sophisticated since then, but the verdict is the same: There's no sign of Lamarckian inheritance anywhere in the kingdoms of life.

American Scientist

This is key:

The genetic variance is already present in the parent population, then, through environmental changes one aspect of the species is isolated (like a drought, cold, heat, rainy season, and the like). So the environment didn’t make peoples skin light or dark, that aspect or variation was already in the parent population’s gene pool. The lighter skinned people did well in colder climates and didn’t get burned easily or get skin cancer. The darker skinned persons in colder/less sunny areas tended to get rickets and osteoarthritis due to the lack of sun/vitamin-D (which is why we fortify milk and other products with it in order keep instances of the above from happening). They did much better around the equator. The DNA didn’t change because of the environment or outside forces. The population – parent population – already had the variances in them; they were just isolated from the parent population.

Let’s take resistance to antibiotics as another example:

Bacterium & Evolution II

This is part II of a debate I had

Before we start, let me post this small clip for clarification:

• It has been proven that resistance to many modern antibiotics was present decades before their [the antibiotics] discovery. In 1845, sailors on an ill-fated Arctic expedition were buried in the permafrost and remained deeply frozen until their bodies were exhumed in 1986. Preservation was so complete that six strains of nineteenth-century bacteria found dormant in the contents of the sailors' intestines were able to be revived! When tested, these bacteria were found to possess resistance to several modern-day antibiotics, including penicillin. Such traits were obviously present prior to penicillin's discovery, and thus could not be an evolutionary development. (Medical Tribune, December 29, 1988, p. 1, 23.)

In 1998, the National Academy of Sciences published and distributed a book to public schools and other institutions entitled Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M., wrote a book, Refuting Evolution, which is a topic by topic rebuttal to this Academy of Sciences publication. Under the evidence for evolution in the evolutionist text is the following quote:

• The continual evolution of human pathogens has come to pose one of the most serious health problems facing human societies. Many strains of bacteria have become increasingly resistant to antibiotics as natural selection has amplified resistant strains that arose through naturally occurring genetic variation. Similar episodes of rapid evolution are occurring in many different organisms. Rats have developed resistance to the poison warfain. Many hundreds of insect species and other agricultural pests have evolved resistance to the pesticides used to combat them – even to chemical defenses genetically engineered into plants.

(Sarfati’s reply – any words in the [boxes] are mine):

• However, what has this to do with the evolution of new kinds with new genetic information? Precisely nothing. What has happened in many cases is that some bacteria already had the genes for resistance to the antibiotics. In fact, some bacteria obtained by thawing sources which had been frozen before man developed antibiotics have shown to be antibiotic-resistant [6 different antibiotics in fact, penicillin in modern doses – which is way beyond the strength of natural penicillin found in nature]. When antibiotics are applied to a population of bacteria, those lacking resistance are killed, and any genetic information they carry is eliminated. The survivors carry less information [or specificity], but they are all resistant. The same principle applies to rats and insects “evolving” resistance to pesticides. Again, the resistance was already there, and creatures without resistance are eliminated.

[Much like if we killed all dogs (including Canis Domesticus and Canis Lupus) except for Chihuahuas, we would permanently lose the information of the parent population. You could then breed Chihuahuas for a millennium and not get an Irish Wolfhound]

• …In other cases, antibiotic resistance is the result of a mutation, but in all known cases, this mutation has destroyed information. It may seem surprising that destruction of information can sometimes help. But one example is resistance to the antibiotic penicillin. Bacteria normally produce an enzyme, penicillinase, which destroys penicillin. The amount of penicillinase is controlled by a gene. There is normally enough produced to handle any penicillin encountered in the wild, but the bacterium is overwhelmed by the amount given to patients. A mutation disabling this controlling gene results in much more penicillinase being produced.

[Thus, the bacteria found frozen in 1845 already had the mutation to overcome modern medical doses of penicillin. So the mutation wasn’t the result of the penicillin in modern doses, thus seemingly becoming resistant… it already had the resistant mutation – informational or specificity losing – in the population. In other words, no new information was added to the parent population!]

• …This enables the bacterium to resist the antibiotics but normally, this mutant would be less fit, as it wastes resources by producing unnecessary penicillinase. Another example of acquired antibiotic resistance is the transfer of pieces of genetic material (called Plasmids) between bacteria, even between those of different species. But this is still using pre-existing information, and doesn’t explain its origin.

No new genetic information was added to the person's DNA, in fact -- if anything -- the person lost some specificity of coding in the process. Lamarckism and Darwinian evolution demand that there be an increase in genetic material as well as an increased ordering of this new material. Which may explain why such an ardent evolutionist like Richard Dawkins rejects Lamarckian theory as well as Darwin's use of it in his "special theory":

"That difficulty arose from current views of the nature of heredity. In the 19th century it was almost universally assumed that heredity was a blending process. On this blending inheritance theory, not only are offspring intermediate between their two parents in character and appearance, but the hereditary factors that they pass on to their own children are themselves inextricably merged. It can be shown that, if heredity is of this blending type, it is almost impossible for Darwinian natural selection to work because the available variation is halved in every generation. Darwin knew this, and it worried him enough to drive him in the direction of Lamarckism."

My Gene’s Made Me Do It

What is really happening with micro-evolution is the following. Using a “bear” graphic we can see that genes make up whether the bears have short, medium, or long hair. As these bears wonder into climates that change with the seasons, the short-haired bears may not survive a freezing winter. Similarly, the same goes for wolves, the short-haired Canis Lupus (wolf) died out in Alaska eons ago. Now, if a tribe of people only chewed on bones and gristle, the people with healthy choppers and strong muscular jowls will survive better than the person’s without, and these smaller jawed people may die out. Typically now, the parent information is in the gene pool of the offshoot of “species.” So if the environment changes back (thinking here of the Galápagos Island finches here), or their diet changes (Dr. Whatley's example), some smaller/weaker jawed persons are born and they will survive alongside their larger jawed cousins.

See below an old response to a skeptic many years ago:

Species & Speciation

Species is not well defined. Example: Canis Domesticus (say, a, German Shepherd) and Canis Lupus (wolf) are classified as two separate species. But they can interbreed (i.e. a Wolf and a German Shepherd). But a Chihuahua and a Great Dane cannot breed, but they are both Canis Domesticus (the same species). The arctic hair cannot breed with the Florida hair, but both breed with the Dakota hair. Evolutionists recognize certain bowerbirds as distinct species even though they often interbreed.

Or consider the case of two different kinds of squirrels separated by the Grand Canyon. The Kaibab squirrel inhabits the north side of the canyon, while the Abert squirrel inhabits the south side. It seems evident the two descended from one original population. Rarely, however, can squirrels from both populations come together, and thus there is no interbreeding between them. And, for some time biologists have disagreed as to whether the squirrels had reached the level of two separate species.

Look, you could go to Galapagos Islands and get a pair of finches and bring them back to a laboratory and just let them have sex. After a few generations you will have small beaked, medium beaked, large beaked finches. The information is already in there genome, nothing new was created, specificity was lost if anything. Now if you simulate a drought, like on Galapagos, so that the seeds become hard and more beak strength is needed to open them, then of course the larger beaked finch will survive. A creationist came up with the survival of the fittest twenty-four years prior to Darwin. After all the other “parent” finches die off, you are left with only large beaked finches in the laboratory. This is not evolution; no new information was gained in the process. There are limits to its change, strep-throat may change into a flesh eating virus, but it loss specificity to get to that point or already had the information in its genome. It’s still strep-throat.

That finch didn’t turn into a dinosaur; that dog didn’t turn into a cat; that ape didn’t turn into a man, etc.. The genetic barriers wont and don’t allow it. You can post all the sites in the world, but you will never be able to find one proof of macroevolution in the fossil record or in the living world. All we have ever seen is what evolutionists’ call “subspeciation” (variation within a type), never “transpeciation” (change from one type to others). The primrose is a prime example of my point. The alleged new species of primrose that de Vries thought he had “discovered” were not new species at all but rather mere variations of the same species.

This “sport” (a certain primrose that de Vries created), with it’s doubled chromosome [no new information was added, it merely doubled the information that was already there], is still a primrose. Stickleback fish may diversify into fresh-water dwellers and salt–water dwellers, but both remain sticklebacks. One fruit fly may breed on apple trees and another on hawthorn trees, but both remain fruit flies. Speciation is a means of creating diversity within types of living things, but macroevolution is much more than diversity.

Macroevolution requires an increase of the gene pool, the addition of new genetic information, whereas the means to speciation discussed above represent the loss of genetic information (how so?). Both physical and ecological isolation produce varieties by cutting a small population off from its parent population and building a new group from the more limited genetic information contained in the small population. A large population carries genetic reserve, a wealth of concealed recessive genes. In a small group cut off from the parent population, some of these recessive traits may be expressed more often. This makes for interesting diversity, but it should not blind us to the fact that the total genetic variability in the small group is reduced!

The appearance of reproductively isolated populations represents microevolution, not macro-evolution. Vertical change – to a new level of complexity – requires the input of additional genetic information. Can that information – the ensembles of new genes to make wrens, rabbits, and Hawthorne trees be gleaned from random mutations?

Thus far, there appears to be good evidence that the roles mutations are able to play are severely restricted by and within the existing higher-level blueprint of the organism’s whole genome.

To go from one-celled organisms to a human being means that information must be added to the genetic messages at each step of the way. Mechanisms for the loss of genetic information cannot be used as support for a theory requiring vast increases of genetic information.

Speciation is actually akin to what breeders do. They isolate a small group of plants or animals and force them to interbreed, cutting them off from the larger gene pool to which they belong. A century of breeding testifies to the fact that this produces limited change only. It does produce the open-ended change required by Darwinian evolution. Some think, as do I, that the extinction of the dinosaurs occurred because they didn’t have the genetic diversity to adapt to environmental changes.

Protestant vs. Catholic Heaven

Deep theology… Which Heaven?

Countdown is the "Rage of All the Liberals"

Gibson Goes After NBC/MSNBC & “A Sports Caster”

New Blogram - Black-Five on Iraq

Black-Five Television

#1

This should be prime-time television. I love it… watch it and weep Kucinich’s of the world!

Hot Air (props)

Black-Five TV

Hillary and Bill's Halloween Party

Democratic Costume Party

Another SNL Skit

Stolen from a friends blog (thanks Kimba). This friends web-site would be me in Bizarro World (to anyone who hasn’t seen the Justice League cartoons or read the comic books, I am sorry for making this useless comment).

Enjoy:

Obama and the Pledge of Allegiance / National Anthem

Obama Unpatriotic?

I got an e-mail about Obama with this photo of him not placing his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. In fact, the video below shows it isn’t the Pledge of Allegiance, but in fact it is the National Anthem. One must keep in mind though that he should have still had his hand over his heart during this “rendition” (massacre) of the Anthem.

The U.S. Flag Code does state however that:

“During a rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed all except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart.”

(see Snopes.com)

This being said… these guys and gals are flying all over the country, staying up late studying responses to possible questions, memorizing speeches, and the like. They are tired and jet lagged. Not only are the all of the above, but they constantly have cameras on them 24/7. So a slip up may be caught here and there… in other words I want to extend the benefit of the doubt to Obama. There has been a lot of misleading e-mails about him, like him not being sworn into office on a Bible, that was a false e-mail. Obama has led the pledge in front of the Senate, he has never been filmed either not saying the pledge or not putting his hand over his heart. This says a lot. Not this one instance where he might have genuinely forgot.

It is interesting to note though that all the other candidates aren’t tired enough to show respect to Ol’ Glory, and there wasn’t a big stink about them not wearing a flag lapel pin. So the real motive may be in fact that his churches influence is kicking in. Remember, Obama goes to a church that is deeply involved in Liberation Theology. So I do believe (via his churches influence) that Obama may in fact be somewhat “anti-American,” but I am going off of public speeches by his pastor and the churches statement of faith.

Below is the video of the event, and underneath that is a YouTuber mentioning Obama not respecting the Pledge. He is wrong, but the Red Skelton bit is amazing!

Obama doesn’t place hand over heart during the National Anthem

Red Skelton on the Meaning of the Pledge – Very Moving, and Prophetic!!!

9/11 Truther update -- Crazy as Eva

Crazy 9/11 Truthers Across the Pond

These guys are nuts. I just wish these crazies were trying these answers with Christopher Hitchens! I wish I was there to refute their crap!

Little Green Footballs (props)

Ron Paul Update

Ron Paul CRAZIES Update

The following couple of stories fit well with my Ron Paul “motif” I have created over the months… that is, while he is rock solid on a few Constitutional issues, however, he is a but when it comes to conspiracies and this stance engenders all the nuts to come out of the woodwork to support him which makes people like me not support him. (How was that compound sentence?)

In this first video you have to wait until the end to hear Stein sum up who supports Ron Paul… wait even past the 9/11 bit.

Likewise, Jason Matera interviews the guy who put up the fake Young American Foundation posters to smear conservatives at his college, but again, you must wait until the very end when Jason asks a parting question. Classic!

And then there’s Mel Gibson's Holocaust denying father who also has come out in support of Ron Paul.

NUFF SAID FOR ME

Was Hitler a Christian?...

...Or was he an atheistic New Ager using "God" (also gods, Fate, goddesses) to engender people to follow him? Did he consistently live out the Christian lifestyle that Christ modeled? Or did he embrace evolutionary atheism and the "survival of the fittest" (evolution is "red in tooth and claw" remember) and live out that worldview consistently? In other words, the naturalist cannot say Hitler was "morally wrong," the theist can. Evolution does not engender absolute moral laws to be used as guides to judge other cultures or men, matter (humans coming from rocks) doesn't equal morals. When an atheist says someone is immoral, say a christian they feel is not living morally enough, he is borrowing the "cosmic ruler" (if you will) from the Judeo-Christian framework to judge said person expecting that both he (the atheist) and the Christian (the theist) will see the immoral action in his behavior. This is not answerable by the atheistic epistemology. Period. the atheist is borrowing from one worldview a framework of moral "laws" in order to refute that same worldview. That is nonsensical.

A Book Recommend:

Below is the first known Swastika/Broken Cross known in Germany. It is part of a Thule Society political poster.

Imported Article:

The Hitler of Mein Kampf

What did he believe in? Christianity? Evolution? Other gods?

(All references below are from Mein Kampf, citing book number [1 or 2] and chapter number.)

People who want to make us think Hitler was a Christian often use quotes from his book Mein Kampf. And it's true that he spoke approvingly in that book about Christianity, and claimed to be doing "the work of the Lord." Does that mean he was a Christian? Or was Hitler just using Christian terminology and concepts figuratively and illustratively?

Gods

After all, not only did Hitler speak of "God" (which is not necessarily always the Christian God)--he also spoke of "the gods." For example:

For if the art of the politician is really the art of the possible, the theoretician is one of those of whom it can be said that they are pleasing to the gods only if they demand and want the impossible. (Mein Kampf, 1:VIII)

The fact that a large part of the people moved blindly through the manifestations of decay showed only that the gods had willed Austria's destruction. (1:III)

In proportion as economic life grew to be the dominant mistress of the state, money became the god whom all had to serve and to whom each man had to bow down. More and more, the gods of heaven were put into the corner as obsolete and outmoded, and in their stead incense was burned to the idol Mammon. (1:X)

Hitler also spoke of various "Goddesses." Does that mean he literally believed in them?

The Royal House Czechized wherever possible, and it was the hand of the goddess of eternal justice and inexorable retribution which caused Archduke Francis Ferdinand, the most mortal enemy of Austrian-Germanism, to fall by the bullets which he himself had helped to mold. (1:I)

While the Goddess of Suffering took me in her arms, often threatening to crush me, my will to resistance grew, and in the end this will was victorious. (1:II)

And all great movements are popular movements, volcanic eruptions of human passions and emotional sentiments, stirred either by the cruel Goddess of Distress or by the firebrand of the word hurled among the masses; (1:III)

It often seemed to me almost a sin to shout hurrah perhaps without having the inner right to do so; for who had the right to use this word without having proved it in the place where all playing is at an end and the inexorable hand of the Goddess of Destiny begins to weigh peoples and men according to the truth and steadfastness of their convictions? (1:V)

A fire was kindled from whose flame one day the sword must come which would regain freedom for the Germanic Siegfried and life for the German nation. And side by side with the coming resurrection, I sensed that the goddess of inexorable vengeance for the perjured deed of November 9,1919, was striding forth. (1:XII)

...that the gentle Goddess of Peace can walk only by the side of the God of War... (2:VII)

...but History, acting as the goddess of a higher truth and a higher justice, will one day smilingly tear up this verdict, acquitting us of all guilt and blame.' (2:XV)

Further, Hitler spoke many times about "Fate," much more often in fact (mentioned 90 times in Mein Kampf) than he used the words "God" or "the Lord" (combined, the two occur 52 times). Instead of the Christian God, perhaps Hitler really believed in an impersonal force called Fate, as for example in the first words of the first chapter of his book:

Today it seems to me providential that Fate should have chosen Braunau on the Inn as my birthplace. (1:I)

When my mother died, Fate, at least in one respect, had made its decisions. (1:II)

And in this infinitely important question, as in so many others, Fate itself became my instructor. (1:II)

In this case the only remaining hope was struggle, struggle with all the weapons which the human spirit, reason, and will can devise, regardless on which side of the scale Fate should lay its blessing. (1:II)

But how much more was Fate to be praised for accomplishing this investiture in the scion of a house which in Frederick the Great had given the nation a gleaming and eternal symbol of its resurrection. (1:III)

And so forth. Thus Hitler's use of Christian terminology may be on par with his use of language about gods, goddesses, and Fate. Anyone who claims to know that Hitler was a genuine Christian believer needs to show how he took his talk about Christianity any more seriously than his talk about these other deities and forces. You don't have to believe in these things to use them for making your language more colorful.

Christianity as a Necessary Evil

In fact, there's one place I've found in Mein Kampf where Hitler seems to speak somewhat disparagingly about Christianity. He's talking about intolerance and fanaticism and how the Jews first introduced these things into the blissful ancient world, with the result that these types of behavior now unfortunately have to be fought with similar counter-fanaticism. He says that Christianity is somehow related to this whole scenario, though it's unclear (to me) whether he's saying that Christianity is simply part of this regrettable Jewish mode of thought, or whether Christianity is a necessary, though regrettable, reaction to the evils introduced by the Jews. But here's what he says:

Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars...

The objection may very well be raised that such phenomena in world history arise for the most part from specifically Jewish modes of thought, in fact, that this type of intolerance and fanaticism positively embodies the Jewish nature...we may deeply regret this fact and establish with justifiable loathing that its appearance in the history of mankind is something that was previously alien to history...

The individual may establish with pain today that with the appearance of Christianity the first spiritual terror entered into the far freer ancient world; but he will not be able to contest the fact that since then the world has been afflicted and dominated by this coercion, and that coercion is broken only by coercion, and terror by terror. Only then can a new state of affairs be constructively created. (2:V)

At the very least, Hitler seems to be saying that Christianity is a regrettable, but necessary, reaction to Jewish intolerance. Would a true Christian (not a pretender) describe Christianity in this way--that it's a necessary evil?

Elsewhere Hitler talks about how religion is useful to keep the masses in line, because they're not sophisticated enough to be philosophers. They have to be controlled by a faith system:

The great masses of people do not consist of philosophers; precisely for the masses, faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude...

For the political man, the value of a religion must be estimated less by its deficiencies than by the virtue of a visibly better substitute. As long as this appears to be lacking, what is present can be demolished only by fools or criminals. (1:X)

Is this the real Hitler? The "political man" who uses religion to control the masses only because there is no "better substitute"? This is hardly the picture of a true believer.

Evolution

When it comes to Darwinian evolution, Hitler definitely both talked the talk and walked the walk. To say that Hitler was a social Darwinist would be an understatement.

• In general it should not be forgotten that the highest aim of human existence is not the preservation of a state, let alone a government, but the preservation of the species. (1:III)

Is this the statement of a Christian or a Darwinist? Do Christians believe that the "highest aim" of our existence is "the preservation of the species"? Not by a long shot. That's Darwinism.

In Mein Kampf Hitler showed very clearly his (apparent) belief in Darwin's "struggle" for survival.

In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. And struggle is always a means for improving a species' health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development...Nature does just this by subjecting the weaker part to such severe living conditions that by them alone the number is limited, and by not permitting the remainder to increase promiscuously, but making a new and ruthless choice according to strength and health. No more than Nature desires the mating of weaker with stronger individuals, even less does she desire the blending of a higher with a lower race, since, if she did, her whole work of higher breeding, over perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, night be ruined with one blow. Historical experience offers countless proofs of this. (1:X)

[Speaking against artificial population control:] For as soon as procreation as such is limited and the number of births diminished, the natural struggle for existence which leaves only the strongest and healthiest alive is obviously replaced by the obvious desire to 'save' even the weakest and most sickly at any price, and this plants the seed of a future generation which must inevitably grow more and more deplorable the longer this mockery of Nature and her will continues. And the end will be that such a people will some day be deprived of its existence on this earth; for man can defy the eternal laws of the will to conservation for a certain time, but sooner or later vengeance comes. A stronger race will drive out the weak, for the vital urge in its ultimate form will, time and again, burst all the absurd fetters of the so-called humanity of individuals, in order to replace it by the humanity of Nature which destroys the weak to give his place to the strong. (1:IV)

For anyone who believes in a higher development of living creatures must admit that every expression of their life urge and life struggle must have had a beginning; that one subject must have started it, and that subsequently such a phenomenon repeated itself more and more frequently and spread more and more, until at last it virtually entered the subconscious of all members of a given species, thus manifesting itself as an instinct. (2:II)

The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development of organic living beings would be unthinkable. The consequence of this racial purity, universally valid in Nature, is not only the sharp outward delimitation of the various races, but their uniform character in themselves. The fox is always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc., and the difference can lie at most in the varying measure of force, strength, intelligence, dexterity, endurance, etc., of the individual specimens. But you will never find a fox who in his inner attitude might, for example, show humanitarian tendencies toward geese, as similarly there is no cat with a friendly inclination toward mice. Therefore, here, too, the struggle among themselves arises less from inner aversion than from hunger and love. In both cases, Nature looks on calmly, with satisfaction, in fact. (1:X)

In the end, Hitler would carry these doctrines of the stronger dominating the weaker to demonic extremes.

In view of Hitler's non-Christian Darwinist ideas, his portrayal of Christianity as a necessary evil, and his use of terminology about other gods and goddesses, the assertion that Hitler was a Christian is baseless and reckless.

Hitler's Homosexuality, Pedastry, and Occultism

Homosexuality, Pederasty, & Occultisms Combined Influence On the Third Reich

With thanks to Scott Lively, author of The Pink Swastika, where much of this information came from

In 1945, a Jewish historian by the name of Samuel Igra published Germanys National Vice, in which he called homosexuality a poisoned stream that ran through the heart of Nazism. (In the 1920s and 30s, homosexuality was known as the German vice across Europe because of the debaucheries of the Weimar period). Igra, who escaped Germany in 1939, claims that Hitler:

had been a male prostetute in Vienna at the time of his sojourn there, from 1907 to 1912, and that he practiced the same calling in Munich from 1912 to 1914[1]

Desmond Seward, in Napoleon and Hitler, says Hitler is listed as a homosexual in Viennese police records.[2] (Keep in mind that Hitler was not exclusively gay, as he had sexual affairs with at least four women.) Lending further credence to this fact, noted by Walter Langer, that during several of those years Hitler chose to live in a Vienna flophouse known to be inhabited by many homosexuals (more on Langer in just a moment).

Frank Rector writes that, as a young man, Hitler was often called der schoen Adolf (the handsome Adolf) and later his looks were also to some extent helpful in gaining big-money support from Ernst Rohms circle of wealthy gay friends.[3]

Langer, a psychiatrist, was commissioned by the Allies in 1943 to prepare a thorough psychological profile of Hitler. His report, kept under wraps for 29 years was published in book form in 1972 as The Mind of Adolf Hitler. Langer writes that Hitler was certainly a coprophile (a person who is sexually aroused by human excrement) and may have practiced homosexuality as an adult. He cites the testimony of Hermann Rauschning, a former Hitler confidant who,

reports that he has met two boys who claimed that they were Hitlers homosexual partners, but their testimony can hardly be taken at face value. More condemning, adds Langer, would be the remarks dropped by [Albert] Foerster, the Danzig gauleiter, in conversation with Rauschning. Even here, however, the remarks deal only with Hitlers impotence as far as heterosexual relationships go without actually implying that he indulges in homosexuality. It is true that Hitler calls Foerster Bubi, which is a common nickname employed by homosexuals in addressing their partners [back then]. This alone is not adequate proof that he has actually indulged in homosexual practices with Foerster, who is known to be a homosexual.[4]

However, writes Langer, even today, Hitler derives sexual pleasure from looking at mens bodies and associating with homosexuals.[5] A well-known fact is that Hitlers greatest hero was Frederick the Great, a well-known homosexual.[6]

Like Langer, Waite, in his book The Psychopathic God Adolf Hitler, also hesitates to label Hitler a homosexual but cites substantial circumstantial evidence that he was:

It is true that Hitler was closely associated with Ernst Rohm and Rudolf Hess, two homosexuals who were among the very few people with whom he used the familiar du. But one cannot conclude that he therefore shared his friends sexual tastes. Still, during the months he was with Hess in Landsberg, their relationship must have become very close. When Hitler left the prison he fretted about his friend who languished there, and spoke of him tenderly, using Austrian diminutives: Ach mein Rudy, mein Hesserl, isnt it appalling to think that hes still there. One of Hitlers valets, Schneider, made no explicit statement about the relationship, but he did find it strange that whenever Hitler got a present he liked or drew an architectural sketch that particularly pleased him, he would run to Hess who was known in homosexual circles as Frauline Anna as a little boy would run to his mother to show his prize to her. Finally there is the non-conclusive but interesting fact that one of Hitlers prized possessions was a handwritten love letter which King Ludwig II had written to a manservant.[7]

Hitler, if homosexual, was certainly not exclusively so. There are at least four women, including his own niece, with whom Hitler had sexual relationships, although these relationships were not normal. Both Waite and Langer suggest that his sexual encounters with women included expressions of his coprophilic perversion as well as other extremely degrading forms of masochism. It is interesting to note that all four women attempted suicide after becoming sexually involved with Hitler. Two succeeded.

Whether or not Hitler was personally involved in homosexual relationships, the evidence is clear that he knowingly and intentionally surrounded himself with practicing homosexuals from his youth. Like Rohm, Hitler seemed to prefer homosexual companions and coworkers. In addition to Rohm and Hess, two of his closest friends, Hitler filled key positions with known or suspected homosexuals. Rector, himself a Gay Holocaust revisionist, attempts to dismiss sources that attribute homosexuality to leading Nazis, but nevertheless writes that:

Reportedly, Hitler Youth leader, Baldur Von Schirach was bisexual; Hitlers private attorney, Reich Legal Director, Minister of Justice, butcher Governor-General of Poland, and public gay-hater Hans Frank was said to be a homosexual; Hitlers adjutant Wilhelm Bruckner was said to be bisexual; Walter Funk, Reich minister of Economics [and Hitlers personal financial advisor] has frequently been called a notorious homosexual or as a jealous predessesor in Funks post, Hjalmar Schacht, contemptuously claimed, Funk was a harmless homosexual and alchoholic; [Hitlers second in command] Hermann Goering liked to dress up in drag and wear campy make-up;[8]

SS Chief Heinrich Himmlers pederastic proclivities [were] captured on film by Nazi film maker Walter Frenze.[9] Igra, states that Hitlers chauffeur and one-time personal secretary, Emile Maurice, was a homosexual. Moreover, even more interesting is this,

Julius Streicher, the notorious Jew-baiter, was originally a school teacher, but was dismissed by the Nuremberg School Authorities, following numerous charges of pederasty brought against him.[10]

Reinhard Heydrich, mastermind of the first pogrom, Kristallnacht, and of the death camps, was homosexual.[11] In the book The Twelve Year Reich, Richard Grunberger tells of a party given by Nazi propagandist, Joseph Goebbels, which degenerated into a homosexual orgy.[12] A recent biography of Albert Speer by Gitta Sereny speaks of a homo-erotic relationship[13] Langer notes that Hitlers personal bodygaurds were almost always 100 percent homosexuals[14] between Speer and Hitler.

The Nazi party was founded by homosexuals. The Bratwurstgloeckl, a tavern frequented by homosexual roughnecks, is where Rohm joined the handful of sexual deviants (and occultists). Their organization, one known as the German Workers Party, was now called the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, The National Socialist German Workers Party slang, the Nazis.

It was no coincidence that homosexuals were among those who founded the Nazi Party. In fact, the party grew out of a number of groups in Germany which were centers of homosexual activity and activism. Many of the characteristic rituals, symbols, activities and philosophies

For example: Nietzsche, also like Jorg Lanz Von Liebenfels (more later) was dubbed the Father of National Socialism, Nietzsche is probably more deserving of this distinction, being so labeled by Nazi luminaries Dr. Alfred Rosenberg and Dr. Frank. Others have called him the Father of Fascism. Rabidly anti-Christian and a homosexual, Nietzsche founded the God is dead movement and contributed to the development of existentialist philosophy. Nietzsches publisher, Peter Gast, called Nietzsche one of the fiercest anti-Christians and atheists.

Nietzsche never married, and had no known female sex partners, but went insane at age 44 from syphilis and eventually died of it. According to Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, Nietzsche had caught the disease at a homosexual brothel in Genoa, Italy.[15]

we associate with Nazism came from these organizations or from contemporary homosexuals. The extended-arm Seig Heil salute, for example, was a ritual of the Wandervoegel (Wandering Birds or Rovers), a male youth society that became the German equivalent of the Boy Scouts. The Wandervoegel was started in the late 1800s by a group of homosexual teenagers. Its first adult leader, Karl Fischer, called himself der Fuehrer (the Leader).[16] Hans Blueher, a homosexual Nazi philosopher and important early member of the Wandervoegel, incited a sensation in 1912 with the publication of The German Wandervoegel Movement as an Erotic Phenomenon, which told how the movement had become one in which young boys could be introduced into the homosexual lifestyle.[17] The Wandervoegel and other youth organizations were later merged into the Hitler Youth, which itself became known among the populace as the Homo Youth because of rampant homosexuality.[18]

Many of the Nazi emblems, such as the swastika, the double lightning bolt SS symbol, and even the inverted triangle symbol used to identify classes of prisoners in the concentration camps, originated among homosexual occultists in Germany (some, such as the swastika, are actually quite ancient symbols which were merely revived by these homosexual groups). In 1907, Jorg Lanz Von Liebenfels (Lanz), a former Cistercian monk whom the church excommunicated because of his homosexual activities,[19] flew the swastika flag above his castle in Austria.[20] After his expulsion from the church, Lanz founded the Ordo Novi Templi (Order of the New Temple), which merged occultism with violent anti-Semitism. A 1958 study of Lanz called, Der Mann der Hitler die Ideen gab or, The Man Who Gave Hitler His Ideas by Austrian psychologist Wilhelm Daim, called Lanz the true father of National Socialism.

What you have here (below) is the first known example of a Swastika in Germany. It is a political poster from 1919 published by the Thule Society. The Thule Society was an occultic group with ties to Hitler and others that I have mentioned herein. Their belief structure is similar to the New Age movement of today.

List, a close associate of Lanz, formed the Guido Von List Society The Guido Von List Society was accused of practicing a form of Hindu Tantrism, which featured sexual perversions in its rituals (the swastika is originally from India). A man named Aleister Crowley, who, according to Hitler biographer J. Sydney Jones, enjoyed playing with black magic and little boys, popularized this form of sexual perversion in occult circles.[21] List was accused of being the Aleister Crowley of Vienna.[22] Like Lanz, List was an occultist; he wrote several books on the magic principles of rune letters (from which he chose the SS symbol). In 1908, List was unmasked as the leader of a blood brotherhood which went in for sexual perversion and substituted the swastika for the cross.[23] The Nazis borrowed heavily from Liss occult theories and research. List also formed an elitist occult priesthood called the Armanen Order, to which Hitler himself may have belonged[24] in Vienna in 1904.

The Nazi dream of an Aryan super-race was adopted from an occult group called the Thule Society, founded in 1917 by followers of Lanz and List. The occult doctrine of the Thule Society held that the survivors of an ancient and highly developed lost civilization could endow Thule initiates with esoteric powers and wisdom. The initiates would use these powers to create a new race of Aryan supermen who would eliminate all inferior races.

Hitler dedicated his book, Mein Kampf, to Dietrich Eckart, one of the Thule Societys inner circle and a former leading figure in the German Workers Party (when they met at the gay bar mentioned earlier).[25]

And among them I want also to count that man, one of the best, who devoted his life to the awakening of his, our people, in his writings and his thoughts[26]

After the above dedication, the notes in this edition of Mein KampfDietrich Eckart was the spiritual founder of the National Socialist Party.[27] The various occult groups mentioned above were outgrowths of the Theosophical Society, whose founder, Helen Petrovna Blavatsky, was a lesbian,[28] and whose bishop Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS, was obsessed with Freemasonry,[29] which is full of occultic influences and practices.[30] read, was a notorious pederast Charles Leadbeater.

The dreaded SA Brownshirts or Sturmabteilung (Storm Troopers, the SA) were largely the creation of another homosexual, Gerhard Rossbach.[31]

the SA, under its leader Ernst Rohm, was administered to a large extent by homosexuals. And elaborate pimping service had been developed to satisfy the appetites of Rohm and his cohort[32]

Rossbach, who historian Gruber says was a open homosexual,[33] formed the Rossbachbund (Rossbach Brotherhood), a homosexual unit of the Freikorps (Free Corps). The Freikorps were independent inactive military reserve units, which became home to the hundreds of thousands of unemployed World War I veterans in Germany. Rossbach also formed a youth organization under the Rossbuchbund, calling it the SchilljugendSchill Youth).[34] Rossbachs staff assistant, Lieutenant Edmund Heines, a pederast and murderer, was put in charge of the Schilljugend. The Rossbuchbund later changed its name to Storm Troopers (in honor of Wotan, the ancient German God of storms).[35] It was Rossbach who seduced Hitlers mentor, Ernst Roehm, into homosexuality. It was under Roehms leadership that the Brownshirts became notorious for brutality.

During this time, known homosexuals headed pro-Nazi fascist organizations in both England and France. In England, such an organization was called the Anglo-German Fellowship, and was headed by British homosexuals Guy Francis de Moncy Burgess, and Captain John Robert Macnamara. In France, two groups, the Radical Socialist Party, headed by Edouard Pfeiffer, and the French Popular Party headed by Jacques Doriot, represented the pro-Nazi fascists. Pfeiffer was openly homosexual, although less is known about Doriot, but his organization seems to have to have had an attraction for homosexuals in any case.[36]

Homosexualists John Lauritsen and David Thorstad report that in the Soviet Union, homosexuality became known as the fascist perversion during the 1930s. They quote the Soviet intellectual, Maxim Gorky: There is already a slogan in Germany, Eradicate the homosexual and fascism will disappear.[37] Dr. Nathaniel S. Lehrman[38] wrote a recent article entitled, Was Hitler's Homosexuality Nazism's Best-Kept Secret? In it, he documents Hitlers homosexuality, so well in fact, that the article is included herein:[39]

Adolf Hitler's homosexuality has been demonstrated beyond question by German historian Lothar Machtan's massively researched new book, The Hidden Hitler, which shows homosexuality's central role in Hitler's personal life.

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. In 1933, six months after Hitler took power, the distinguished Jewish author Ludwig Lewisohn described what Machtan confirms, that the entire [Nazi] movement is in fact and by certain aspects of its avowed ideology drenched through and through with homoerotic feeling and practice. And those homosexual currents inextricably were connected with vicious German militarism long before the Nazis.

Hitler quit school at age 16 and in 1909 moved to Vienna, where he twice took and failed the Art Academy's entrance examination. Shortly after his move, August Kubizek, a young man from his hometown, joined him and they lived together for four months. Intensely jealous, Hitler wrote Kubizek, I cannot endure it when you consort and converse with other young people.

Hitler's adolescent move to sexually liberated Vienna so new to him and so different from home and his open choice there of homosexuality calls to mind the choice involved in what Charles Socarides calls America's Thanksgiving Day Massacre. His book, Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far, describes that massacre as when a college freshman, home for the first time after months at a sexually liberated college, joyfully informs his startled parents, Hey Mom, hey Dad! Be thankful! I have something to tell you. I'm gay!

For the next several years, Hitler drifted aimlessly. Despite immense Nazi efforts to erase as much of his past as possible (by destroying his massive police records, for example) Machtan dug out clear evidence of Hitler's homosexual activities during this period, such as his five months at a men's hostel known as a hub of homosexual activity. He formed close attachments to several men, but throughout his life was uninterested in relationships with women.

In May 1913, he moved with another young man to Munich (said to be a regular El Dorado for homosexuals) and, in September 1914, joined the Bavarian army. He spent the war years as a behind-the-lines messenger, enjoying a long and active sexual relationship with another runner, Ernst Schmidt. At war's end, Hitler returned to Munich and more homosexual activities.

He met at that time Capt. Ernst Roehm, a well-connected army officer who soon offered him his first job as a political spy for the army within a newly organized workers' party. Hitler's political rise from that point was "meteoric," Machtan writes. Politically "an unknown quantity" when he joined the party in 1919, three years later he had become an important political influence the repository of the deutsch-folkisch [roughly German ultranationalist] movement's hopes.

Hitler's rise largely was due to the two brilliant homosexuals who mentored and tutored him: Roehm, a notorious pederast and a contemporary, and Dietrich Eckart, 21 years his senior. Roehm, a career staff officer during the war, had access to both secret army funds and to military and right-wing groups such as the ultranationalist, anti-Semitic and homoerotic Freikorps the fiercely anticommunist terrorist squads that sprang up, especially in eastern Germany, in response to the political chaos of the early Weimar Republic. Eckart was a fiercely anti-Semitic journalist and playwright who taught Hitler political tactics and introduced him to Munich and Berlin society, as well as to other wealthy people throughout the country.

In April 1923 Hitler was convicted of treason for his nearly successful coup against the Bavarian government. Sentenced to five years in prison, he was released after nine months. He then began collecting the lawbreakers, sexual and other, who would form the heart of his new Nazi Party. Machtan shows that the party was a sexual swamp from its very beginning, an evil conspiracy in which members held sexual or other criminal secrets over one another's heads. Indeed, Machtan suggests that Hitler's fear that Roehm and other openly homosexual Nazis would "out" him and his associates was a motive for his later murder of Roehm.

The Nazi Party, whose terrorism and conspiracy had won it a maximum of 37 percent of the popular vote, took power in January 1933. In June 1934 Hitler had Roehm his mentor, one-time closest friend and head of his 3 million-man storm-trooper organization (S.A.) murdered, along with many of Roehm's homosexual party loyalists and hundreds of nonhomosexual opponents. These peremptory murders destroyed the rule of law in Germany and opened the door for the Holocaust's unprecedented brutalities.

The massacre, and the tighter laws against homosexuality that followed, are used falsely today, especially by some Holocaust-remembrance enterprises, to show that the Nazis actively opposed it and that they persecuted homosexuals just as they did Jews, only to a lesser extent. In a 1931 exposé of the Nazi Party, two years before it took power, the Munich Post attacked the disgusting hypocrisy that the party demonstrates outward moral indignation while inside its own ranks the most shameless practices prevail,every knowledgeable person knows that inside the Hitler party the most flagrant whorishness contemplated by paragraph 175 (defining homosexuality as a criminal offense) is widespread. Machtan confirms that Nazi hypocrisy, noting how homosexuality was simultaneously proscribed and protected: Hitler had tailored it to his political and personal requirements.... and said that:

Serious political errors mar this remarkably researched book. The most important involves the role of Magnus Hirschfeld (1868-1935), the well-known Jewish homosexual psychiatrist-researcher whom Machtan calls the pope of homosexuality, and his being used as an unquestioned authority on the subject. Hirschfeld, recently honored at a conference at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, spent his life seeking to repeal section 175 and get homosexuality accepted. Why then was he such an object of hatred by the Nazis and their Freikorps predecessors, with Eckart, for example, viewing him with positively pathological loathing?

The answer is the two irreconcilable philosophies linked by a common dysfunction [homosexuality] that existed then in Germany: the Butches (or Machos) and the Femmes, whom Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams differentiate in their invaluable book, The Pink Swastika. The roots of this conflict span a 70-year period which saw the rise of homosexual militancy in the movement that gave Nazism to the world. Machtan mentions neither the conflict nor the Lively-Abrams book.

The Butches were openly and deliberately lawless. They defied criminal statutes, including those governing homosexuality. As criminals, they were not concerned with trying to change the law. They were anti-Semitic, militaristic and gratuitously brutal. Their sexual ideal was the man-boy relationship extolled and engaged in by the Greeks, Crusaders and Teutonic knights. They considered these pederastic activities morally superior to sex with women, whom they despised as useful only for breeding. Their deepest hatred often was directed against the Femmes and, especially, Hirschfeld, whom they reviled as effeminate and therefore contemptible.

Femmes, reported variously to be perhaps 5 percent to 15 percent of all homosexuals, saw homosexuality on the same moral level as heterosexuality, rather than above it. They supported the overall rule of law and opposed pederasty and sadomasochism. Many were involved in artistic and scientific activities dance, music, theater and medicine and persuaded many German intellectuals, liberals and Jews of homosexuality's acceptability. This acceptance of Femme homosexuality, based partly on seeing homosexuals as a harmless, often creative, persecuted minority, seriously undermined public awareness of the true threat and acute danger of Macho homosexuals.

Hirschfeld inadvertently helped the Nazis in another way: by keeping many Nazi sex criminals out of prison. Lively and Abrams describe this, but Machtan doesn't. The Prussian authorities, rather than incarcerating many of these criminals, referred them instead for psychiatric treatment at Hirschfeld's Sexual Research Institute. The institute consequently collected an immense amount of material about Nazis' sexual crimes. That's why its records were the first fuel chosen for Nazi book-burning.

Another probable reason for Hitler's anti-Semitism is traditional Judaism's appreciation of women and its fierce opposition to homosexuality and the debasing of women. German-Jewish historian Samuel Igra describes this in his neglected 1945 book, Germany's National Vice. Machtan cites the book but not the concept.

The same assistance Hirschfeld and other Jewish homosexuals, and their liberal and psychiatric supporters, inadvertently gave Nazism by accepting homosexuality is demonstrated by the review of The Hidden Hitler in the New York Times Book Review by psychiatrist Walter Reich, former director of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington. Totally ignoring the viciousness of Macho homosexuality, its intimate connection with German militarism and its pivotal role in creating Holocaust brutalities, Reich suggests that if Hitler was indeed homosexual that may actually serve to humanize him. When will today's liberal supporters of homosexuality, organized and otherwise, recognize how deliberate defiance of traditional sexual morality can lead to that deliberate defiance of all traditional morality, which defined the Holocaust!

The first book burning in pre-war Germany, one of the [now famous] newsreels shown here in the U.S. in the 30s, was at the Sex Research Institute, although the newsreels didnt mention what was being burned, outside of books and files that is. This institute had extensive records on the sexual perversions of numerous Nazi leaders, many of whom had been under treatment there prior to the beginning of the Nazi regime. The German courts required treatment at the Sex Research Institute for persons convicted of sex crimes. Ludwig L. Lenz, who worked at the Institute at the time of the raid (May 6, 1933. [On May 10th the Nazis burned books and files from there]) but managed to escape with his life, later wrote of the incident:

Why was it then, since we were completely non-party, that our purely scientific Institute was the first victim which fell to the new regime? The answer to this is simple. We knew too much. It would be against medical principles to provide a list of the Nazi leaders and their perversions [but] not ten percent of the men who, in 1933, took the fate of Germany into their hands, were sexually normal. Our knowledge of such intimate secrets regarding members of the Nazi Party and other documentary material we possessed about forty thousand confessions and biographical letters was the cause of the complete and utter destruction of the Institute of Sexology.[40]

The harsh policies and public pronouncements against homosexuality by Hitler and Himmler, the sacking of the above Sex Research Institute of Berlin, the Rohm Purge (also known as the Night of the Long Knives), and the internment of homosexuals in work camps, etc., were all internal conflicts and struggles for power in Germany itself. The law against homosexual conduct had existed in Germany for many years prior to the Nazi regime as Paragraph 175 of the Reich Criminal Code. When Hitler came to power he used this law as a means of tracking down and punishing those homosexuals who, in the words of one victim, had defended the Weimar Republic, and who had tried to forestall the Nazi threat.[41]

In February of 1933, Hitler banned pornography, homosexual bars and bathhouses, and groups which promoted gay rights. Ostensibly, this decree was a blanket condemnation of all homosexual activity in Germany, but in practice it served as just another means to find and destroy anti-Nazi groups and individuals.

The masculine homosexuals in the Nazi leadership selectively enforced this policy only against their enemies and not against all homosexuals. Even Rector lends credence to this perspective, citing the fact that the decree was not enforced in all cases.[42] Another indication is that the pro-Nazi Society for Human Rights (SHR) continued to participate in German society for several years after Hitlers decree. In The Racial State, Michael Burleigh and Wolfgang Wippermann remind us that Rohm was a leading member of the SHR; and we know from Anthony Read and David Fisher that the SHR was still active in Germany as late as 1940.[43] Furthermore, Oosterhuis and Kennedy write that although he was well known as a gay activist, [Adolf] Brandt was not arrested by the Nazis.[44]

In 1935, Paragraph 175 was amended with paragraph 175a that criminalized any type of behavior that could be construed as indicating a homosexual inclination or desire. (Interestingly, the new criminal code addressing homosexuality deleted the word unnatural from the definition.[45]) This new law provided the Nazis with an especially potent legal weapon against their enemies. It will never be known how many non-homosexuals were charged under this law but it is indisputable that the Nazis used false accusations of homosexuality to justify the detainment and imprisonment of many of their opponents.

The law was so loosely formulated, writes Steakley, that it could be, and was, applied against heterosexuals that the Nazis wanted to eliminate the law was also used repeatedly against Catholic clergyman.[46] Kogan writes that The Gestapo readily had recourse to the charge of homosexuality if it was unable to find any pretext for proceeding against Catholic priests or irksome critics.[47]

The most famous example is that of actor Gustaf Grundgens. Despite the fact that his homosexual affairs were as notorious as those of Rohms, Goering appointed him director of the State Theater. [And] on October 29, 1937 Himmler advised that actors and other artists could be arrested for offenses against paragraph 175 only with his personal consent[48]

The Hitler Youth is another source of reports exposing the meaninglessness of the Nazis harsh rhetoric against homosexuals. Koehl observes that Himmler mitigated his penalties privately and tried to keep every incident of homosexual molestation of the Hitler Youth boys by the SS as secret as possible.[49] But Koehl goes on to cite the records of RJF, the security division of the Hitler Youth administration. During the first six-months of 1940, writes Koehl, [there were] 10,958 crimes committed by Hitler Youths, the most common were theft (5,985), [and] homosexuality (901).[50] When cross-referenced against the list of expulsions from the organization, however (itself an absurdly mild punishment for a supposed capital crime), Koehl found a low rate of expulsions for homosexuality:

Since the RJF Report listed 900 cases of homosexual crimes during a six-month period alone, and only a third of that number were expelled during a twenty-five month period by court action, it suggests that the RJF was more hesitant to uphold Article 175 of the Criminal Code that its official propaganda would have the public believe [One] young delinquent with a record of minor thefts, for which he had spent eight weeks in jail, was not expelled from the Hitler Youth. In September 1940 the SRD surprised him and several prison workers in a wild homosexual orgy in broad daylight on a roadside. With sensational evidence like this in hand, the SRD leader then sought to have the culprit expelled from the Hitler Youth. But it took some time before this occurred.[51]

The increasing apathy of Hitler Youth officials toward homosexuality was an attitude reflected in the larger society as well. In 1937 the Reich Minister of the Interior issued a change in policy regarding Paragraph 175. Under the new ruling only four-time repeat offenders could be jailed or sent to camps for homosexual offenses. This was reaffirmed in 1940 by Himmler.[52]

We shall find that, far from eliminating the sex perverts from his party, Hitler retained most of them, and that he moved against those whom he did eliminate only with the greatest reluctance and after he had been relentlessly pushed by outside forces and circumstances[53]

---

[1] Samual Igra, Germanys National Vice, Quality Press; London [1945], p. 67

[2] Desmond Seward, Napoleon and Hitler, Simon & Schuster; New York [1990], p. 299

[3] Frank Rector, The Nazi Extermination of Homosexuals, Stein & Day; New York [1981], p. 192.

[4] Walter Langer, The Mind of Adolf Hitler, N A L Dutton; New York [1972], p. 178

[5] ibid., p. 179

[6] The Homosexual In History, p. 44

[7] Robert G. L. Waite, The Psychopathic God Adolf Hitler, Signet Books; New York [1977], p. 283f

[8] Frank Rector, The Nazi Extermination of Homosexuals, Stein & Day; New York [1981], p. 57

[9] Washington City Paper, April 4, 1995

[10] Samual Igra, Germanys National Vice, Quality Press; London [1945], p. 72f

[11] see: Reinhard Heydrich: The Chilling Story of the Man Who Masterminded the Nazi Death Camps, Military Heritage Press: p. 64

[12] Richard Grunberger, The 12-Year Reich: A Social History of Nazi Germany 1933-1945, Ballantine Books; New York [1971], p. 70

[13] Newsweek, October 30, 1995

[14] Walter Langer, The Mind of Adolf Hitler, N A L Dutton; New York [1972], p. 179

[15] Scott Lively, The Poisoned Stream: Gay Influence in Human History: volume one, Germany 1890-1945. Founders Publishing Corp.; Keizer: Oregon [1997]

[16] H. W. Koch, The Hitler Youth: Origins and Development 1922-1945, Stein & Day; New York [1976], p. 25f

[17] Frank Rector, The Nazi Extermination of Homosexuals, Stein & Day; New York [1981], p. 39f

[18] ibid., p. 52

[19] Dusty Sklar, The Nazis and the Occult, Dorset Press; New York [1989], p. 19

[20] Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, The Occult Roots of Nazism: Secret Aryan Cults and their Influence on Nazi Ideology, New York University Press; New York [1985] p. 109

[21] J. Sydney Jones Hitler in Vienna 1907-1913, Stein & Day; New York [1983], p. 123

[22] ibid., p. 123

[23] Dusty Sklar, The Nazis and the Occult, Dorset Press; New York [1989], p. 23

[24] Robert G. L. Waite, The Psychopathic God Adolf Hitler, Signet Books; New York [1977], p. 91

[25] Wulf Schwarzwaller, The Unknown Hitler: His Private Life and Fortune, National Press Book; Washington D. C. [1989], p. 67

[26] Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, translated by Ralph Manheim: Houghton Mifflin; New York [1971], p.687

[27] Ibid.

[28] James Webb, The Occult Underground, Open Court Pub; LaSalle: Il. [1974], p. 94

[29] G. S. Graber, The History of the SS: A Chilling Look at the Most Terrifying Arm of the Nazi War Machine, David McKay Company; New York [1978], p. 81

[30] see: Andre Nataf, The Wordsworth Dictionary of the Occult, Wordsworth Refernce; France [1994], pp. 58-60; Texe Marrs, New Age Cults & Religions, Living Truth Publishers; Austin: TX [1990], pp. 199-203; Debra Lardie, Concise Dictionary of the Occult and New Age, Kregal Publishers; Grand Rapids: MI [2000], p. 108; D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, Signature Books; Salt Lake City: UT [1998], freemasonry, index, p. 604

[31] Robert G. Waite, Vangaurd of Nazism: The Free Corps Movement in Postwar Germany 1918-1923, W. W. Norton & Company; New York [1969], p. 209

[32] G. S. Graber, The History of the SS: A Chilling Look at the Most Terrifying Arm of the Nazi War Machine, David McKay Company; New York [1978], p. 47

[33] Ibid, p. 33

[34] Robert G. Waite, Vangaurd of Nazism: The Free Corps Movement in Postwar Germany 1918-1923, W. W. Norton & Company; New York [1969], p. 210

[35] G. S. Graber, The History of the SS: A Chilling Look at the Most Terrifying Arm of the Nazi War Machine, David McKay Company; New York [1978], p. 33

[36] John Costello, Mask of Treachery: Spies, Lies, Buggery and Betrayal, Warner Books; New York [1990], p. 300ff

[37] John Lauritsen and David Thorstad, The Early Homosexual Rights Movement: 1864-1935, Times Change Press; Sebastopol: CA. [1995], p. 69

[38] Former clinical director of Kingsboro Psychiatric Center in Brooklyn, N.Y., and writes on issues of medicine and psychiatry from Roslyn, N.Y.

[39] Insight, Insight on the News - Fair Comment (Issue: 02/25/02)

[40] Irwin J. Haeberle, Swastika, Pink Triangle, and Yellow Star: The Elite Rights Committee, 1992, Harvard Gay and Lesbian Review (Summer, 1995), p. 369

[41] Michael Burleigh and Wolfgang Wipperman, The Racial State: Germany 1933-1945, Cambridge University Press; New York [1991], p. 183

[42] Frank Rector, The Nazi Extermination of Homosexuals, Stein & Day; New York [1981], p. 66

[43] Anthony Read & David Fisher, Kristallnatch: The Nazi Night of Terror, Times Books; New York [1989], p. 245

[44] Edited by Harry Oosterhuis, Homosexuality and Male Bonding in Pre-Nazi Germany: The Youth Movement, the Gay Movement and Male Bonding Before Hitlers Rise: Original Transcripts from Der Eigene, the First Gay Journal in the World, Haworth Press; Binghampton: NY [1992], p. 7

[45] W. Edward, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People, Huntington House; Lafayette: LO [1990], p. 3

[46] James D. Steakley, The Homosexual Emancipation Movement in Germany, Ayer Publishers; Manchester: NH [1976], p. 111

[47] Eugen Kogon, The Theory and Practice of Hell, Berkley Publishing Group; New York [1984], p. 44

[48] Richard Plant, The Pink Triangle: The Nazi War Against Homosexuals, Henry Holt & Co; New York [1995], p. 116

[49] Robert L. Koehl, The Black Corps: The Structure and Power Struggles of the Nazi SS, University of Wisconsin Press; Chicago: IL [1983], p. 51f

[50] ibid., p. 84

[51] ibid., p. 85ff

[52] Quantity and Interpretation Issues in the Comparative Historical Analysis of the Holocaust. In Holocaust and Genocide Studies: Volume 4, Number 2, 1989, p. 146

[53] Samual Igra, Germanys National Vice, Quality Press; London [1945], p. 77f