New Book, THE PINK SWASTIKA
kev...@netvision.net.il
Matthew wrote,
> : Come on, Billy, at least do your homework. There are accounts by any
> : biologist you care to name concerning homosexuality in the animal
> : of this all over in nature. There are even animals who change their sex
> : in mid-life. Mother Nature is much, much more open minded about the
> : possibilities of life than you are. There are very few hard and fast
> : rules.
Readers,
There are also spiders who eat their partners
after mating & killer whales who remain loyal to
a partner of their opposite gender for life.
We must ask . . .
Which will serve as a pattern for human behavior,
a whale or a spider?
Kevin A.
kev...@netvision.net.il
> Kevin Abrams writes:
> > There are also spiders who eat their partners after mating & killer
> > whales who remain loyal to a partner of their opposite gender for life.
> > We must ask . . .
> > Which will serve as a pattern for human behavior, a whale or a spider?
> Kevin, don't you think it would be more appropriate to pose this question
> to all the heterosexual males who abuse, kill, and otherwise molest their
> spouses, signficant others, and children?
> James
This is a red herring and another discussion. But while you're asking,
what about the many heterosexual `women' who psychologically and physically
abuse and murder their husbands and children?
Kevin A.
Harlan Messinger
: Readers,
:
: What Kraig's posting proves is that it is hazardous at best to use
: examples of animal behavior to rationalize or justify human conduct.
:
: Depending on ones motives, there are behaviors, both positive and
: negative, amongst animals which can be exploited to further an argument.
:
Readers,
What Kevin's posting proves is that a bigot will switch arguments every
chance that it suits his purposes.
A standard criticism levelled against homosexuality is that it is
allegedly "unnatural". The response to this depends on what "unnatural"
means. Ordinarily, it means something created by the artifice of which
humankind, alone among the animal kingdom, is capable. But homosexual
activity occurs among other species in the animal kingdom! So it can't be
explained as a product of human artifice. Therefore it must be natural.
No sooner is this pointed out, than the bigots change sides and make the
existence of homosexuality among animals to be a negative because that
somehow makes it "base".
So if homosexuality if a product of human artifice, unique to humankind,
then it is "unnatural", but if occurs among animals as well, it is "base".
Since every form of human activity either is or is not unique to humans,
this implies that _every_ form of human activity is either unnatural or
base. I know that there have been some misanthropic philosophers who have
actually felt this way, but I don't think most of us do.
Do people like Kevin not even have a clue as to how transparent and absurd
their arguments look to people who are capable of critical reasoning?
Jerry Garrison
Messinger) wrote:
[snip}
> Do people like Kevin not even have a clue as to how transparent and absurd
> their arguments look to people who are capable of critical reasoning?
Apparently not, they keep repeating them!
--
Jerry Garrison
MSgt USMC Ret
afn2...@afn.org
===============================
Do we find the cost of freedom
Lying in the ground?
Mother Earth will cover you
Lay your body down.
===============================
Alexander Kiefer
>In article <49vp42$m...@news.netvision.net.il>, kev...@netvision.net.il wrote:
>
> Buddhists seem to get along in family units just fine without the
>Bible. As do Taoists. As do Hindus. In fact, non-Christian Asian
>countries seem to be doing a lot better at holding their families
>together. They don't send their old folks to retirement homes, for
>example, the way Westerners do. They instill a sense of respect for their
>elders that went out of Western culture a long time ago. If you're so
>riled up about the preservation of the family, the Bible isn't really the
>book to be quoting. Shall we talk about Lot's relationship with his
>daughters? Or how about this, if Cain didn't have sex with his mother,
>Eve, where did the rest of the human race come from?
Eve did have another children.
If you couldnt think of that, you *didnt* think well.
So what was your point, again?
Alexander
Gord Easson
third son Seth who was in the lineage of Noah. Cain really doesn't
figure into the human race as we know it today. His descendents (unless
they married into the line of sons from Seth to Noah's sons -- unlikely
under the conditions of his exile) were completely wiped out by the
Genesis flood.
BTW there is no taboo in the Genesis account on incest between siblings.
Abram married his sister, Isaac married his cousin and Jacob married his
two cousins, one of which was his sister-in-law when he married them.
However, there is a strict taboo on incest with a parent. Ham was
cursed after seeing (and ridiculing) his father's nakedness. Lot's
daughters were condemned for sleeping with their father. Incestuous
relationships are tabooified later on in the Law of Moses when such
relationships would certainly not have been a necessity.
As far as gene pool arguments go versus the "Adams sons must have
married their sisters" issue, the gene pool exists as it does today as a
result of its own history. We may notice that horses are inbred much
more successfully than humans. Naturally, horse inbreeding has its
limits too, but they seem to come from a wider gene pool.
As an alternative hypothesis, what is there in Genesis that prevents a
suggestion that God created mates for Adam's sons in the same way that
he did for Adam? If each woman is taken from her husband-to-be's rib
then every woman is just as much a part of Adam as Eve was.
Some thoughts to ponder.
Gord.
Kraig Blackwelder
<KA...@music.mus.polymtl.ca> wrote:
Oh, well then. What -was- I thinking? Cain didn't have sex with his
mother after all. He had sex with his sister! That makes the Bible a
much nicer, more family oriented book already, doesn't it?
Hey, Alexander, thanks for getting snitty with me and then making my
point for me.
K.
basil_sands
> Or how about this, if Cain didn't have sex with his mother,
>Eve, where did the rest of the human race come from?
Where does it say that Cain had sex with Eve? The way I read it Adam and Eve had Cain, Abel, Seth
and a large number of other children. Cain and Seth both married their sisters, seeing as how those were
the only other women on the planet at the time. And this would pose no threat of problems due to the
near perfection of their bodies.
basil_sands
>kev...@netvision.net.il wrote:
>
But homosexual
>activity occurs among other species in the animal kingdom! So it can't be
>explained as a product of human artifice. Therefore it must be natural.
>
than evolved animals. If one holds the to the philosophy of evolution this can be substantiated in that
manner, but if one holds to the philosophy of creationism which states that man is created in the image of
God and is made higher than the animals there is a significant argument against what you say.
Therefore this argument cannot be made until we all agree on what we will cannot agree upon while still
holding our individual beliefs. That being the position of God in the universe and which religious ideology
one holds.
Basil Sands
Gord Easson
>
>Readers,
>
>What Kevin's posting proves is that a bigot will switch arguments every
>chance that it suits his purposes.
>
>A standard criticism levelled against homosexuality is that it is
>allegedly "unnatural". The response to this depends on what "unnatural"
>means. Ordinarily, it means something created by the artifice of which
>explained as a product of human artifice. Therefore it must be natural.
>
>existence of homosexuality among animals to be a negative because that
>somehow makes it "base".
>
>So if homosexuality if a product of human artifice, unique to humankind,
>then it is "unnatural", but if occurs among animals as well, it is "base".
>Since every form of human activity either is or is not unique to humans,
>this implies that _every_ form of human activity is either unnatural or
>base. I know that there have been some misanthropic philosophers who have
>actually felt this way, but I don't think most of us do.
>
>their arguments look to people who are capable of critical reasoning?
inly natural. A human child is much more likely to experiment sexually with another member of the same sex than with a member of th=
e opposite sex. I know of no other issue at stake than the moral issue. It is not a matter of whether homosexuality is natural or =
not, it is whether or not it is morally correct. There can be no argument here. Either we believe it is morally correct behaviour =
and reject all "authorities on morality" which differ, or we believe it is morally incorrect and accept all "authorities on morality=
" which concur.
A simple example:
From the Christian Bible, I Cor 6:9-10 (NASB)
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, n=
or idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
Now either you reject this (the Bible, Paul's writings, this version, etc...) or you don't. There is no reason to argue. We may as=
well be discussing whether or not there is a God. Note that anyone who has sex outside of marriage (whether married or not), steal=
s, desires something belonging to someone else, drinks too much, **ARGUES** or cheats (taxes, employer, etc.) is condemned equally h=
ere. I think that includes most of the Western World.
Gord.
Kraig Blackwelder
<KA...@music.mus.polymtl.ca> wrote:
>
> Indeed, Pseudoapocryphal books, mention that children of Adam and
> Eve were born in couplets, twins, where one was male and second
> female. This children could marry only when from different
> couplets.
What is the source for this?
K.
Alexander Kiefer
Indeed, Pseudoapocryphal books, mention that children of Adam and
Eve were born in couplets, twins, where one was male and second
female. This children could marry only when from different
couplets.
This could have affected human genetical diversity.
Or God could have created other humans.
Alexander
William December Starr
In article <49vp42$m...@news.netvision.net.il>,
kev...@netvision.net.il said:
> This is why human beings require and have a sexual constitution
> expressed in the broader `principle' of the family, as it is
> delineated in the Scriptures. Without an objective measurement to
> which man must hold himself accountable, human sexual behavior can,
> and does, descend to a more base and corrupted level than any animal
> could ever imagine.
And the reason that the "holy writings" of one of the many absurd
religions that infest the world should be adopted as this "objective
measurement" is...?
-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
Alexander Kiefer
>In article <07DEC95.12...@music.mus.polymtl.ca>, Alexander Kiefer
><KA...@music.mus.polymtl.ca> wrote:
>
>> In article <kdb229-0412...@aragorn227.acns.nwu.edu>
>kdb...@nwu.edu (Kraig Blackwelder) writes:
> If you're so
>> >riled up about the preservation of the family, the Bible isn't really the
>> >book to be quoting. Shall we talk about Lot's relationship with his
>> >Eve, where did the rest of the human race come from?
>>
>> If you couldnt think of that, you *didnt* think well.
>> So what was your point, again?
>
> Oh, well then. What -was- I thinking? Cain didn't have sex with his
>mother after all. He had sex with his sister! That makes the Bible a
He could have had. Thats all what I told. Pseudoapocryphal books
suggest that.
The relation between brother and sister is conditioned exclusively
by social aspects mainly by common family upbringing.
If we take into account that people in those times lived close
to 1000yrs, the siblings might even not know each other as
brother and sister, since they could have been raised by Adam
and Eve at completely different times.
In the end, the only factor worth considereng was a genetical
one.
Other possibility would be God creating other humans.
>much nicer, more family oriented book already, doesn't it?
Old testament doesnt claim to be a book containing exclusively
*positive* examples.
Definitely *not* a family Book at all. Actually, very hard to
read.
> Hey, Alexander, thanks for getting snitty with me and then making my
>point for me.
Things were not always the same.
Alexander
Scott A. Safier
Starr) wrote:
! In article <49vp42$m...@news.netvision.net.il>,
! kev...@netvision.net.il said:
!
! > This is why human beings require and have a sexual constitution
! > expressed in the broader `principle' of the family, as it is
! > delineated in the Scriptures. Without an objective measurement to
! > which man must hold himself accountable, human sexual behavior can,
! > and does, descend to a more base and corrupted level than any animal
! > could ever imagine.
!
! And the reason that the "holy writings" of one of the many absurd
! religions that infest the world should be adopted as this "objective
! measurement" is...?
It is a fundamental premise of all (western?) religions that "we are
right" and "everyone else is wrong." Some religions take it one step
further, "we must help those who are wrong to know our rightness." For
example, in Saturday's NY Times, the retiring head of the Union of
American Hebrew Congregations, Rabbi Alexander Schindler notes, "Some of
the best Jews we have are Jews by-choice," seeming to take pride in
converting people to the Jewish "right way". Every (western?) religion
does it to same degree or another.
--
Scott Safier Robotics Institute
internet: cor...@cmu.edu Carnegie Mellon Univ.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/scotts/www/
Alexander Kiefer
>In article <09DEC95.17...@music.mus.polymtl.ca>, Alexander Kiefer
><KA...@music.mus.polymtl.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>> Indeed, Pseudoapocryphal books, mention that children of Adam and
>> Eve were born in couplets, twins, where one was male and second
>> female. This children could marry only when from different
>> couplets.
>
If I remember correctly, It was The Book of Patriarchs or
The Book of Enoch. I will check the thing and post the
reference. I hope I will find it again.
Alexander
Kraig Blackwelder
<KA...@music.mus.polymtl.ca> wrote:
> In article <kdb229-0712...@aragorn198.acns.nwu.edu>
kdb...@nwu.edu (Kraig Blackwelder) writes:
> > Oh, well then. What -was- I thinking? Cain didn't have sex with his
> >mother after all. He had sex with his sister! That makes the Bible a
> ---------------------------
>
> He could have had. Thats all what I told. Pseudoapocryphal books
> suggest that.
Well, first of all, get the names of your weird works straight.
There's the apocrypha, and there's the pseudepigrapha. Are you talking
about one of these, or something else entirely?
> The relation between brother and sister is conditioned exclusively
> by social aspects mainly by common family upbringing.
> If we take into account that people in those times lived close
> to 1000yrs, the siblings might even not know each other as
> brother and sister, since they could have been raised by Adam
> and Eve at completely different times.
People didn't used to live to be around 1000 years old. If you
actually believe this, then you're too mindfucked to even have a rational
discussion with. I'll counter your myth with science, and you, in your
chuckle-headed unthinking zeal, will try to rebut what I said with more
mythology.
> In the end, the only factor worth considereng was a genetical
> one.
The word is genetic, not genetical.
>
> Other possibility would be God creating other humans.
That's sheer speculation.
>
> Old testament doesnt claim to be a book containing exclusively
> *positive* examples.
> Definitely *not* a family Book at all. Actually, very hard to
> read.
Well, it was harder to translate, since the Greek was really bad.
Whoever wrote the Bible, his Greek was really bad.
K.
Terry Canaan
: In article <4ae2o6$p...@crl2.crl.com>, wds...@crl.com (William December
: Starr) wrote:
Judeaism isn't a missionary religion, being one of the few religions that
doesn't seek to convert people to its faith. Obviously, conversion isn't
discouraged, but it also isn't sought.
"Jews by choice" would most likely be people who've coverted for
marriage. Most of these would probably be women, since "jewishness" comes
from mother to child. If a jewish man wants jewish children, his wife
must be jewish or all the children would have to be converted.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|T_e_r_r_y C_a_n_a_a_n |"The propogandist's purpose |
|~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~|is to make one set of people |
|~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~|forget that certain other |
|cha...@big10.metrobbs.com|sets of people are human. |
|^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^|--Aldous Huxley |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Gord Easson
> Well, it was harder to translate, since the Greek was really bad.
>Whoever wrote the Bible, his Greek was really bad.
>
K.
Which particular Bible are you speaking of? The Bible that I'm sure
most people are referring to was written mostly in Hebrew. Once you've
explained that, perhaps you can demonstrate how bad the Greek was.
Gord.
kev...@netvision.net.il
Readers,
A part of a series of
Excerpts from, THE PINK SWASTIKA,
Homosexuality In The Nazi Party 1995
"Mask of Treachery, Spies, Lies, Buggery and Betrayal"
The attraction of Fascism for homosexuals appears in the history of
other countries as well. (In addition to Germany) As we noted earlier,
pro-Nazi fascist organizations in both England and France were headed by
homosexuals. In England, the organization was called the Anglo-German
fellowship, and was headed by British homosexuals Guy Francis de Money
Burgess, and Captain John Robert Macnamara. In France, the pro-Nazi
Fascists were represented by two groups, the Radical Socialist Party
headed by Jacques Doriot; both men were homosexuals. [Costello, John:
"Mask Of Treachery: Spies, Lies, Buggery and betrayal." New York,
William Morrow and Company, 1988. 300ff.]
Homosexualists John Lauritsen and David Thorstad report that in the
Soviet Union, homosexuality became known as "the fascist perversion"
during the 1930's. They quoted the Soviet intellectual, Maxim Gorky:
"There is already a slogan in Germany, `eradicate the homosexual and
fascism will disappear." [Lauritsen, John and Thorstad, David. "The
Early Homosexual Rights Movement: 1864-1935 New York, Times Change
Press, 1974:69]
Regards,
Kevin E. Abrams
kev...@netvision.net.il
dionisio....of the Dionisian cult?
Posted the following,
> Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 11:30:28 -0400
> From: "David B. O'Donnell" <atr...@aol.net>
> To: Multiple recipients of list GLB-PRESS <GLB-...@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
> Subject: Review: Pink Swastika
> [ Originally submitted by Bruce_...@BENDNET.COM ]
> "Pink Swastika" Revises History
> A flawed book of propoaganda about gays and Nazis is miles away from
> serious scholarhip.
> by Dan Hays
Text deleted......
> from the Statesman Journal, Salem, OR September 5, 1995, pg. D-1
> Boswell then goes on: "One clear example of the pervasive effect of the
> prejudice is the revulsion in Germanic and Anglo-Saxon cultures at any
> form of male-male intimacy of affection." You may easily check all of
> Boswell's sources. They are available and stand up to scrutiny. Start
> checking references used by Lively and Abrams and decide for yourself if
> they stand up to the same scrutiny.
Readers,
The authors of THE PINK SWASTIKA invite any sincere individual to not
only check Boswell's sources, but our sources as well. We believe that
they will stand up to honest scrutiny. We agree with Hays, that people
should decide for themselves, "once they read our book," whether we have
a case, or not.
Hays didn't do a book review, he preformed a character assassination
and did nothing to refute the contents of THE PINK SWASTIKA. His sources
are minimal and weak. And Hays infers that what he wrote is, "serious"
scholarship? What a joke! Allan Bloom wasn't kidding when he wrote, "The
Closing of the American Mind." Today, true "scholarship" has been hijacked
by political correctness and sexual liberation ideology.
The authors of THE PINK SWASTIKA encourage all American's to think
independently, and do their own research. Don't accept at face value
what we say or what you read and hear in today's media. Remember what
Peter Jennings said, "there's no such thing as truth, only news." If
this be true, then mainstream vehicles for `informing' the public don't
inform at all, but spread propaganda and indoctrinate.
Regardless of what Mr. Hays wrote, the authors stand by THE PINK
SWASTIKA and its contents. Our focus is on understanding history and
rectifying an attempt by American homofascists to co-opt the Holocaust
in support of their own devious political and social agenda. The attempt
by homosexualists to `normalize' homosexuality and posture as victims of
Nazi persecution equal to the Jewish people is a farce, being that the
historical record documents how, core Nazis themselves were a clique of
pederastic homosexualists. (Sodomizers of young boys)
THE PINK SWASTIKA could be the most
important book you read in this decade.
Sincerely,
Kevin E. Abrams
Co-author of THE PINK SWASTIKA:
Exposes Homosexuality in the Nazi Party &
Homofascism in America today.
Order you copy by calling 1-800-828-2290
P.S.
We are also accepting and soliciting information on homofascism
for an upcoming second edition of THE PINK SWASTIKA. If you have
information or documentation which you feel would be of help to the
authors and would like to share it, please contact the us by email.
Thank you.
Magenta!!
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 02:21:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Forwarded mail....
Fellow netters -
Please excuse the lengthy enclosure - but I think it is worth it.
One of my colleagues at Reed, Christine Mueller (Professor of History
and Humanities, and a specialist in German history) has written the
enclosed essay analyzing and refuting the piece by Kevin Abrams, a
Jewish homophobe in Canada, charging that the Nazi movement was
essentially led by gays and was the result of the German gay movement,
etc. (Abrams' piece was relayed on Gaynet a few weeks ago.) These
same charges about the connection between Nazism and gays have
appeared in the Oregon Voters' Pamphlet as part of the arguments by
the OCA in favor of their Ballot Measure 13, and Christine hopes that
her rebuttal can be used to put down those arguments, and any future
ones that Scott Lively et al. might devise. Christine has given me
permission to forward this to the net. She spent a lot of time and
energy on it, and deserves full credit (I'm only the messenger boy).
Ed Segel (se...@reed.edu)
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 94 22:48 PDT
From: Christine Mueller <cmue...@reed.edu> To: se...@reed.edu
Subject:
The Other Side of the Pink Triangle:
Still a Pink Triangle
Christine L. Mueller October 24, 1994
In the SS, today, we still have about one case of homosexuality a
month. In a whole year, about eight to ten cases occur in the entire
SS. I have now decided upon the following: In each case, these people
will naturally be publicly degraded, expelled, and handed over to the
courts. Following completion of the punishment imposed by the courts,
they will be sent, by my order, to a concentration camp, and they will
be shot in the concentration camp, while attempting to escape.
Heinrich Himmler, 18 February 1937 (1)
Thus Heinrich Himmler, the man most likely to succeed Adolf Hitler
as
Fuehrer in 1945, once again escalated the war on sexual behavior that
did not conform to male heterosexual supremacy, an ideal he linked to
winning the world race war of survival. "A people of good race which
has many children has the candidature for world power and world
domination. A people of good race which has too few children has a
one-way ticket to the grave . . ." he admonished the SS in one of his
four-hour lectures. (2) Two years earlier, on the anniversary of his
successful ambush and murder of Ernst Roehm, SA chief and Himmler's
former, deeply hated commanding officer, Himmler had secured Hitler's
approval of a revision of the law, unchanged since the founding of a
united Germany in l871, that set prison terms for homosexual acts.
Paragraph l75a, as it was called until it was repealed in 1968/69 (3),
now additionally criminalized eight new acts, attitudes, intentions,
and reveries, apart from sex itself, and punished them with draconian
sentences of three to ten years' incarceration. (4)
Despite the fact that Himmler often personally protected Nazi
homosexuals and kept their "crime" secret, (5) in that year, 1935, the
actual arrests under the Criminal Code almost quadrupled, from 948 to
about 3700. Recorded arrests reached an annual high of 8115 in 1939
and fluctuated at 1935 levels until the records break off in 1944. (6)
Unrecorded arrests, which included homosexuals from European countries
occupied by the Third Reich, and ad hoc killings may have reached
220,000, according to estimates of the Protestant Church in Austria.
(7) This wide variation in figures of casualties is due to the state
of the records, and to the fact that homosexuals continued to be
treated as criminals after the war. Their imprisonment remained part
of their police record, and they received no compensation for
concentration camp sentences. "Unlike other survivors, the gay
prisoners soon discovered that their persecution had not ended. .
Throughout the l950s and l960s, German courts convicted homosexual
men at a rate as high as that of the Nazi regime." (8) The dangers of
publicity muted homosexual voices, and therefore only a few memoirs
and known survivors exist.
Uncertainty about the numbers of homosexuals who disappeared under
the
Nazi regime is also the direct result of the high mortality of such
prisoners in Nazi camps. When the SS newspaper Das Schwarze Korps
published the view that "unnatural acts deserve the death penalty,"
(9) this merely represented the logic of Himmler's "guiding Nordic
principle: extermination of degenerates." (10) Though the law
prescribed only prison terms of various lengths, thousands of
homosexuals either went to prison first and then were re-arrested by
the Gestapo and sent to a "Class III" concentration camp; or they were
arrested by the Gestapo in the first place and sent directly to a
"Class III" concentration camp. "Class III," writes Eugen Kogon,
"stood for the 'mills of death' which prisoners seldom left alive."
Because Nazi doctrine classed homosexuals with criminals, Jews, and
"political prisoners deemed especially dangerous," (11) homosexuals
found themselves in Class III camps. Obviously, incarceration in any
concentration camp "posed a threat to a prisoner's life," (12) but
the classification of homosexuals as particularly dangerous was
telling: "The closer a prisoner's category was to the heart of Nazi
ideology, the more dangerous his circumstances in the camp." (13) From
surviving prisoners to Rudolf Hoess, commandant at Auschwitz,
witnesses nearly unanimously report that homosexuals were exposed in
all camps to the greatest brutality. John Steakley summarizes the
evidence:
The chances for survival in a Level 3 camp were low indeed.
Homosexuals were distinguished from other prisoners by a pink triangle
about three-and-one-half inches high, worn on the left side of the
jacket and on the right trouser leg. To make homosexuals more readily
distinguishable, pink triangles were about an inch larger than the
yellow triangles worn by Jews or red triangles worn by political
prisoners. There was no possiblity of 'passing' as a heterosexual, and
the presence of 'marked men' in the all-male camp population evoked
the same reaction as in modern prisons: homosexuals were brutally
assaulted and sexually abused. (14)
SS tortured homosexuals to death (15), worked them to death,
shot,
raped, beat, and starved them, and performed medical experiments on
them. The latter included hormonal injections intended to correct
their homosexuality and save them for the propagation of the race .
They killed them for sport and target practice (16). Many prisoners
also abused them. Sharing Nazi opinions of them, they kept them at the
bottom of the prisoner hierarchies that distributed protection and
assistance. Indeed, they were only marginally higher than Jews. (17)
Homosexuals were designated by their fellow prisoners as the fodder
for quotas -- for special details, deportation, or reduction of the
prisoner population through execution. (18) Accepting castration might
or might not lead to release: release after castration could lead
directly to duty at the front in a feared SS penal battalion. (19) In
this situation, Hoess recalled, "two friends on several occasions
committed suicide together." (20)
A sociologist's analysis of mortality in the camps concludes:
Reading the many reports and asking the prisoners' committees
(which
still exist today) about the prisoners with the pink triangles, one
repeatedly learns that they were there, but nobody
can tell you anything about them. Quantitative analysis offers a sad
explanation for the extraordinary lack of visibility: the individual
pink-triangle prisoner was likely to live for only a short time in the
camp and then to disappear from the scene. After four months, one in
four had left: after a year, one in two. It was otherwise for the
Jehovah's Witnesses and politicals: after a year, four out of five and
two out of three, respectively, were still in the camp. This thinning
out is due to deaths: three out of four deaths among the homosexuals
occurred within the first year after their committal. (21)
Given such a record, it is churlish indeed to deny homosexuals the
status of victims accorded to Jews, gypsies, and the sick, merely
because they were not gassed en masse, but found death in other ways;
and because a small fraction miraculously survived. (22) Though not
direct victims of the Holocaust (except, of course, for Jewish
homosexuals), homosexuals were victims of racial cleansing, obviously
a corollary of the genocidal ideology of Aryan racial supremacy, and
in practice a deadly threat. Jews and gypsies were "enemy races,"
scheduled for extermination; homosexuals were saboteurs of the race, a
problem in reproductive policy. Himmler made such policy in the Reich
Central Office for the Combating of Homosexuality and Abortion. As
"racially less valuable members of the German population," homosexuals
"were subject to a series of negative measures" suited to the
relationship of their "problem" to racist values. (23) Some Nazi
physicians thought their "disorder" could be cured and instituted
forcible medical "treatment" and "rehabilitation." Others thought it a
"hereditary pathology" that required quarantine or extermination;
others thought it merely a rebellious behavior: "[they build] a state
within a state, they are state criminals. They are not 'poor, sick'
people to be treated, but enemies of the state to be eliminated!"(24)
Despite the fact that "no gay ghettos were sacked, its inhabitants
carried off to be gassed," (25) there can be no doubt that homosexuals
(and yet other categories of "undesirables" such as persistent
failures, alcoholics, the homeless, the retarded, juvenile
delinquents, and the mentally ill) were victims of the same regime
that killed Jews and gypsies, and for ideologically related reasons.
If, as Abrams claims, Judith Reisman indeed wrote that "it is
unconscionable for radical homoxexuals to wrest 'Nazi victim status'
from the bones of millions of exterminated men, women, and children,"
(26) she is completely wrong. Homosexual victims were victims in their
own right.
Before their rise to power, Nazi members of parliament helped
quash a
proposal to limit Paragraph l75, announcing officially: Anyone who
even thinks of homosexual love is our enemy. We reject anything which
emasculates our people and makes it a plaything for our enemies, for
we know that life is a fight and it's madness to think that men will
ever embrace faternally. Natural history teaches us the opposite.
Might makes right. And the stronger will always win over the weak.
Let's see to it that we once again become the strong! But this we can
only do in one way -- the German people must once again learn how to
exercise discipline. We therefore reject any form of lewdness,
expecially homosexuality, because it robs us of our last chance to
free our people from the bondage which now enslaves it. (27)
Immediately on taking power, Nazis raided and destroyed homosexual
clubs, associations, and organizations. They created police
inventories of homosexuals to fire them from office and to harrass
them with interrogations and investigations. (28) "Toughening up"
Paragraph 175 and a rising rate of arrests thereafter forced the
highly visible but illegal homosexual lifestyle underground. As one
survivor put it, "We lived like animals in a wild game park, always
sensing the hunters." (29)
Does this record not contradict the evidence that homosexuality
was
prevalent in Nazi organizations, most saliently in the early SA under
the leadership of Ernst Roehm, but also in the SS and the Hitler
Youth? At the hands of Kevin Abrams, these well-known facts become
revelations of a hidden history, and lead him to propose an "Other
Side of the Pink Triangle:" "The record shows that there was far more
brutality, rape, torture and murder committed against innocent people
by Nazi deviants and homosexuals, than there was against homosexuals."
(30)
National Socialist leaders and the SS, Abrams argues, were
primarily homosexual, and the qualities we associate with Nazi
aggression and genocide are rooted in that homosexuality. Permitted
by a "liberal miasma of sexual deviance" to take root, Nazism burst
forth, revealing the pathological nature of homosexuality. Therefore,
contemporary Americans should be more cautious than German "liberals"
were, for gays are like Nazis. Above all the public must reject that
propaganda image of gays as victims which serves as a wedge to open
the door to power. So certain is Abrams of this startling conclusion,
he permits himself to interpret the evidence any way he needs to, with
light regard for historical scholarship -- or indeed the fundamental
rules of logic.
His first concern is to show that National Socialism was rooted in
earlier organizations founded by homosexuals, and that the combat
philosophy they touted was directly a product of homosexuality.
Certainly the prevalence of homosexuality in the German Workers'
Party, Thule Society and certain Freikorps (veterans' bands) matched
their proportions elsewhere in German society -- in liberal parties,
for example, the army officer corps, the royal families and
aristocracies, the Catholic and Protestant clergies, the universities,
the socialist movement, among bureaucrats, industrialists and small
shopkeepers, in theater, music and the arts, in small villages and big
city slums. To make the open homosexuality in proto-fascist groups
appear to be amazing, Abrams suppresses the fact that homosexuality
had increasingly -- but only partially -- "come out" in early
twentieth-century Germany. It was recognized in every walk of life;
in some parts of society it was openly tolerated, in others secretly,
and in others it was still repressed. In each walk of life,
homosexuality was imbued with the values of its social, political and
cultural environment. In the anti-liberal movements, among the youth
groups, nudists, sun- and body-worshippers it was associated with
health and sex reform and thus with a superior, anti-bourgeois
lifestyle. (31) This tradition did find its way into National
Socialism and was mixed there with military homoeroticism.
Homosexuality was secretly tolerated in the army officer corps, where
it was embedded in a homophobic, "traditionalist" culture. (32)
Indeed, even conservative bourgeois nationalism in this period
centered on the erotic image of the youthful German soldier. (33) No
"liberal miasma" was needed to actuate this tradition; nor was there
any "liberalization" of Paragraph 175 during the Weimar Republic --
this is entirely a figment of Abrams' imagination, needed in his view
to "explain" the particularly homosexual elements in Nazi
organizations. What the twenties did witness -- not only in Germany --
was a high degree of unofficial toleration of individual emancipation
-- but not an inch of collective, legal emancipation.
Little wonder that homosexuals were also to be found in the
organizations out of which the NSDAP arose, and that in that culture,
homosexuality was associated with combat and ferocity. But far from
being an expression of homosexuality, that ethos represented the stamp
of an anti-Semitic, anti-capitalist, para-military world-view on both
heterosexual and homosexual members. For if homosexuality was present
in every political organization (and class, church, and profession) in
Germany, it cannot alone account for the specific nature of Nazism.
Homosexuality was only one element among others there. One must
reverse Abrams' causal account: the outstanding and defining feature
of these groups, where toleration of homosexuality by a heterosexual
majority was as secondary as their interest in vegetarianism and
demand for whole-grain bread, was their racist patriotism and
anti-liberalism. The German Workers' Party, an association of German
railroad workers in Bohemia who were fighting off the competition of
Czech workers, was "a libertarian national party, which with all its
strength was dedicated to fighting reaction, feudal, clerical and
capitalist special privileges, and alien national influences. " (34)
The Thule Society was one splinter of "an undergound movement of
fervent, militant sects which nurtured a folkish anti-Semitism like a
secret science." (35) The Freikorps, armed cohorts of veterans - of
which the "homosexual" Rossbach group was only one, - were dedicated
to eradicating socialism, liberalism, and Judaism, all of which they
perceived to be enemies of the German Nation. Thus they attempted to
topple the Weimar Republic by force. In short, the salient features
of the legacy of Nazism from its forerunners were violence, racism and
a new kind of authritarian demcoracy for the little man -- not
primarily homosexuality at all.
Abrams' analysis thus has the tail wagging the dog, and he persists
in this error in his account of the early Nazi party. Again he links
one set of facts -- that the SA (as Shirer aptly put it ) was "a
motley mob of brawlers," (36) -- to another set of facts -- that
numerous SA leaders were homosexual; and he assumes he has established
a causal connection. Again he suppresses the context: for example,
the fact that the majority of the SA was heterosexual (indeed, if
millions of SA men were homosexual, Germany would have had a sheerly
unbelievable rate of homosexuality!) He fails to mention the levels of
political violence in Germany that left hundreds dead on all sides in
1932 (the SA were, after all, physically fighting the equally violent
communist and socialist combat units). Additionally it buttresses his
case gullibly to accept as fact the smears levelled at the Nazis by
socialists and communists. They tried to undermine the appeal Nazi
attitudes had for certain sectors of the German public by labelling
the Nazis "perverts." (37) Their successful propaganda campaign
influenced the homophobic sources Abrams uses, as a recent scholarly
work has demonstrated. (38) Abrams has not considered that in taking
statements made at the time at face value simply because they stem
from contemporaries he turns out to be repeating disinformation.
Empirical data does not therefore corroborate the causal connection
between homosexuality and Nazi political violence. Abrams next
attempts to posit it as an abstract sociological, or perhaps
anthropological, possibly a biological, generalization, citing five
instances of "homosexuality"" observed in ancient, Asian, and
primitive rituals or warrior societies. These sometime conjunctions
prove to him that "the most warlike nations have been those who were
most addicted to the love of male youths." (39) Can then nations not
so addicted, like the U.S.A, ever be as "warlike" as the homosexual,
like Germany, and defeat them? Abrams' pseudo-social-scientific logic
here is strikingly similar to the pseudo-biologistic logic of Nazi
eugenics: he has succumbed to the same mytholigical argumentation.In
fact, his argument here is the argument that some Nazis, like Roehm,
advanced about the special powers of homosexuals, and which had some
influence on Hitler.
Rudolf Diels, the founder of the Gestapo, recorded some of
Hitler's
personal thoughts on the subject: 'He lectured me on the role of
homosexuality in history and politics. It had destroyed ancient
Greece, he said. Once rife, it extended its contagious effects like an
ineluctable law of nature to the best and most manly of characters,
eliminating from the reproductive process those very men on whose
offspring a nation depended. The immediate result of the vice was,
however, that unnatural passion swiftly became dominant in public
affairs if it were allowed to spread unchecked.' With its mingled
elements of condemnation, dread, and admiration, Hitler's view appears
to be a concatenation of eugenics, fear of conspiracy (similar to the
'Elders of Zion' legend), and the theory of homosexual superiority
advanced by Hans Blueher. (40)
The "scholarly" crux of Abrams' piece is this moral reversal of
Blueher's pseudo-biologistic theory. Blueher claimed that
homosexuals were genetically more purely warriors and therefore
superior to heterosexuals. Abrams agrees that they are more purely
warriors, on grounds as scientifically obscure as Blueher's, but for
that reason worse than heterosexuals.
Abrams next proceeds to link this principle of history to
contemproary America, drawing a parallel between "gay political
strategy" ("exaggerating homosexual victim status") and the
"Nazi/homosexual tactic" ("posturing as the victim") that presumably
helped them to power. (41) Whatever the validity of his views of the
political strategy of American gays, any similarity to Nazi strategy
founders on a simple fact known instinctively to every student of
Nazism, namely that the Nazis never, ever, portrayed themselves as
victims. This was not merely a canny propaganda tactic on the part of
Goebbels and Hitler. All the powerful Nazis exhibited a distinct
aversion to the position of victim. Is Abrams thinking here of the
Nazi propaganda image of Germany as a victim of international Jewry?
If so, the image was one of blonde women and heroic men seduced and
swindled by Jews. The Nazis were the relief to Gemany's misery, not a
part of it. Or perhaps Abrams thinks of Mein Kampf as the testament
of a victim: on the contrary, it is a tale of the revenge of a
"master" on those fools who took him to be a victim. The Nazis
divided the world into masters and victims, and they were never to be
found on the wrong side.
This forced analogy reveals that it is not enough for Abrams to
refute gay histories of Nazi persecution -- he claims to know
categorically that "in Nazi Germany, homosexuals as a specific "group"
were NEVER targeted for extermination and were treated far better than
most other concentration camp prisoners." (42) The point of the
false parallel between Nazi and gay "strategies" is to imply further
that claims of persecution should be read as a secret sign of the
real, i.e. Nazi, nature of American gays! If homosexuality equals
"warlike," American gays must be like Nazis in many other ways as
well. After this observation, the unfolding of the Nazi regime in his
article becomes a sketch of the potential dangers gays pose to
America.
Abrams' task is now to show that homosexuality was rampant in
National Socialist leadership -- that it survived the purge of the
"homosexual" SA and was the dominant feature of the SS, the SD, and
even Hitler himself, "the pathological god born of a
masculo-homosexual cult." (43)
These are spectacularly garbled passages. On the one hand, Abrams
claims that Paragraph175 was less stringent after 1935, but a few
pages later, in the course of asserting that political opponents of
the regime, not homosexuals at at all, were persecuted under that
paragraph, he unwittingly presents evidence that the law was indeed
made more stringent. He asserts that there were no homosexuals in
concentration camps and then twice refers to the testimony of a
homosexual in a concentration camp about the rapes of homosexuals in
concentration camps by the SS. And while the overall argument aims to
show that homosexuality was accepted in the regime, he uses complaints
and denunciations of homosexual Nazis by heterosexual Nazis to show
the presence of homosexuality.
Oblivious to these contradictions, Abrams concentrates on solving
what seems to him the major obstacle to his case, the fact that when
Hitler purged Roehm and the SA, he explained his murderous acts as a
purge of homosexuals. A contemporary witticism asked: if this was
what Hitler did upon discovering Roehms' homosexuality, what would he
do when he found out about Goebbels' club foot!? In other words,
neither the alert public in 1939 nor any historian since has taken
that "spin control" at face value. Laboriously, Abrams kicks at an
open door, showing what everyone already knows, that Hitler let Roehm
be killed for reasons other than homosexuality. Abrams arrives at the
surprisingly correct conclusion that "much to the delight of the
Reichswehr (the German army), landowners and industrialists, Hitler
had put an end to the "'Second Socialist Revolution,'" (44) but from
this he extracts an incorrect meaning.
What it shows is not that Hitler promoted homosexuality both before
and after the Roehm purge and sacrificed Roehm only to absolute
necessity, but rather that homosexuality had not been and never became
an important aspect of National Socialist ideology or practice; that
Roehm had been supported not as a homosexual, but in spite of it,
because he was a tough, fearsome and loyal supporter; that Hitler
dropped him when he became a rebel. Loyalty to his person and program
was Hitler's overriding demand of his lieutenants. Roehm posed a
problem from the start, because he was a powerful and charismatic
leader with millions of his own loyal followers, and he threatened to
remain outside the Hitler state. Hitler shared an old friendship with
him; but he also feared this "loose cannon," and had only reluctantly
accepted him as SA chief on his return from Bolivia. (45) He
disdained him in private ("The clique from the Bratwurstgloeckl are
all fairies!" )(46) while flattering him in public. Abrams takes
precisely this flattery as incontrovertible evidence of their
(homosexual?) bond. Above all, Hitler simply needed Roehm, as long as
his service was unconditional and as long as Hitler lacked other means
of support. Abrams puts his finger on it when he writes: "more than
once he had warned his party comrades against being too squeamish
about a man's personal morals if he were a fanatical fighter for the
movement." (47) Sadly, Abrams does not recognize his own insight.
Moreover, it should be noted that the "morals" here referred to
included much more than homosexuality-- Goebbels' actresses and
Gring's thefts, for example.
The army was, as Abrams proposes, deeply implicated in the Roehm
purge, but not, as Abrams would have it, because it balked at the
prospect of "a gang of unruly homosexual thugs running the German
army." (48) The problem was not homosexuality, but that "these armed
poultry farmers or department store porters would wake up with the
rank of general or at least colonel, just because they had won the
titles of SA group or brigade leaders as a result of various scuffles
in beer cellars or back alleys." (49) Homosexuality in the SA was
for the army just as secondary to the main issue -- power - as Abrams
shows it to have been for Hitler.
Does proving at length what everyone already knows -- that
homosexuality was not a central issue in the Roehm purge -- thus prove
that the National Socialist regime was and remained an expression of
the "pathology" of homosexuality? Abrams tries to argue, first, that
the SS inherited that SA tradition, despite the fact that it was
established to protect Hitler from the SA and was led by two
homophobic heterosexuals, Himmler and Heydrich, the one married and
the other a notorious ladies' man. The SS (Schutzstaffel or guard
companies) was not named after "a homosexual group in Vienna." (50)
The SA did not "become the Sicherheitsdienst (SD)," (51) but a
military sports club (52); nor was the SD the "branch of the SS
security serviec that controlled the concentation camps." (53) It was
the SS security service, while a special division of the SS,
Totenkopf, was assigned to the camps. Thus Abrams' notion that
"whenever the murder of innocent masses of Jews, Poles or captured
allied prisoners was portrayed in the movies, it would have been the
sicherheitsdienst division, the 'butch' homosexuals, who were
responsible," is patently -- Hollywood.
Abrams' insinuations that Hitler himself was homosexual are based
on such tendentious reading of such dubious evidence -- wartime
polemics and drug-store histories -- that Abrams himself seems
unwilling to state his position baldly. And indeed, if Hitler had
founded the NSDAP with homosexuals, openly promoted a homosexual
agenda, had a homosexual relationship with Roehm, and so forth, one
wonders why he himself remained in the closet? Hitler was not a
homosexual; but he was ambivalent about homosexuality among his
followers. Sometimes he complained, at other times he defended them.
That is, until the dominant heterosexual elements in the NSDAP
politicized the matter. Quite possibly to make the party more
acceptable to the German public -- who were indeed horrified at the
violence of party squads -- a campaign against homosexuality got
underway, largely under Himmler's aegis. "Homosexuality" served,
among other things, to pin the obnoxious violence of the 1930-1934
period on a scapegoat that had disapppeared -- the "homosexual SA."
Thus, as Heiden wrote: "A storm of defamation descended on these dead
men." (55) But the official campaign was also fed by an increasing
social
intolerance of any but a "normal" heterosexual lifestyle in Germany.
Nazi politicization of the issue of homosexuality, now labelled "a
frightful legacy of the liberal period," itself created the evidence
of homosexuality in Nazi organizations -- the celebrated cases, the
rumors, the jokes -- on which Abrams relies. "Among older youths,
homosexuality, that very special Nationalist Socialist 'crime,' became
a prominent feature of the criminal landscape, mostly because the
Hitler youth and SS, by no means immune from this supposed flaw,
mobilized a 'sharpened fight' to eradicate it." (56) It is worth
noting that the contemporaneous attack on 'gay New York' by
politicians and police (57) had much less scope for persecution than
did the SS, because of the comparative strength of American civil
rights. Only thirty years later did new emancipation movements in
both Germany and the U.S.A. once again reveal the presence of
homosexuals in all walks of life. The notion that this movement
derived from Nazism, or, as Abrams puts it, shares a "homosexual
pathology" with the Nazis, requires, we have already noted, not only
tendentious research, fallacious reasoning, and gullibilty --
excusable because ignorance can be changed -- but also a dishonorable
determination to adapt the evidence to his needs.
The abuse to which he subjects Heiden's Der Fuehrer 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.
Two myths challenged by the recovery of the memory of homosexual
victims of Nazism seem to have provoked Abrams' exercise in
"revisionism." First, his irritation that "gay apologists...portray
themselves as historical victims of Nazi persecution on par with the
Jewish people" (62) reveals his unrealistic assumption that the
"honor" of being victimized by the Nazi regime is possessed
exclusively by one group. Though certainly each category of victims
was subjected to unique conditions, and thus the term "victims of the
Holocaust" should indeed refer to those exterminated on grounds of
race, the term "victims of Nazism" cannot refer exclusively to those
who perished in Operation Reinhard. After all, apart from Jews and
gypsies, millions of other individuals died as a result of Nazi
persecution and aggression. Indeed, recent research suggests that our
conventional categories may not take Nazi plans into account. The
millions of dead Slavs who died of hunger, disease, exposure,
overwork, and violence are generally not included in the category of
victims of the Holocaust, yet their their eventual disappearance by
attrition was anticipated. (63) But even if Abrams were correct to
exclude all other groups from victimhood, Charles Maier's objection to
such an abuse of the Holocaust seems apt: he terms it "the perverted
myth that exploits the memory of an infinite horror to justify even a
far less repressive behavior." (64)
A second deeply rooted attitude is revealed when Abrams identifies
homosexuality with heightened masculinity, murderous violence, and
sadism (although, in a manner dangerously close to a conspiracy
theory, he also associates it with femininity and passivity.) This
leads him to protest the gay claim of the persecution of homosexuals
from another emotional angle -- victimhood just does not suit his
image of them. On the contrary, he envisions destruction, killings,
and the rape of prisoners as typical of homosexuality. Such violent
assaults, however, are not expressions of any sexuality. They are
rather a typical weapon of heterosexuals used to intimidate and
torture both homosexual and heterosexual males in all-male
environments -- such as American prisons. Can Abrams thus argue that
the American prison population is basically homosexual? Rapes by the
SS do not require such belabored myth-making as this article to
explain: they raped as heterosexuals, and their actions do not show
that the Nazis were homosexuals at all. Steakley proposes that with
their relentless emphasis upon strength, purity, cleanliness, and
masculine comradeship, the Nazi Maennerbuende (all-male groups) surely
contained a strong element of deeply repressed homoeroticism; the
degree of repression was evidenced by the vehemence of the Nazi
reaction to those who were overtly homosexual. The biblical scapegoat
was the sacrificial animal upon whose head the amorphous guilt of the
entire community was placed. (65)
Perhaps he is also correct to say that "The self-righteousness
that
could prompt this type of action cuts through the entire ideology
glorifying racial purity and extermination of degenerates to reveal
stark fear of homosexuality." (66)
The historical record is far from supporting Kevin Abrams'
emotional and ignorant assertions. The advice his essay implies -- to
support governmental action to repress a "masculo-homosexual cult,
marked by deviance, brutality and dictatorial power" -- should be
recognized for what it is, what Jefferson would have called "a form of
tyranny over the mind of man."
Endnotes
1. Quoted in Michael Burleigh and Wolfgang Wippermann, The Racial
State: Germany 1933-1945 (Cambridge, England,1991), 193.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid., 183; James D. Steakley, The Homosexual Emancipation Movement
in Germany (New York, 1975), 110.
4. Ibid.,110; Burleigh and Wippermann, The Racial State, 192.
5. Gerhard Rempel, Hitler's Children (Chapel Hill, 1989), 52.
6. Steakley, Movement, 111.
7. Ibid., 106.
8. Klaus Mueller, "Introduction," in Heinz Heger, The Men with the
Pink Triangle (Boston, 1980), 13.
9. Burleigh and Wippermann, The Racial State, 191.
10. Ibid., 192.
11. Eugen Kogon, The Theory and Practice of Hell, trans. Heinz Norden,
(New York, l979), 35.
12. Ruediger Lautman, "Gay Prisoners in Concentration Camps as
Compared with Jehovah's Witnesses and Political Prisoners," in Michael
Berenbaum, ed., A Mosaic of Victims: Non-Jews Persecuted and Murdered
by the Nazis (London, 1990), 201.
13. Ibid., 202.
14. Steakley, Movement, 113.
15. Heger, Pink Triangles, 37-45; Steakley, Movement, 121.
16. Burleigh and Wippermann, The Racial State,195-197.
17. Kogon, Hell, 43-44.
18. Heger, Pink Triangles, 101.
19. Ibid.
20. Quoted in Steakley, Movement, 116.
21. Lautmann, "Gay Prisoners," 204.
22. If Kevin Abrams has quoted Judith Reismann correctly in "The Other
Side of the Pink Triangles," (n.p., n.d.), 6.
23. Burleigh and Wippermann, The Racial State, 46.
24. Informationsdienst, June 20 1938, quoted in Robert Proctor, Racial
Hygiene: Medicine under the Nazis (Cambridge, Mass., 1988), 213.
25. Judith Reismann, quoted in Abrams, "Other Side," 6.
26. Ibid.
27. Steakley, Movement, 84.
28. Burleigh and Wippermann, The Racial State, 194.
29. Quoted in Ibid., 194.
30. Ibid., 10.
31. Steakley, Movement, 21-69.
32. See Nicholas Sombart, "The Kaiser in his Epoch," in John C.G. Rhl
and Nicholas Sombart, eds., Kaiser Wilhelm II, New Interpretations:
The Corfu Papers, (New York, 1982).
33. George L. Mosse, Nationalism and Sexuality: Middle-class Morality
and Sexual Norms in Modern Europe, (Madison, Wisconsin, 1985), 88,122.
34. Karl Dietrich Bracher, The German Dictatorship, (New York, 1970),
55.
35. Ibid., 45.
36. Quoted in Abrams, "Other Side," 4.
37. Mueller, "Introduction," 10.
38. See Jorn Meve, Homosexuelle NS: ein Stereotyp in Politik und
Literatur des Exils, (Berlin: 1990).
39. Quoted in Abrams, "Other Side," 5.
40. Steakley, Movement, 109-110.
41. Abrams, "Other Side," 5.
42. Ibid.
43. Ibid., 10.
44. Ibid.
45. Martin Broszat, The Hitler State (London and New York, 1981),
37-8.
46. Konrad Heiden, Der Fuehrer (Boston, 1944), 294.
47. Abrams, "Other Side," 9.
48. Ibid., 8.
49. Heiden, Der Fuehrer, 746.
50. Abrams, "Other Side," 7.
51. Ibid., 7.
52. Broszat, Hitler State, 35-38.
53. Abrams, "Other Side," 7.
54. Ibid.
55. Heiden, Der Fuehrer, 763.
56. Rempel, Hitler's Children, 83.
57. See George Chauncey, Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture and the
Making of the Gay Male World, 1890-1940, (New York, 1994).
58. Abrams, "Other Side," 7; Heiden, Der Fuehrer, 372.
59. Abrams, "Other Side," 6; Heiden, Der Fuehrer, 303-304.
60. Ibid., 370-371.
61. Abrams, "Other Side," 6.
62. Ibid., 10.
63. Richard Breitman, The Architect of Genocide: Himmler and the Final
Solution, (New York, 1991), 66-84.
64. Charles S. Maier, The Unmasterable Past: History, Holocaust, and
German National Identity (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1988), 166.
65. Steakley, Movement, 117-118.
66. Ibid.
Peace & Love,
/| /| _ _ _ ___
/ |/ ||_|/_ |_ |\ | | |\
/ || |\_>|_ | \| | |-\
Caitlin M. Shaw
kev...@netvision.net.il writes:
>A part of a series of
>Excerpts from, THE PINK SWASTIKA,
>Homosexuality In The Nazi Party 1995
>
> "Mask of Treachery, Spies, Lies, Buggery and Betrayal"
I must say, that's quite a title you've got there.
> [...] As we noted earlier,
>pro-Nazi fascist organizations in both England and France were headed by
>homosexuals.
Could be. In fact, I daresay thousands of major organizations were lead
by gayfolk in that time period. Millions and millions of gay men and
women throughout history have lead all kinds of movements. Might I point
out that Winston Churchill and Franklin Delano Roosevelt's wife are both
supposed to have been gay?
Caitlin
--
Caitlin MacKay Shaw /\ /\ /\ <http://www.princeton.edu/~cmshaw>
<cms...@princeton.edu> \/ \/ "There is no one true way." M. Lackey
Princeton University Mathematics Department and Women's Studies Program
dion...@infinet.com
}dionisio....of the Dionisian cult?
}Posted the following,
Actually, you've found one of the multiple entendres of my name. However,
the name is just that, a name. Specifically, it is the Spanish version of
the English Dennis, Denny, Den, etc... Care to try for the other 3?
}> "Pink Swastika" Revises History
}
}> A flawed book of propoaganda about gays and Nazis is miles away from
}> serious scholarhip.
}Text deleted......
}The authors of THE PINK SWASTIKA invite any sincere individual to not
}only check Boswell's sources, but our sources as well. We believe that
}they will stand up to honest scrutiny. We agree with Hays, that people
}should decide for themselves, "once they read our book," whether we have
}a case, or not.
<chuckle> As though your target audience is into checking resources of
materials that say what they desire to hear.
}Hays didn't do a book review, he preformed a character assassination
}and did nothing to refute the contents of THE PINK SWASTIKA.
So sue him for defamation of character. And why do you continue to expect
a scientific document listing detailed sources and citing numerous
research experiments? The man was writing a book review, not a doctoral
thesis.
}Regardless of what Mr. Hays wrote, the authors stand by THE PINK
}SWASTIKA and its contents.
I should certainly hope so. You *are* trying to make a profit from it
after all. People do become leery of those whom wont stand by their
product.
}Our focus is on understanding history and
}rectifying an attempt by American homofascists to co-opt the Holocaust
}in support of their own devious political and social agenda.
No doubt in the same way the Jews did...
--
<a href="http://www.infinet.com/~dionisio">Finger</a> for PGP public key
And the Thought of the Moment (tm) is...
Millions of sensible people are too high-minded to concede that politics
is almost always the choice of the lesser evil. "Tweedledum and
Tweedledee," they say, "I will not vote." Having abstained, they are
presented with a President who appoints the people who are going to
rummage around in their lives for the next four years. Consider all the
people who sat home in a stew in 1968 rather than vote for Hubert
Humphrey. They showed Humphrey. Those people who taught Hubert Humphrey
a lesson will still be enjoying the Nixon Supreme Court when Tricia and
Julie begin to find silver threads among the gold and the black.
-- Russel Baker, "Ford without Flummery"
Kraig Blackwelder
> dionisio....of the Dionisian cult?
> Posted the following,
>
> > Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 11:30:28 -0400
> > Subject: Review: Pink Swastika
>
> > [ Originally submitted by Bruce_...@BENDNET.COM ]
>
> > "Pink Swastika" Revises History
>
> > A flawed book of propoaganda about gays and Nazis is miles away from
> > serious scholarhip.
>
> > by Dan Hays
>
> [Text deleted by Kevin]
>
> > from the Statesman Journal, Salem, OR September 5, 1995, pg. D-1
> > Boswell then goes on: "One clear example of the pervasive effect of the
> > prejudice is the revulsion in Germanic and Anglo-Saxon cultures at any
> > form of male-male intimacy of affection." You may easily check all of
> > Boswell's sources. They are available and stand up to scrutiny. Start
> > checking references used by Lively and Abrams and decide for yourself if
> > they stand up to the same scrutiny.
>
> Readers,
>
> The authors of THE PINK SWASTIKA invite any sincere individual to not
> only check Boswell's sources, but our sources as well. We believe that
> they will stand up to honest scrutiny.
Well frankly, Kevin, they don't. It's six parts bigotry and three
parts speculation and one part fact
.
>
> Hays didn't do a book review, he preformed a character assassination
> and did nothing to refute the contents of THE PINK SWASTIKA.
Sure he did. You just edited it out. He gets input from two different
professors refuting the ersatz scholarship of TPS. That sounds like good
refutation material to me.
> His sources
> are minimal and weak. And Hays infers that what he wrote is, "serious"
> scholarship? What a joke! Allan Bloom wasn't kidding when he wrote, "The
> Closing of the American Mind." Today, true "scholarship" has been hijacked
> by political correctness and sexual liberation ideology.
The only reason this upsets you so much is because you're an extremist
crackpot, who sees impartial coverage as biased in favor of the other
extreme, and you'd much rather see ultra-conservative, fascist control of
academia and the press. You want your version of the world indoctrinated
into people, and your view of the world doesn't include happy,
well-adjusted gay and lesbian individuals. We happy and well-adjusted gay
and lesbian individuals, therefore, aren't going to allow you to hijack
the public discourse, thank you very much.
K.
Alexander Kiefer
>In article <10DEC95.17...@music.mus.polymtl.ca>, Alexander Kiefer
><KA...@music.mus.polymtl.ca> wrote:
>
>> In article <kdb229-0712...@aragorn198.acns.nwu.edu>
>kdb...@nwu.edu (Kraig Blackwelder) writes:
>> > Oh, well then. What -was- I thinking? Cain didn't have sex with his
>> >mother after all. He had sex with his sister! That makes the Bible a
>> ---------------------------
>>
>> He could have had. Thats all what I told. Pseudoapocryphal books
>> suggest that.
>
> Well, first of all, get the names of your weird works straight.
>There's the apocrypha, and there's the pseudepigrapha. Are you talking
>about one of these, or something else entirely?
Sure, should have been Pseudepigrapha.
Please, now you address your claims. They contain something
considerably more than misnaming the book.
Nowhere I suggested that someone *did* something.
>> The relation between brother and sister is conditioned exclusively
>> by social aspects mainly by common family upbringing.
>> If we take into account that people in those times lived close
>> to 1000yrs, the siblings might even not know each other as
>> brother and sister, since they could have been raised by Adam
>> and Eve at completely different times.
>
> People didn't used to live to be around 1000 years old. If you
>actually believe this, then you're too mindfucked to even have a rational
>discussion with. I'll counter your myth with science, and you, in your
>chuckle-headed unthinking zeal, will try to rebut what I said with more
>mythology.
There are no proofs solidly countering my claims about longevity
of people in the biblical times.
*Your* "science" is just a pseudoreligion based on wild guesses.
>> In the end, the only factor worth considereng was a genetical
>> one.
> The word is genetic, not genetical.
Is it?
Any "scientific" proof for that?
I can put it moe explicitly for you: "I *didnt* mean genetic,
I meant *genetical*."
Could you guess why? :-)
>> Other possibility would be God creating other humans.
> That's sheer speculation.
For you, you might call it science.
>> Old testament doesnt claim to be a book containing exclusively
>> *positive* examples.
>> Definitely *not* a family Book at all. Actually, very hard to
>> read.
> Well, it was harder to translate, since the Greek was really bad.
>Whoever wrote the Bible, his Greek was really bad.
So the Bible was written in Greek? When:-)
Do we talk about the same book?
Alexander
Kraig Blackwelder
<KA...@music.mus.polymtl.ca> wrote:
> In article <kdb229-1112...@lucky163.acns.nwu.edu>
kdb...@nwu.edu (Kraig Blackwelder) writes:
> >In article <10DEC95.17...@music.mus.polymtl.ca>, Alexander Kiefer
> ><KA...@music.mus.polymtl.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <kdb229-0712...@aragorn198.acns.nwu.edu>
> >kdb...@nwu.edu (Kraig Blackwelder) writes:
> >> The relation between brother and sister is conditioned exclusively
> >> by social aspects mainly by common family upbringing.
> >> If we take into account that people in those times lived close
> >> to 1000yrs, the siblings might even not know each other as
> >> brother and sister, since they could have been raised by Adam
> >> and Eve at completely different times.
> >
> > People didn't used to live to be around 1000 years old. If you
> >actually believe this, then you're too mindfucked to even have a rational
> >discussion with. I'll counter your myth with science, and you, in your
> >chuckle-headed unthinking zeal, will try to rebut what I said with more
> >mythology.
>
> There are no proofs solidly countering my claims about longevity
> of people in the biblical times.
> *Your* "science" is just a pseudoreligion based on wild guesses.
Science, mine or otherwise, is made up of hypotheses tested according
to the scientific method. It starts off with theories (educated guesses)
and then progresses until we confirm that we know what we think we know.
Science is not made of "wild" guesses, but very careful guesses that are
tested. "My science" seems to have worked well enough to get us to an age
of computers and rocket ships, so I have little problem believing what
other scientists write in journals, and accepting when they tell us that
people didn't live to be a thousand years old.
>
> >> In the end, the only factor worth considereng was a genetical
> >> one.
>
> > The word is genetic, not genetical.
>
> Is it?
> Any "scientific" proof for that?
> I can put it moe explicitly for you: "I *didnt* mean genetic,
> I meant *genetical*."
> Could you guess why? :-)
No. You're being deliberately obtuse. Why would you deliberately use
the wrong word?
>
> > Well, it was harder to translate, since the Greek was really bad.
> >Whoever wrote the Bible, his Greek was really bad.
>
> So the Bible was written in Greek? When:-)
> Do we talk about the same book?
The Bible was written in three languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
D Gary Grady
>Which particular Bible are you speaking of? The Bible that I'm sure
>most people are referring to was written mostly in Hebrew. Once you've
>explained that, perhaps you can demonstrate how bad the Greek was.
The Old Testament is in Hebrew (with some Aramaic); the New Testament
is in "common" (or koine) Greek, the lingua franca of the Hellenized
eastern part of the Roman Empire.
Hebrew had largely died out as a spoken language (excepting pockets in
the Dead Sea area) during the Bablylonian Captivity, replaced in the
main by Aramaic and Syriac, if memory serves. For writing of
international interest in that area at that time, Greek was used, just
as English is today.
Because even many educated Jews weren't comfortable in Hebrew, the Old
Testament was translated into Greek by Hebrew scholars in Alexandria
at roughly this same time period. (Tradition has it that 70 scholars
were employed in the project, hence the term "septuagint" for this
translation.) This Greek Old Testament became the basis for the Old
Testament part of the Latin Vulgate Bible used by the Roman Catholic
Church, so that an English-speaking Catholic reading an Old Testament
book in the Douay translation (more or less the Catholic equivalent of
the King James version) is actually reading an English translation of
a Latin translation of a Greek translation of a text originally in
Hebrew!
The Greek of the Septuagint is, as far as I know, quite acceptable
Greek. When people speak of bad Greek in the Bible, they're usually
referring to the epistles of Paul, which are supposed to contain many
grammatical errors. (I barely read any variety of Greek myself, but
I've heard this a number of times and have no reason to doubt it. Paul
was not a native speaker of Greek. Moreover, his letters tend to
ramble a bit and I doubt he had an inkling he was writing for the
ages.)
For the record, the koine form of Greek has been looked down upon by
some, then and later, as a "degernate" form of the language. Lucian of
Samosata (himself a native speaker of Syriac I think) was a noted
writer and speaker of Greek (his writing holds up very well today, I
might add, and is often hilarious), lived at the time of
Christianity's early growth, but he chose to write in a much more
"elevated" style resembling that of classical Attic Greek.
Gary Grady
Durham NC USA
73513...@compuserve.com
kev...@netvision.net.il
Greg Broderick Wrote,
>Kevin, you, in the grand revisionist tradition of Greg Raven, of
>alt.revisionism fame, steadfastly continue to ignore those posters
>who post substantiative information rebutting your purposefully
>inaccurate claims regarding homosexuals within the Nazi party.
If someone who is responding to my posts, is either a scoffer, or
indulges in slander in an attempt to distract the readers from the
issue, then they should consider themself most fortunate indeed to
receive any response. I have responded at length, to Christine
Muellers' criticism of my piece which appeared in the August 1994
edition of the Washington based Lambda Report, titled, The Other Side
Of The Pink Triangle." The April-June edition of the Lambda Report
carried both Mueller's piece and my rebuttle. Although I have seen
Mueller's article posted to the NET, no one to date, has shown the
courtesy of posting my rebuttle.
First, you must get your premise straight. It is NOT I who is engaging
in a "grand revisionist tradition of Greg Raven." It has however, been
the approach of homosexualists to posture as victims of historical
persecution at the hands of the Nazis, and everything from societal
bigotry, rascism, homophobia and heterophobic brutality and
discimination against `gays'.
Your non-informed aspersions about how my co-author and I, are making
"purposefully inaccurate claims," is extremely presumptuous." How do
you know that our claims are "inaccurate?" And what do you mean by,
"substantive information?" And how do these few paragraphs "rebut" our
documentation of what historians before us have faithfully observed and
recorded?"
If you, or anyone else, hopes to `debate' this issue, then leave out
your devious little character assaults. Stick to the issue. There's a
big difference between defaming the person and debating an issue. So
far homosexualists haven't been too good at `debating.' Generally
speaking, attacking the person reveals an ignorance of the issue,
fraud or both.
>Here's rebuttal information that you've seen before, and failed to
>address before. Perhaps this time you could back the assertions that
>you make with substantiative evidence that shows unequivocally that
>homosexuals comprised a large proportion of the Nazi party, but I tend
>to doubt it.
Actually the burden of proof is upon you and homosexualists, far more
than it is upon me. It is they who must prove that homosexuals did NOT
comprise a large proportion of the Nazi Party and the National Socialist
movement. We have already written a book which documents our findings.
>With all due regard
>Greg R. Broderick
>---snip---
>The Reich and Prussian Berlin NW 40, 28 January 1935
>Ministries of Justice Konigsplatz 6.
> IV 1111/1079a.
> Reg. 28 Jan. 1935. p. 37.
> Secret!
> To
>Secret State Police Bureau
>by the hand of the Prime Minster of Prussia -
> Re: Concerted action against homosexuals
> According to a report in the Baseler Zeitung of 19 December
>1934, a purge has been conducted against homosexual elements throughout
>the Reich on the personal orders of the Fuhrer and Reich Chancellor.
>The number of people arrested throughout the Reich is said by this source
>to come to roughly 700.
First, the arrest of 700 people on "charges" of homosexuality does not
constitute the extent of persecution being claimed by `gay' activists,
when in 1922, according to well known German psychiatrist Krafft-Ebbing,
there were 100,000 homosexuals in Berlin alone. Gay historian James
Steakley, was quoted in the December 4, 1994 edition of the
pro-homosexual Vancouver Sun as stating, "It was never the intention of
the Nazi regime to physically exterminate `gay' people. Instead it was
their intention to eliminate homosexuality." Steakley pointed out, "gay
people were never in the same situation as Jews and Gypsies., They were
never gassed in chambers, for example." He estimated that between 5,000
and 15,000 gay men and possibly only 100 lesbians were killed in
concentration camps; "by contrast, the Nazis killed about 5.8 million
Jews. There was no "holocaust" of homosexuals.
Secondly, the timing of this `action' is critical. In his book, "The
Gestapo," Jacques Delarue writes, "during the latter months of 1934
(after the Roehm purge) and the beginning of 1935, unknown killers
murdered nearly 150 S.S. officers. On the corpses the assassins pinned
a little card bearing the initials `R.R.' This meant Racher Roehm, the
"Avengers of Roehm." As Willi Frischauer points out in his 1953 book,
"Himmler: The Evil Genius of the Third Reich," homosexualists, were at
least for a time, identified with a brown triangle. The S.S. did arrest,
possibly thousands, of `Roehmist' brown shirted homosexualists, who
understandably were considered by the Nazis, and in the eyes of the
German public, to be enemies of the State. I was no secret in Germany
that the SA storm troppers, who raised such havock in the streets,
were dominated by a gang of homosexualist pederasts.
Thirdly, we will never know, how many of those charged under section
175 of the German penal code, were actually homosexuals. Charges of
homosexuality became, and were a convenient method of removing those
who were unenthusiastic towards promoting the Nazi military and
political agenda. An example would be the 1938 removal of, Chief of
the General Staff, Gen. Werner Freiherr von Fritsch, a staunch
conservative, on charges of homosexuality for disagreeing with
Hitler's plans to occupy Austria. A libel invented by the Gestapo.
> I consider it imperative for the health of the nation that
>measures should be taken, both at the level of ideas and materially,
>to protect other national comrades from this degeneration of the sex
>drive and to compel those afflicted with this degeneration to refrain
>from the corresponding solicitation and activity. For this reason I am
>interested in the report in the Baseler Zeitung and request to be
>notified how many persons have been affected by the action against
>homosexuals. If more material really is available about this, I would
>suggest that the Reich Public Health Department should carefully examine
>the extent to which the spread of this abnormal disposition among our
>nation can be most effectively resisted. My senior officer in charge,
>Dr. Linden, is willing to discuss with the official in charge there how
>this research might be proceeded with.
> p.p. Dr. Gutt
While the Nazis proceeded with a `public' campaign against homosexuals
for reasons stated above, they did little to purge homosexualists from
the party and in proportion to the number of homosexuals in Germany at
that time, arrests were minimal. According to Otto Strasser, an earlier
confidant of Hitler, the rabid Jew baiter, Julius Streicher, for
instance, was dismissed by the Nuremberg School Authorities, following
`numerous' charges of pederasty brought against him. He was one of the
most influential members of the Nazi Party. On the night of the blood
purge, June 30, July 1, 1934, SA Chief Ernst Roehm and his homosexual
compatriot Edmond Heines, who was found sharing a bed with his male
chauffeur, were shot down by Hitler's adjutant, Brueckner, and his
secretary, Maurice, both homosexuals themselves. Baldur von Schirach,
known as "the baby" among the inner pederast clique around Hitler, was
charged by the police under paragraph 175 of the German penal code, but
Hitler intervened. Schirach was head of the Hitler Youth, which was
looked upon as a source for young sexual playmates, by leaders of the
SA. Samuel Igra, in his 1945 book, "Germany's National Vice," documents
how the first Police President to be appointed under the new Nazi regime,
was Count Helldorf, well known for his unnatural sexual practices.
>"Anyone who aims at male-male or female-female sex is our enemy. We
>reject everything that emasculates our people and puts it at the mercy
>of its enemies - for we know that life is struggle, and it is nonsense
>to think that men will one day lie fraternally in each other's arms.
>Natural history teaches us otherwise. The stronger are right. And the
>stronger will always assert themselves against the weaker. Today we are
>the weaker ones. Let us make sure that we again become the stronger! We
>can do that only if we exercise discipline. We therefore reject any
>sexual deviation, particularly between man and man, because it robs us
>of the last possibility of freeing our people from the slave-chains in
>which it is now forced to toil."
Hitler and key members of the Nazi Party, knew that homosexuality
wasn't popular with conservative sectors of the German public. As
documented in the "Encyclopedia Of The Holocaust," by Yad Vashem, The
Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Authority, Jerusalem, "The
Nazi position on homosexuality, however, was inconsistent, and the
approach to it was tactical in nature. Officially, homosexuality was
sharply denounced, but its practice in certain Nazi circles was
tolerated or ignored." [P.687] "Under Nazi rule, tens of thousands
of `persons,' were punished on the `charge' of homosexuality. Thousands
of them, (some sources put the figure at ten thousand or more) were
imprisoned in concentration camps (not extermination centers), where
they had to wear a pink triangular patch (rosa Winkel). many of the
homosexuals imprisoned in the camps perished there. Shortly before
the end of the war, some of them (homosexuals) were `set free' and
drafted into frontline service with the Wehrmacht. This step, of
course, violated the (stated) Nazi principle on the issue." [P.688]
The Nazi approach to homosexuality was pragmatic. If you were a
homosexual, and useful and loyal to the Nazi Party, then the Party
would cover for you. The Nazis condemned homosexuality publically,
while allowing and even encouraging it privately. This should come as
no surprise, we are often treated to this kind of double standard
(hypocracy) by many current polititians.
> - Declaration by the National Leadership of the NSDAP in
>response to a question on the occasion of the 1928 Reichstag elections.
>(The wording is attributed to Alfred Rosenberg.) Quoted from R. Klare,
>"Homosexualitat und Strafect", Hamburg, 1937, p. 149.
>"...We must be clear that if we continue to have this vice in Germany
without being able to combat it, then it is all up with Germany and the
Germanic world. Unfortunately it is not as easy for us as it was for
our forebears. In their time there were a few isolated cases of an
abnormal kind. The homosexual, whom they called a uranist, was lowered
into the marshes. Professors who find such corpses today in the marshes
are obviously not aware that in ninety per cent of cases they are
dealing with a homosexual who was lowered down with his clothes and all.
This was not a punishment but simply the snuffing out of an abnormal life.
It had to be removed, much as we pull up nettles, put them in a heap and
set fire to them..."
If it was so easy for their `forebearers,' I wonder why they never got
rid of Frederick the Great, well known for his homosexuality, and one
of Hitler's favorite heroes.
>"...We are still getting one case of homosexuality a month in the SS.
>Over the year there were roughly eight to ten cases in the SS as a
>whole. I have now reached the following decision. In each case, of
>course, these people will be publicly stripped of their rank, discharged
>and handed over to the courts. After serving the sentence handed down by
>the court, they shall be taken on my orders to a concentration camp and
>there shot while attempting to escape..."
> - Heinrich Himmler, speaking on 18 February 1937 to
>SS-Gruppenfuhrers at Bad Tolz, quoted from B. F. Smith and
>A. F. Peterson, eds., "Heinrich Himmler: Geheimreden 1933-1945 und
>andere Ansprachen", Frankfurt/Main 1974, pp. 93-104.
>[translation by Patrick Camiller, "Hidden Holocaust?", ed. Gunter Grau,
>Cassel, New York, 1995.]
My question is, in view of who and what the S.S. were, why would "YOU"
be concerned about them. Because they were homosexuals? Christine
Mueller used the same quote. My response to her was; "Mueller's use of
a 1937 quote by Himmler in her internet response to my article of
October 27, 1994 fails to prove widespread persecution of homosexuals.
It does reveal, however, that between 1937-1945, inclusive, a total of
"90" members of the S.S. were purged for (charges of) homosexuality.
Considering the times and the brutality of the S.S., why would
Ms. Mueller be so concerned with this "massive" persecution of Nazi
homosexualists?"
Again, I would encourage you to order THE PINK SWASTIKA.
If you are so interested in the issue, why not?
Order by calling 1-800-828-2290
Regards,
Kevin E. Abrams
What was it like in Germany in the year 1922?....
"In the context of Berlin, its interest lies in
`the world it pictures (which) has fallen prey to
lawlessness and depravity. A night-club dancer
performs in a decor composed of out-right sex
symbols. Orgies are an institution, homosexuals
and prostitute children are everyday characters."
[A Dance Between The Flames, by Anton Gill, Abacus Press, 1993]
>============================================================================
>Greg R. Broderick And it came to pass that in the hands of the
> ignorant, the words of the Bible were used to beat
> plowshares into swords.
>gr...@qrd.org -- Alan Watts
>gany...@sccsi.com
>7014...@compuserve.com
>============================================================================
"And it came to pass that, those who showed compassion
to the wicked, ended up by persecuting the compassionate"
kev...@netvision.net.il
> kev...@netvision.net.il said:
> }I have responded at length, to Christine
> }Muellers' criticism of my piece which appeared in the August 1994
> }edition of the Washington based Lambda Report, titled, The Other Side
> }Of The Pink Triangle."
dionisio wrote,
> You know, it's interesting when a group of individuals whom despise
> homosexuals as much as you do goes out and trashes a book made by one of
> their own. (In case you didn't know, Lambda Report is a group of people
> whose mission is to prove to the world that homosexuality is evil.)
Readers,
If this is what the Lambda Report does., "Prove to the world that
homosexuality is evil." Then they are obviously on the right track.
Anyone operating with a full deck of cards knows homosexuality is "evil"
and the apex of a destructive and brutal death culture.
I like how you use the word `homosexual' as a descriptive noun. Why not
use terms like `pederast' and `sodomist.' It's all one and the same. Why
not `pederast' or `sodomist' rights? Or is `gay' used because it generates
the optimum illusion?
Sexual `liberation' leads to fascism.
Kevin E. Abrams
kev...@netvision.net.il
dion...@infinet.com
}I have responded at length, to Christine
}Muellers' criticism of my piece which appeared in the August 1994
}edition of the Washington based Lambda Report, titled, The Other Side
}Of The Pink Triangle."
You know, it's interesting when a group of individuals whom despise
homosexuals as much as you do goes out and trashes a book made by one of
their own. (In case you didn't know, Lambda Report is a group of people
whose mission is to prove to the world that homosexuality is evil.)
--
<a href="http://www.infinet.com/~dionisio">Finger</a> for PGP public key
And the Thought of the Moment (tm) is...
Microsoft Windows - proof that P.T. Barnum was correct.
Kraig Blackwelder
> If this is what the Lambda Report does., "Prove to the world that
> homosexuality is evil." Then they are obviously on the right track.
> Anyone operating with a full deck of cards knows homosexuality is "evil"
> and the apex of a destructive and brutal death culture.
If you're worried that homosexuality is increasing the evil quotient of
the world, you don't get out much. What about war? What about industry
destroying the rainforest? What about the Chinese killing their baby
girls? What about the selling of addictive drugs? You want to talk about
the origins of evil? Historically, there's been more evil brought into
the world by men oppressing women, using women, beating women, than by two
people of the same sex loving one another. If two homos want to fool
around, that's their business. Not mine, not the government's, and not
yours. That doesn't count as evil. If what you said had any kernal of
truth, the place to look for evil would be bastions of gay culture. Let's
look at San Francisco. It's not a fascist city, is it? It's one of the
most beautiful cities in the US. It's one of the most artistic. It's one
of the most liberal. It's NOT some pit of corruption and fascism, like
you'd like us to believe.
>
> I like how you use the word `homosexual' as a descriptive noun. Why not
> use terms like `pederast' and `sodomist.' It's all one and the same. Why
> not `pederast' or `sodomist' rights? Or is `gay' used because it generates
> the optimum illusion?
You're embarrassing yourself again, Kev. The reason we don't use the
words you used is because they don't mean the same thing. It's like
saying, "Why don't you call that adorable little kitten a grisly,
blood-thirsty maneater?" Because it's not one. Hello? A pederast is
someone who has sex with boys. The VAST majority of gay men do not do so,
therefore the word is wrong and misleading. The other word you propose,
"sodomist" is inaccurate and misleading for many reasons. First, it is
made clear that the sin of Sodom was inhospitality, not homosexuality, so
the word is etymologically unfounded. Second, the word sodomy can mean
any of a number of things, including heterosexual oral sex, heterosexual
anal sex, as well as sex with animals, none of which are gays or lesbians
interested in. Thirdly, if you want to define "sodomists" to mean "butt
fuckers," then it's still not accurate, because not all gay men butt-fuck,
and no lesbians do, so the word is still horribly inaccurate.
Furthermore, if you wonder why we use the word "gay" instead of
"homosexual," there are two reasons. First, the word homosexual was a
bastard word of mixed parentage (a bad mix of Greek and Latin roots),
Second it sounds too clinical, and third, it's too long. What's the point
of using five syllables when you can use only one?
Any other dumb questions you want to ask?
> Sexual `liberation' leads to fascism.
Again, San Francisco is the place to look, and it's probably the least
fascist place on the face of the planet. And probably the most tastefully
decorated.
K.
Magenta!!
Alexander Kiefer
>In article <13DEC95.13...@music.mus.polymtl.ca>, Alexander Kiefer
><KA...@music.mus.polymtl.ca> wrote:
>
>> In article <kdb229-1112...@lucky163.acns.nwu.edu>
>kdb...@nwu.edu (Kraig Blackwelder) writes:
>> >In article <10DEC95.17...@music.mus.polymtl.ca>, Alexander Kiefer
>> ><KA...@music.mus.polymtl.ca> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <kdb229-0712...@aragorn198.acns.nwu.edu>
>> >kdb...@nwu.edu (Kraig Blackwelder) writes:
>> *Your* "science" is just a pseudoreligion based on wild guesses.
>
> Science, mine or otherwise, is made up of hypotheses tested according
>to the scientific method. It starts off with theories (educated guesses)
>and then progresses until we confirm that we know what we think we know.
So far, I can only agree. I have a bit of a problem what one could
call an educated guesses and scientific methods:-)
Ever heard about Finite Element Method? Scientific:-)
>Science is not made of "wild" guesses, but very careful guesses that are
>tested. "My science" seems to have worked well enough to get us to an age
>of computers and rocket ships, so I have little problem believing what
>other scientists write in journals, and accepting when they tell us that
>people didn't live to be a thousand years old.
The theory tested by scientific methods can give an insight.
Definitely it is not what I would consider a proof.
Someone who thinks that the Sun is powered by thermonuclear
energy might be "right". Nevertheless, we dont know everything
about the stars energy generation.
Can the matter be generated from nothing?
Again, we *do* not know.
Not to talk about the medical research. The amount of benefit
to the sufferers is certainly not proportional to the amount
of the published papers:-)
The increase of the average age being attributable mainly to the
improved nutrition:-(
>> >> In the end, the only factor worth considereng was a genetical
>> >> one.
>>
>> > The word is genetic, not genetical.
>>
>>Is it?
>>Any "scientific" proof for that?
>>I can put it moe explicitly for you: "I *didnt* mean genetic,
>>I meant *genetical*."
>>Could you guess why? :-)
>
>No. You're being deliberately obtuse. Why would you deliberately u se
>the wrong word?
Please, check for yourself what the word *genetical* means before
you start blaming me.
>> Well, it was harder to translate, since the Greek was really bad.
>>>Whoever wrote the Bible, his Greek was really bad.
>>
>>So the Bible was written in Greek? When:-)
>>Do we talk about the same book?
>
>The Bible was written in three languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek .
I can only hope that Aramaic was "better" than Greek:-)
Alexander
Michael Smith
: If this is what the Lambda Report does., "Prove to the world that
: homosexuality is evil." Then they are obviously on the right track.
: Anyone operating with a full deck of cards knows homosexuality is "evil"
: and the apex of a destructive and brutal death culture.
: I like how you use the word `homosexual' as a descriptive noun. Why not
: use terms like `pederast' and `sodomist.' It's all one and the same. Why
: not `pederast' or `sodomist' rights? Or is `gay' used because it generates
: the optimum illusion?
: Sexual `liberation' leads to fascism.
We need look no further to understand the foundations of Mr. Abram's
thinking, both on the internet and in his book.
The assertion that homosexuality is evil is axiomatic to Mr. Abram's
thinking and is therefore irrefutable. It requires no logical thought
to prove and no evidence to back up because Mr. Abrams starts off assuming
his own conclusion.
There's a word for this kind of thinking: bigotry. Fits to the last
detail.
: Kevin E. Abrams
Blessed Be
Mike Smith
DISCLAIMER: My opinions do not necesarily, or even remotely, reflect those
of Loyola University, Chicago
davemarc
>
>> kev...@netvision.net.il said:
>
>> }I have responded at length, to Christine
>> }Muellers' criticism of my piece which appeared in the August 1994
>> }edition of the Washington based Lambda Report, titled, The Other Side
>> }Of The Pink Triangle."
>
>
>> You know, it's interesting when a group of individuals whom despise
>> homosexuals as much as you do goes out and trashes a book made by one of
>> their own. (In case you didn't know, Lambda Report is a group of people
>
>Readers,
>
>If this is what the Lambda Report does., "Prove to the world that
>homosexuality is evil." Then they are obviously on the right track.
>Anyone operating with a full deck of cards knows homosexuality is "evil"
>and the apex of a destructive and brutal death culture.
>
>I like how you use the word `homosexual' as a descriptive noun. Why not
>use terms like `pederast' and `sodomist.' It's all one and the same. Why
>not `pederast' or `sodomist' rights? Or is `gay' used because it generates
>the optimum illusion?
>
> Sexual `liberation' leads to fascism.
>
Kevin E. Abrams, you are seriously deluded about the source of evil in
this world. It has nothing to do with sexuality per se and everything to
do with lack of compassion and inappropriate expressions of anger. Your
demonization of masses of people on the basis of their sexuality suggests
that, although you may think you are doing good, you are actually
perpetrating an evil. Please reconsider your point of view, which, I
feel obligated to inform you, really does resemble Nazi thinking.
davemarc
Michael Smith
: > from the Statesman Journal, Salem, OR September 5, 1995, pg. D-1
: > Boswell then goes on: "One clear example of the pervasive effect of the
: > prejudice is the revulsion in Germanic and Anglo-Saxon cultures at any
: > form of male-male intimacy of affection." You may easily check all of
: > Boswell's sources. They are available and stand up to scrutiny. Start
: > they stand up to the same scrutiny.
: Readers,
: The authors of THE PINK SWASTIKA invite any sincere individual to not
: only check Boswell's sources, but our sources as well. We believe that
: they will stand up to honest scrutiny. We agree with Hays, that people
: should decide for themselves, "once they read our book," whether we have
: a case, or not.
I've checked Boswell's sources and they look alright to me. How about
your own resources?
: Hays didn't do a book review, he preformed a character assassination
: and did nothing to refute the contents of THE PINK SWASTIKA.
Bullshit. He did a very good job, without a single ad-hominem in the
entire review. You, on the other hand, have to revert to attacks on
his intellectual abilities rather than bringing up any concrete points
to defend yourself with.
: THE PINK SWASTIKA could be the most
: important book you read in this decade.
You flatter yourself too readily, Mr. Abrams.
William December Starr
In article <4avs1k$a...@news.netvision.net.il>,
kev...@netvision.net.il said:
> How would you describe the source of evil Dave? Homosexuals are not
> "massess of people," they are less than 2% of the population. But
> with societies approval, this figure could rise.
And that would be bad because...?
> Sometimes being able to say no and reject an evil, is a greater act
> of compassion, for all concerned, than toleration, which is often
> based on self-pity and ignoring our responsibilty towards one's
> community and fellow man.
What "evil" are you talking about, Kevin?
-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
William December Starr
In article <4aq7ma$a...@news.netvision.net.il>,
kev...@netvision.net.il said:
> Readers,
>
> If this is what the Lambda Report does., "Prove to the world that
> homosexuality is evil." Then they are obviously on the right track.
> Anyone operating with a full deck of cards knows homosexuality is
> "evil" and the apex of a destructive and brutal death culture.
Can your "anyone operating with a full deck" _prove_ this, or do they
just all "know" it?
kev...@netvision.net.il
Dave wrote,
> Kevin E. Abrams, you are seriously deluded about the source of evil in
> this world. It has nothing to do with sexuality per se and everything to
> do with lack of compassion and inappropriate expressions of anger. Your
> demonization of masses of people on the basis of their sexuality suggests
> that, although you may think you are doing good, you are actually
> perpetrating an evil. Please reconsider your point of view, which, I
> feel obligated to inform you, really does resemble Nazi thinking.
>
> davemarc
How would you describe the source of evil Dave?
Homosexuals are not "massess of people," they are less
than 2% of the population. But with societies approval,
this figure could rise. In 1922 in Germany a servey done
by Magnus Hirschfeld indicated that there were approx
100,000 homosexuals in Berlin alone, where sexual deviance
and promiscuity was chronic. In this climate of moral decline,
the Nazis actually founded the largest homosexual rights
movement in Germany at the time.
Sometimes being able to say no and reject an evil, is a greater
act of compassion, for all concerned, than toleration, which is
often based on self-pity and ignoring our responsibilty towards
one's community and fellow man. The vast majority of people in the
west still believe that Homosexuality should never be accepted as
`normal' nor on par with heterosexuality. We simply don't need to
be shown how `proud' gays are today about their disfunction, have
our children taught that homosexuality is a valid option, or that
it's not a `choice.'
What do you mean by "sexuality?" And are you actually suggesting
that a rejection of homosexuality equals "NAZI thinking," when the
Nazis were dominated by homosexual pederasts? Where are `your'
obligations in this regard?
Being that America is a democratic country, something as seminal
as the `norms' of human sexuality, should be voted upon by the
citizens of the country where these changes are being proposed,
after a lengthy and serious open national debate. No society should
have `gay' rights dumped upon them from the top. Something like human
sexuality and the way in which it is expressed, or given sanction to
express itself, will ultimately deterimine the kind of nation we live
in, the quality of our justice system, health care and what we teach
our children. The policy being promoted from the top down and driven
by `gay' activism is totally undemocratic and is based upon corrupting
the smallest common denominator, such as, the Office Of The President.
The tyranny of a minority must never be allowed to ride roughshod over
what has traditionally been the moral foundation of western civilization,
which has long rejected homosexuality. In addition, to an abundance of
contemporary evidence which suggests that homosexuality must be rejected,
it would serve us well to discover why those who have gone before us also
condemned homosexuality. Can we not see, that there is something seriously
wrong with granting people the right to engage in what traditionally has
been perceived as immoral and deviant behavior. Is past wisdom all that
obsolete and out of fashion. The whole of society must ask, what are the
compelling reasons as to "why `we' should accept homosexuality." Because
if we accept homosexuality, this will open the way for sexual conduct yet
still in the closet, like intergenerational sex, which is already being
discussed more openly. We must always remember, what we espouse publically
is far more important, than what actually happens privately.
In the meantime, read, THE PINK SWASTIKA.
There is nothing new under the sun......
Regards,
Kevin E. Abrams
Glenn Mr. X Austin
>How would you describe the source of evil Dave?
>Homosexuals are not "massess of people," they are less
>than 2% of the population.
Gee, by my reckoning, and assuming that your conservative figure of 2%
is correct, that means we're talking about as many 100 million people. I
would say that this is a fair description of "masses of people",
especially since modern technologies in communications and transport
allows them to interact with each other much more freely than was
previously possible.
I don't know how Dave would describe the source of evil, but I would
describe the source of evil as being self-interested people who are
willing to promote violence to, practice violence on, deny needed
assitance to, or spread pernicious mistruth about, people that are merely
pursuing happiness in their own lives.
>The vast majority of people in the
>west still believe that Homosexuality should never be accepted as
>`normal' nor on par with heterosexuality.
I don't think this has ever been studied all that extensively. I think
the first assertion is just plain wrong, and that the second won't stand
up to scrutiny for much longer.
> We simply don't need to
>be shown how `proud' gays are today about their disfunction, have
>our children taught that homosexuality is a valid option, or that
>it's not a `choice.'
Since homosexuality is not a disfunction, is a valid and legal option
in the United States, and is in fact, not a choice, I think that we do
indeed need to be shown just those things.
>...when the
>Nazis were dominated by homosexual pederasts?
This is a circular argument, since it is based on an assertion that
very few people besides yourself believe.
>Being that America is a democratic country, something as seminal
>as the `norms' of human sexuality, should be voted upon by the
>citizens of the country where these changes are being proposed,
>after a lengthy and serious open national debate.
Being that America is a democratic country, something as seminal as
the 'norms' of human religion should be voted upon by the citizens...
Being that America is a democratic country, something as seminal as
the 'norms' of human racial identity should be voted upon by the
citizens...
Come on, Mr. Abrams. The above statment could only have been made by
someone who doesn't understand the nature of a constitutional republic,
which is the form of government that is really practiced in the U.S.
I seem to keep needing to remind people that one of the basic premises
upon which this country was founded was an unalienable right to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (If you'll do some research about
the founding of the U.S, Mr. Abrams, you'll find that those aren't even my
words!)
In the absence of compelling evidence that what one person wants for
themselves is harmful to others, they have an unalienable right to do what
they want. We also have a Constitutional guarantee that the defintion of
"harmful to others" isn't one that's based on religion or religious
precepts. Since no one has been able to show that homosexuality causes
harm to others, it is in fact a protected right for the citizens of the
United States.
> No society should
>have `gay' rights dumped upon them from the top.
We created a system whereby the desires of the many cannot be used to
oppress the rights of the few. I'm sorry that you don't like that system,
but as long as the majority support the basic principles upon which this
country was founded, homosexual rights will continue to be imposed by the
government of the people, just as racial and gender rights have been
imposed.
>Something like human
>sexuality and the way in which it is expressed, or given sanction to
>express itself, will ultimately deterimine the kind of nation we live
>in, the quality of our justice system, health care and what we teach
>our children.
Oh My. This seems familiar. I have some questions about this
assertion. Please the end of this post for them.
>Can we not see, that there is something seriously
>wrong with granting people the right to engage in what traditionally has
>been perceived as immoral and deviant behavior.
Jesus didn't see anything wrong with it, that's why he loosened
several Old Testament restrictions, and while gentiles don't need to be
circumsized and can ea pork.
The founding fathers of this country didn't see anything wrong with
it, that's why we don't have a king, and we are guaranteed freedom from
religion.
The Catholic Church didn't see anything wrong with it, that's why they
no longer give the mass in latin.
The people at large of the U.S. don't see anything wrong with it,
that's why women can vote, blacks aren't slaves, homosexuals can admit
their orientation, atheists can admit their lack of faith, Jews are
guaranteed equality, Sex Education is taught in school, Playboy is
available on the newstand, Prohibition was repealed, and oral sex and
masturbation are now considered healthy and natural by law, most doctors,
most psychologists, and most child care specialists.
Can you not see, Mr. Abrams, that there is something seriously wrong
with not realizing that what has traditionally been perceived as immoral
and deviant behaviour may in fact need to be altered to accomodate new
realitiews, new technologies, new awarenesses, and the general advance of
culture and civilization?
>Is past wisdom all that
>obsolete and out of fashion. The whole of society must ask, what are the
>compelling reasons as to "why `we' should accept homosexuality."
Because people's sexual freedom is a basic right, and since
homosexuality is entirely consensual behaviour between adults that hurts
no one else, it should not be the business of society, government, or
other individuals. In the absence of compelling evidence that
homosexuality does harm, in the U.S., it falls under the guarantees of
freedom upon which this country was founded.
Now, back to those thorny questions about your social theory.
In the past, you have said...
>The basis of all `human' civilization is a healthy and moral sexual
>constitution, all the rest is window dressing.
and...
>Everything that man does, whether politically, economically, culturally
>etc, will be a reflection of the way in which people conduct themselves
>sexually. How sexuality is expressed will ultimately determine whether a
>society will become barbaric or civilized, whether a society will be one
>of mutual affirmation or exploitation.
and...
>The Noahide laws are the minimum upon which a civilized
>society rests and therefore are in the interests of all
>society regardless of other differences or preferences.
>Anyone who violates or who promotes the violation of these
>basic laws are enemies to all mankind.
and just yesterday...
In article <4aq7ma$a...@news.netvision.net.il>, kev...@netvision.net.il wrote:
>Sexual `liberation' leads to fascism.
It is my observation that all of these say just about the same thing.
There is, of course, nothing wrong with this, but I think your constant
changing of your phrasology has prevented you from adequately defending
your basic assertion. Doubtless do to your busy promotional schedule, you
havn't had time to answer my questions about this assertion, but I think
that you are thereby doing the people who read your posts a disservice.
In this post you introduced the fifth rephrasing of this basic idea
that I have seen from you...
>Something like human
>sexuality and the way in which it is expressed, or given sanction to
>express itself, will ultimately deterimine the kind of nation we live
>in, the quality of our justice system, health care and what we teach
>our children.
Unfortunately, as before, this rephrasing fails to address the
fundamental concerns and questions I have about the underlying basic
concept. Perhaps you can clarify by answering the following questions.
1) Why don't you ever support this position? As an assertion, it's
pretty weak. It seems to counter any common-sensical analysis of what our
society is, or is based on, and yet you offer nothing to back it up.
2) Why do you put "human" before sexuality? Why is it important that
human sexuality be differentiated from other species' sexuality?
3) Please explain the social theory by which one can predict what
effects one's sexual activities will have on one's nation. What kind of
sexual behaviours lead to an exploitative society? How is the gender of
the participants involved? Which homosexual practices are conducive to
an acceptable nation? If there aren't any, why not? What heterosexual
practices lead to a non-desirable nation? Again, if there aren't any,
why not?
4) Is the statement true regardless of which system of morals is in
place? Or do you have a moral system in mind? If you have one in mind, are
you saying that nations that don't adhere to it are in fact not acceptable
to you as countries? If the statement is independent of moral system,
explain why homosexuality is a problem, since it is perfectly acceptable
morally in many different countries.
5) Please give an example of how sexuality in the United States is
reflected in our justice system, as of your reflected traits, that one
seems the most suceptible to analysis. Then please give a counter-example
of a country with differing sexuality that has a correspondingly different
justice system.
6) What you basically are saying here is that the way your doctor
cares for you, the way the courts treat you, the way the schools all
educate you, and in fact the very design, implementation, and nature of a
nation is determined by something as private and individual as ones
sexuality? In short, that the "ultimate" (your word) determining factor in
the nature of a country is, in fact, the way that people fuck?
Please enlighten us, Mr. Abrams, you bigoted, rabidly homophobic,
stupid, irrational, revisionist twit.
[Newsgroups line slightly trimmed, followups redirected to
alt.politics.homosexuality]
--
___ ___
__ __ \ \/ / Glenn "Mr. X" Austin (aus...@doit.wisc.edu)
| \/ |_\__ / "A world that guaranteed food, shelter, medical care,
| | __|/ full employment, literacy, day care, civil rights and
| |\/| | |/ \ democracy, but denied us sexual license, would make
|_| |_|_| \ us nothing more than well-fed domestic animals with
/ /\ \ sufferage."
/__/ \__\ - Pat Califia.
D Gary Grady
>For the record, the koine form of Greek has been looked down upon by
>some, then and later, as a "degernate" form of the language.
I could try to claim that "degernate" is a rare word you just aren't
educated enough to know, but the truth is I was trying to type
"degenerate" but missed. That is "degernate" is a degenerate form of
"degenerate." Thank you for your support.
Terry Canaan
: Dave wrote,
:
: > Kevin E. Abrams, you are seriously deluded about the source of evil in
: > this world. It has nothing to do with sexuality per se and everything to
: > do with lack of compassion and inappropriate expressions of anger. Your
: > demonization of masses of people on the basis of their sexuality suggests
: > that, although you may think you are doing good, you are actually
: > perpetrating an evil. Please reconsider your point of view, which, I
: > feel obligated to inform you, really does resemble Nazi thinking.
: >
: > davemarc
: How would you describe the source of evil Dave?
: Homosexuals are not "massess of people," they are less
: than 2% of the population. But with societies approval,
: this figure could rise. In 1922 in Germany a servey done
: by Magnus Hirschfeld indicated that there were approx
: 100,000 homosexuals in Berlin alone, where sexual deviance
: and promiscuity was chronic. In this climate of moral decline,
: the Nazis actually founded the largest homosexual rights
: movement in Germany at the time.
This is insane, the nazis made gays wear pink triangles and, in many
cases, put them in the camps with the jews, the dissenters, the jehovah's
witnesses, and everyone else they didn't like.
: Sometimes being able to say no and reject an evil, is a greater
: act of compassion, for all concerned, than toleration, which is
: often based on self-pity and ignoring our responsibilty towards
: one's community and fellow man.
This sure sounds pretty... Too bad it makes so little sense. Why is
toleration based on self-pity? If I were to tolerate your homophobic
panic, would that mean I had a bad opinion of my own self-worth?
: The vast majority of people in the
: west still believe that Homosexuality should never be accepted as
: `normal' nor on par with heterosexuality.
Got figures or are we to simply accept it's true because you say it is?
: We simply don't need to
: be shown how `proud' gays are today about their disfunction, have
: our children taught that homosexuality is a valid option, or that
: it's not a `choice.'
At what point did you choose to be straight... When did you decide that
women were attractive? I don't remember making that choice...
: What do you mean by "sexuality?" And are you actually suggesting
: that a rejection of homosexuality equals "NAZI thinking," when the
: Nazis were dominated by homosexual pederasts? Where are `your'
: obligations in this regard?
If you can prove that all nazis are white supremisists, you might have a
point... Thing is, you can't. There are jewish gays and black gays and
hispanic gays, ad nauseum.
: Being that America is a democratic country, something as seminal
: as the `norms' of human sexuality, should be voted upon by the
: citizens of the country where these changes are being proposed,
: after a lengthy and serious open national debate. No society should
: have `gay' rights dumped upon them from the top.
Substite the words "women" for gays or "minorities" for gays and see how
well your argument holds up. BTW, I don't remember having a referendum on
what's "normal" or what's not...
: Something like human
: sexuality and the way in which it is expressed, or given sanction to
: express itself, will ultimately deterimine the kind of nation we live
: in, the quality of our justice system, health care and what we teach
: our children. The policy being promoted from the top down and driven
: by `gay' activism is totally undemocratic and is based upon corrupting
: the smallest common denominator, such as, the Office Of The President.
Why is it "totally undemocratic", because you say so?
: The tyranny of a minority must never be allowed to ride roughshod over
: what has traditionally been the moral foundation of western civilization,
: which has long rejected homosexuality.
So what's just and what's popular are one and the same? I'm must be
looking at a different constitution than you are.
: In addition, to an abundance of
: contemporary evidence which suggests that homosexuality must be rejected,
: it would serve us well to discover why those who have gone before us also
: condemned homosexuality. Can we not see, that there is something seriously
: wrong with granting people the right to engage in what traditionally has
: been perceived as immoral and deviant behavior.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Doh! That puts most of us in a position to have our rights taken away.
Ever had sex without being married? Stupid tradition says that's adultery.
: Is past wisdom all that
: obsolete and out of fashion. The whole of society must ask, what are the
: compelling reasons as to "why `we' should accept homosexuality."
Probably because there's no real reason not to.
: Because
: if we accept homosexuality, this will open the way for sexual conduct yet
: still in the closet, like intergenerational sex, which is already being
: discussed more openly.
You're going to have to define intergenerational sex for me... I believe
that you'r saying that sex between different age groups is wrong. If this
is so, you have a very narrow defintion of allowable sex.
: We must always remember, what we espouse publically
: is far more important, than what actually happens privately.
In other words, it doesn't matter what we do... it's what we say that counts.
: In the meantime, read, THE PINK SWASTIKA.
: There is nothing new under the sun......
: Regards,
: Kevin E. Abrams
==(T_e_r_r_y C_a_n_a_a_n)==========================================
| At least 2/3 of our miseries spring from human stupidity, human |
| malice and those great motivators and justifiers of malice and |
| stupidity, idealism, dogmatism and proselytizing zeal on behalf |
| of religious and political idiots. --Aldous Huxley |
======================================(cha...@big10.metrobbs.com)==
BROWN MARGARET SAXON
>How would you describe the source of evil Dave?
Although not Dave, I would describe it as intolerance and hate based on
fear and ignorance.
>Homosexuals are not "massess of people," they are less
>than 2% of the population. But with societies approval,
>this figure could rise.
We don't approve of murder,rape, molestation, but they keep happening- I
believe that they are on the increase....
In 1922 in Germany a servey done
>by Magnus Hirschfeld indicated that there were approx
>100,000 homosexuals in Berlin alone, where sexual deviance
>and promiscuity was chronic. In this climate of moral decline,
>the Nazis actually founded the largest homosexual rights
>movement in Germany at the time.
Cart before the horse here- Are you saying that a tolerant atmosphere
"creates" homosexuals? Are you saying that homosexuals promote
promiscuity in heterosexuals? What do you define as "sexual deviance"?
Anything not in the missionary position for procreation only?
>Sometimes being able to say no and reject an evil, is a greater
>act of compassion, for all concerned, than toleration, which is
>often based on self-pity and ignoring our responsibilty towards
>one's community and fellow man.
You have a RESPONSBILITY to determine the sleeping habits of others? And
you obtained this from.....?
The vast majority of people in the
>west still believe that Homosexuality should never be accepted as
>`normal' nor on par with heterosexuality. We simply don't need to
>be shown how `proud' gays are today about their disfunction, have
>our children taught that homosexuality is a valid option, or that
>it's not a `choice.'
How do you know it's not? Why would someone subject themselves to the
scorn of prigs to do something they don't even like?
By the way, all reference made to Nazis, KKK, skinheads, etc will be
snipped- they are inappropriate to any thread that seeks to belittle the
suffering of over 6 million people for the reason of name-calling
>Being that America is a democratic country, something as seminal
>as the `norms' of human sexuality, should be voted upon by the
>citizens of the country where these changes are being proposed,
>after a lengthy and serious open national debate.
Let me get this straight- you want a vote on what consenting adults can
do together? A National Vote? How will you word this proposal- When
does it stop? Are certain positions O.K., and other not? What laws for
heterosexuals? "I declare that the punishment for doing it in ways that
kevin disapproves of be imprisonment, fines, lashes with whips (oops,
back to deviance again...)
No society should
>have `gay' rights dumped upon them from the top. Something like human
>sexuality and the way in which it is expressed, or given sanction to
>express itself, will ultimately deterimine the kind of nation we live
>in, the quality of our justice system, health care and what we teach
>our children. The policy being promoted from the top down and driven
>by `gay' activism is totally undemocratic and is based upon corrupting
>the smallest common denominator, such as, the Office Of The President.
I think that you misunderstand the activism that has brought this to your
attention in the first place- By the way, are you saying that Clinton is
a fag? Or just impling it?
>The tyranny of a minority must never be allowed to ride roughshod over
Anything. Not even the tyranny of the small-minded.
>what has traditionally been the moral foundation of western civilization,
>which has long rejected homosexuality. In addition, to an abundance of
>contemporary evidence which suggests that homosexuality must be rejected,
>it would serve us well to discover why those who have gone before us also
>condemned homosexuality. Can we not see, that there is something seriously
>wrong with granting people the right to engage in what traditionally has
>been perceived as immoral and deviant behavior. Is past wisdom all that
>obsolete and out of fashion. The whole of society must ask, what are the
>compelling reasons as to "why `we' should accept homosexuality." Because
>if we accept homosexuality, this will open the way for sexual conduct yet
>still in the closet, like intergenerational sex, which is already being
>discussed more openly. We must always remember, what we espouse publically
>is far more important, than what actually happens privately.
Have you ever considered that maybe- if past beliefs which reject
homosexuality were abandoned, then what would happen? What would people
do with all the hate and anger and fear? Where would it go? Maybe we
can hate blacks again (openly) or Jews, or Hispanics? Hasn't history
shown that when we get past the silly prejudices- skin color, etc, that
everyone gets along better? Only then have strides been made, and make
us better people, and better communities to live in. Certainly I'd
rather have a black family living next door than a racist, and I'd rather
share my table with gays who live their own lives, than with intolerants
who try to live (rule) someone else's. Quit picking on everybody, just
because they are not just like you, and revel in the differences that
abound between us all- Vive la Difference!!!
>In the meantime, read, THE PINK SWASTIKA.
>There is nothing new under the sun......
>Regards,
>Kevin E. Abrams
Saxon Brown, who knows that if I don't stand up for the freedoms of
others, there will be nobody left to stand up for mine.
Clifford Low
a...@nyc.pipeline.com writes:
>The root of evil is definitely sexual sin; certain sexual acts must be tied
Correction; the root of fun is sexual sin. Evil is only fun when it
tickles.
>The real question is, Why has there been teaching in every major religion
>denouncing lust, sex out-of-marriage, homosexuality, beastiality, incest
>(consenual and otherwise) and other problems and forms of deviancy. There
>are reasons. No religion has ever promoted homosexuality and the rest
>because certain acts remain outside the purpose of creation, outside of the
>realm of goodness as defined by the Creator. Not defined by the person, but
Gee, you sure know your comparitive religion. How about the Greek gods,
many of which were rapists, incestuous, pedophiles, bestialists, and
bisexuals. Of course, most of our culture is based on ideas developed by
this culture, the males of which were predominantly bisexual. In that
culture, "deviancy" was the norm, and the result was a grand inspiration
which has lasted millenia.
>Let's think here. Why not engage in consensual incest? Well, besides the
>matter that it makes most people wretch to think of the idea, it is no more
>illogical than homoseuxality: two "loving" people, engaged in satisfying
>their desires, without "harm" to anyone ... etc., etc. And if they worry
>about getting VD, pregnant, inbreeding ... wear a condom! We have
>solutions!
Quite correct. The taboo against incest is illogical. It's one thing not
to find an act appealling, and it's another to condemn others for not
sharing your tastes. After all, it can always be turned against you.
>Surely God recognized this when he stated: 'Thou shall not commit adultery"
>(which in contemporary jargon is meaningfully translated by the sexual
>deviant as "God was just trying to avoid unwanted pregnancies!).
>
>There are certain percentages of incestuous individuals, add them up, Wow!
>There must be millions! That justifies taking it off the list of deviancy
>all right. .... Hummm. And all those beast-loving people who want to
>increase human love for and with animals. Yummy!
>
>Yup. People will go to any length to justify what they do, no matter how
>inane, how repulsive, how ....
If I were able to make you stop doing things I thought were repulsive,
and you did the same to me, and we did the same for... her, over there...
and him... and them to us and so on- we would end up with a murky gray
world with nothing but gloom and ennui.
For example, I find Christianity to be screamingly repugnant- it's values
aren't anything like my own, and millions of people wouldn't mind seeing
it go the way of the hula hoop. Perhaps we ought to take seriously the
fact that so many people loathe Christian values, there might be
something fundamentally perverse about it's beliefs. Or we could try to
be nonjudgemental.
But screw that. Send all Christians to the lions!
-CHL
+----------Clifford Hartleigh Low-----------+------------------------+
| Email: cth...@tfs.necronomi.com | fami...@intac.com |
+-------------------------------------------+------------------------+
| WWW: http://tfs.necronomi.com/~admin/ | * VIOLET SHADOWS * |
| Finger/Talk: Cth...@lilith.necronomi.com | * TAINTED BUT HUNGRY * |
+-------------------------------------------+------------------------+
davemarc
>
>Dave wrote,
>
>> Kevin E. Abrams, you are seriously deluded about the source of evil in
>> this world. It has nothing to do with sexuality per se and everything to
>> do with lack of compassion and inappropriate expressions of anger. Your
>> demonization of masses of people on the basis of their sexuality suggests
>> that, although you may think you are doing good, you are actually
>> perpetrating an evil. Please reconsider your point of view, which, I
>> feel obligated to inform you, really does resemble Nazi thinking.
>>
>> davemarc
>
That's a tough one. But lack of compassion and inappropriate expressions
of anger have something to do with it.
>Homosexuals are not "massess of people," they are less
>than 2% of the population.
I'm amazed that you would present this kind of figure. Jews comprise
about 2% of the population of the United States today. Condemning the
Jews for sucking the blood out of the African American population (as a
Columbia student recently did) counts as demonizing masses of people.
Condemning homosexuals as pederasts (as you recently did) is the same
thing.
Surely you know that some (but not all) adult men sexually abuse female
children. Similarly, some adult men sexually abuse male children.
But not all homosexuals engage in child abuse.
>But with societies approval,
>this figure could rise. In 1922 in Germany a servey done
>by Magnus Hirschfeld indicated that there were approx
>100,000 homosexuals in Berlin alone, where sexual deviance
>and promiscuity was chronic. In this climate of moral decline,
>the Nazis actually founded the largest homosexual rights
>movement in Germany at the time.
>
>Sometimes being able to say no and reject an evil, is a greater
>act of compassion, for all concerned, than toleration, which is
>often based on self-pity and ignoring our responsibilty towards
>one's community and fellow man. The vast majority of people in the
>west still believe that Homosexuality should never be accepted as
>`normal' nor on par with heterosexuality. We simply don't need to
>be shown how `proud' gays are today about their disfunction, have
>our children taught that homosexuality is a valid option, or that
>it's not a `choice.'
Well, I disagree with you, so I wish you wouldn't resort to the third
person plural.
>
>What do you mean by "sexuality?" And are you actually suggesting
>that a rejection of homosexuality equals "NAZI thinking," when the
>Nazis were dominated by homosexual pederasts? Where are `your'
>obligations in this regard?
I'm saying that your attacks on homosexuals as an undifferentiated mass
of child molesters are similar to Nazi attacks on Jews as an
undifferentiated mass of subhumans undermining Aryan culture.
>
>Being that America is a democratic country, something as seminal
>as the `norms' of human sexuality, should be voted upon by the
>citizens of the country where these changes are being proposed,
>after a lengthy and serious open national debate. No society should
>have `gay' rights dumped upon them from the top. Something like human
>sexuality and the way in which it is expressed, or given sanction to
>express itself, will ultimately deterimine the kind of nation we live
>in, the quality of our justice system, health care and what we teach
>our children. The policy being promoted from the top down and driven
>by `gay' activism is totally undemocratic and is based upon corrupting
>the smallest common denominator, such as, the Office Of The President.
Well, the United States is a pretty democratic country. There are plenty
of opportunities to vote. I'm glad that homosexuals have the right to
vote and influence government policy. They're citizens, after all. And
they belong to many different political parties and have many different
opinions, too. Just like non-homosexuals.
>
>The tyranny of a minority must never be allowed to ride roughshod over
>what has traditionally been the moral foundation of western civilization,
>which has long rejected homosexuality. In addition, to an abundance of
>contemporary evidence which suggests that homosexuality must be rejected,
>it would serve us well to discover why those who have gone before us also
>condemned homosexuality. Can we not see, that there is something seriously
>wrong with granting people the right to engage in what traditionally has
>been perceived as immoral and deviant behavior. Is past wisdom all that
>obsolete and out of fashion. The whole of society must ask, what are the >compelling reasons as to "why `we' should accept homosexuality." Because
>if we accept homosexuality, this will open the way for sexual conduct yet
>still in the closet, like intergenerational sex, which is already being
>discussed more openly. We must always remember, what we espouse publically
>is far more important, than what actually happens privately.
Homosexuality has been viewed in many different ways by many people in
many different cultures over many different centuries. Sexuality in
general has just started to be discussed more openly in North American
society. I'm glad about that, even though it can be unsettling to have
one's world-view challenged by the expression of long-suppressed
thoughts.
>
>In the meantime, read, THE PINK SWASTIKA.
>There is nothing new under the sun......
Speaking of which...it was once considered heresy to state that the sun
did not revolve around the earth. I'm glad that issue was finally
cleared up after much discussion, but sorry that certain people were
persecuted for simply advancing what turned out to be the correct notion.
davemarc
Apuleius
»»Excerpts from, THE PINK SWASTIKA,
»»
»»"Members of the Thule Society who figure prominently in the rise of
»»Nazism included Hans Kahnert, Dietrich Eckart and Rudolf Hess. In 1919
Eckart died in 1923. His main contribution to Nazism was that he was
the first educated and socially adept person Hitler ever met. Through
his social connections he secured for the party the Muenchener
Beobachter, renamce the Voelkischer Beobachter, the party's official
newspaper.
While his intellect and social skill made a strong impression on
Hitler, who was basically a "lump" more at home in flophouses than in
salons, his early death must exclude him from consideration as a major
force in the rise of the Nazi party. One of his contributions was
perhaps to "civilize" Hitler, making him socially acceptable and to
introduce him to social circles that provided funding for the early
party. He had also recognized Hitler as more able than other party
leaders and worked for him to take over its leadership. He was 55 at
his death.
Echart is remembered for writing a very famous anti-Semitic song,
Deutschland erwache
Aus deinem boesen Traum.
Gibt fremde Juden
In deinem Reich nicht Raum.
....
kev...@netvision.net.il
In article <4aq7ma$a...@news.netvision.net.il>,
kev...@netvision.net.il said:
> > Readers,
> > If this is what the Lambda Report does., "Prove to the world that
homosexuality is evil." Then they are obviously on the right track.
Anyone operating with a full deck of cards knows homosexuality is
> > "evil" and the apex of a destructive and brutal death culture.
William December Starr asked,
> Can your "anyone operating with a full deck" _prove_ this, or do they
> just all "know" it?
Readers,
Read THE PINK SWASTIKA: Homosexuality In The Nazi Party, and find
out why & how homosexuality can become hazardous to eveyones health.
Apuleius
»»Excerpts from, THE PINK SWASTIKA,
»»
»»"Members of the Thule Society who figure prominently in the rise of
»»Nazism included Hans Kahnert, Dietrich Eckart and Rudolf Hess. In 1919
»»Kahnert founded Germany's largest "gay rights" organization, the "Bund
I've already established that Kahnert did NOT "figure prominently" in
the rise of Nazism. If he had, surely Bracher's account of the origins
and rise of the National Socialist Movement would have mentioned him,
but it doesn't, not even once.
I find absolutely nothing to connect Rudolf Hess with the Thule
society. What is your reference for that assertion?
Apuleius
»»If this is what the Lambda Report does., "Prove to the world that
»»homosexuality is evil." Then they are obviously on the right track.
Lambda doesn't prove anything. It is an organ in your genre, the Big
Lie.
Apuleius
»»Excerpts from, THE PINK SWASTIKA,
In another message of yours you had tried to link Julius Streicher to
a list of "homosexuals."
That shows your big lie technique.
Here's what William Shirer says of Streicher (p50).
"This depraved sadist, who started life as an elementary-school
teacher, was one of the most disreputable men around Hitler from 1922
until 1939, when his star finally faded. A famous fornicator, as he
boasted, who blackmailed even the husbands or women who were his
mistresses, he made his fame and fortune as a blindly fanatical
anti-Semite."
Kraig Blackwelder
> Dave wrote,
>
> > Kevin E. Abrams, you are seriously deluded about the source of evil in
> > this world. It has nothing to do with sexuality per se and everything to
> > do with lack of compassion and inappropriate expressions of anger. Your
> > demonization of masses of people on the basis of their sexuality suggests
> > that, although you may think you are doing good, you are actually
> > perpetrating an evil. Please reconsider your point of view, which, I
> > feel obligated to inform you, really does resemble Nazi thinking.
> >
> > davemarc
>
> How would you describe the source of evil Dave?
> Homosexuals are not "massess of people," they are less
> than 2% of the population.
You deliberately chose to repeat the smallest estimate, Kevin, and I
find that somewhat disingenuous of you. Estimates range from 1% to 10%,
and, as a sex psychology student at Northwestern University working with
professor Michael Bailey, who is a renowned researcher of sexual
orientation, (he himself is straight with two kids, in case you were
getting ready to make accusations), I would set the percentage around 4%,
but that's those who are exclusively gay. If you add in those who fit the
definition of bisexual, you wind up with another 8%, for a total of about
12% who are sexual with members of their own sex. That's a few million
people in America alone. Does that count as masses yet?
> But with societies approval, this figure could rise.
You're full of shit, Kevin. This is like saying that with society's
approval, the figure of left handed people could rise. It's not really
likely. More people might be out of the closet, more people might feel
comfortable being honest with their friends and family, fewer teenagers
might kill themselves upon realizing they're gay, but since the incidence
of genetic traits generally doesn't fluctuate, except in times of extreme
environmental change, there wouldn't be any change in the rates of
homosexuality.
Even IF there were (and this is a BIG if) a rise in homosexual
behavior, so what? There are over five billion people on the planet, it's
hardly as though the human race is going to go extinct. It might be good
to ease off the over population for a while.
> In 1922 in Germany a servey done
> by Magnus Hirschfeld indicated that there were approx
> 100,000 homosexuals in Berlin alone, where sexual deviance
> and promiscuity was chronic. In this climate of moral decline,
> the Nazis actually founded the largest homosexual rights
> movement in Germany at the time.
Admit one thing, Kevin. "Sexual deviance" is anything you haven't
done, and a promiscuous person is anyone who is getting more sex than you
are. The German gay rights movement of Weimar Germany was just one more
manifestation of a number of social phenomena going on there at the time,
e.g., a love affair with neo-classicism, for example.
> Sometimes being able to say no and reject an evil, is a greater
> act of compassion, for all concerned, than toleration, which is
> often based on self-pity and ignoring our responsibilty towards
> one's community and fellow man.
So what are you saying, Kev? That it's our duty to persecute lesbians
and gay men? That we are bound to go fag bashing for the better of all
mankind? Why don't we just perpetrate a whole new holocaust just to
appease you and make society safe for heterosexuals everywhere? Is that
what you want? It's what yu're saying. Hitler spouted the exact same
shit. The only difference between the two of you is whom you choose as
your mongrel race. Hitler chose Jews, whereas you'd rather kill
homosexuals.
> The vast majority of people in the
> west still believe that Homosexuality should never be accepted as
> `normal' nor on par with heterosexuality. We simply don't need to
> be shown how `proud' gays are today about their disfunction, have
> our children taught that homosexuality is a valid option, or that
> it's not a `choice.'
First, it's not a dysfunction. Second, if it were, it wouldn't make any
difference: the West has a long history of revelling in its dysfunctions,
e.g., country music, e.g., talk shows, etc. Third, according to a
congressional report, one third of teenage suicides occur because some
poor kid realized that she or he is gay. It's not a "Heh-heh, I'll show
them." It's not an act of rebellion. It's a realization that you're "One
of Them." So they swallow pills, or they hang themselves, or they blow
their brains out. So long as creeps like you, Kevin, keep stigmatizing
homosexuality, these kids will keep slashing their wrists, they'll keep
asphyxiating themselves, just because they're attracted to the "wrong"
sex. Get over your little crusade mentality already and take a look at
the high price of homophobia.
> What do you mean by "sexuality?" And are you actually suggesting
> that a rejection of homosexuality equals "NAZI thinking," when the
> Nazis were dominated by homosexual pederasts? Where are `your'
> obligations in this regard?
If Nazis had been dominated by homosexuals OR pederasts, they wouldn't
have sent so many to the concentration camps. You already admitted the
other day that there were gay Capos in the camps, and since capos are
other prisoners, then it seems fairly obvious that you've admitted to the
fact that homosexuals were put into the death camps, so how do you resolve
this?
In the mean time, suck on this: Hitler was heterosexual. Goebbels was
heterosexual. Mengele was heterosexual. In fact, ALL the top nazis were
heterosexual. Especially after 1938, when anyone who was a known
homosexual was KILLED in the night of long knives, including Ernst Rohm.
If anyone were going to be spared, it would have been he. Nazis were
unmitigatedly homophobic. Anyone who didn't want to breed more little
blond Aryans was considered trash, useless to the fatherland, and
generally killed. That's how the nazis felt about gay men. Anything you
say denying this is sheer revisionism, and evil.
> Being that America is a democratic country, something as seminal
> as the `norms' of human sexuality, should be voted upon by the
> citizens of the country where these changes are being proposed,
> after a lengthy and serious open national debate. No society should
> have `gay' rights dumped upon them from the top. Something like human
> sexuality and the way in which it is expressed, or given sanction to
> express itself, will ultimately deterimine the kind of nation we live
> in, the quality of our justice system, health care and what we teach
> our children. The policy being promoted from the top down and driven
> by `gay' activism is totally undemocratic and is based upon corrupting
> the smallest common denominator, such as, the Office Of The President.
Living in a democracy does not mean that the majority can run over the
rights of the minority. Jews are a minority in America, but that doesn't
give Christians the right to treat them like second class citizens. Just
because over 90% of America is (more or less) heterosexual doesn't give
them the right to take away gay people's children. It doesn't give them
the right to beat gay people up. It doesn't give them the right to shoot
gay people. It doesn't give them the right to teach that gay people are
evil. It doesn't give them the right to have gay people fired from their
jobs. In other words, living in a democracy does not mean that the
majority get to act like bigots to the minority. Tolerance of diversity
was one of the fundamental reasons America was established. The Puritans
and the Quakers and other colonial sects escaped England so they could be
free of that kind of bullying attitude. Any government that allows the
majority to run roughshod over the minority is destined to stumble and
fall.
> The tyranny of a minority must never be allowed to ride roughshod over
> what has traditionally been the moral foundation of western civilization,
> which has long rejected homosexuality.
First, don't talk to me about the moral foundation of western
civilization. There's no single belief or outlook that can be called
that. You're just trying to get in what amounts to some good written
"sound bites." There's been times and places when homosexuality was
looked upon as normal. There've been other times when it's been
punishable by death, like in Nazi Germany.
Morality tends to be found more often in love, compassion, and
tolerance than in cruelty, persecution, and bearing false witness.
Read "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality." You'll see
that homophobia was NOT part of the foundation of Western culture. It
came about primarily as a side effect of persecuting non-Christian faiths
once the Christians were in power. It wasn't until 313 CE, when
Constantine became emperor of the West and placed Christians in powerful
positions that homosexulity was even made illegal. The Greeks never had a
problem with it, and neither did Rome at its peak. Homosexuality was made
illegal primarily because it was felt that it played a large part in pagan
ritual, and in order to cleanse the empire of non-believers, gay men had
to go. At that point, homosexuality was looked on more as a kind of
heresy than anything else.
> In addition, to an abundance of
> contemporary evidence which suggests that homosexuality must be rejected,
> it would serve us well to discover why those who have gone before us also
> condemned homosexuality. Can we not see, that there is something seriously
> wrong with granting people the right to engage in what traditionally has
> been perceived as immoral and deviant behavior.
All you're saying here is "A lot of people have thought this was wrong,
so we should think it's wrong, too." You're not presenting any facts,
you're not making any arguments. You're just telling people to go with
the flow and since people have been bigots in the past, they should be
bigots now, too. Great logic there, chief.
> Is past wisdom all that
> obsolete and out of fashion. The whole of society must ask, what are the
> compelling reasons as to "why `we' should accept homosexuality." Because
> if we accept homosexuality, this will open the way for sexual conduct yet
> still in the closet, like intergenerational sex, which is already being
> discussed more openly. We must always remember, what we espouse publically
> is far more important, than what actually happens privately.
That's pretty demented, if you think about it. It's like saying, "Who
cares if I'm a hypocrite, as long as people THINK I'm a nice guy."
Homosexuality has no victim, so it's not a crime. It doesn't prevent
people from living happy, satisfied, productive lives, so it's not a
disease. It's just another variation on the theme of human sexuality, and
you don't like it, so you think that people who are gay should be
persecuted. Your arguments are shallow, uninformed, and tautological.
You want to assign a whole block of people to second-class status based on
nothing more than who they love. That's wrong and evil. You can't accept
that you're wrong, however, so you stay in your little denial dream world
and post more and more malevolent hate-tracts while rational human beings
read what you post and think, "Geez, what a zealot." or "Instead of
worrying about what other people are doing in their bedrooms, why doesn't
he get a life of his own?"
Bigotry is tired, Kevin. Give it a rest.
> In the meantime, read, THE PINK SWASTIKA.
> There is nothing new under the sun......
Yeah, including narrow minded pseudo-historical bigoted propaganda.
Apuleius
换The authors of THE PINK SWASTIKA invite any sincere individual to not
换only check Boswell's sources, but our sources as well. We believe that
The sources you've mentioned here were written with propaganda in mind
rather than by uninvolved historians.
Apuleius
»»Nazism included Hans Kahnert, Dietrich Eckart and Rudolf Hess. In 1919
»»Kahnert founded Germany's largest "gay rights" organization, the "Bund
»»Ernst Roehm among its members. [Jonathan Katz, "Gay American History."
»»New York, Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1976:632n94]
»»Regards,
»»Kevin E. Abrams
You are hiding your source. Katz does not say what you pretend he
says.
Katz says only that Kahnert founded the Bund in 1919.
All the other stuff you wrote comes from somewhere else, not from
Katz. Where does it come from? Your imagination? Your bile? Why don't
you give your source.
I'm looking at a 500-page book, Bracher's "The German
Dictatorship," that makes extensive mention of the Thule society.
Kahnert is not listed in the index. Whether he was a member of Thule
or not, I can't say, but he obviously did not "figure prominently" in
the rise of Nazism, or you would be mentioned by Bracher.
Apuleius
»»Excerpts from, THE PINK SWASTIKA,
»»
»»"Members of the Thule Society who figure prominently in the rise of
»»Nazism included Hans Kahnert, Dietrich Eckart and Rudolf Hess. In 1919
I'm looking at Bracher's "The German Dictatorship."
On page 82 he says "The Thule Society gave many of the future
ideologists of National Socialism their first public platform.
Gatheree here were Alfred Rosenberg, Hans Frank, Gottfried Feder,
Dietrich Eckart, who in Decembe, 1918, had begun to publish the
anti-Semitic journal "Auf gut deutsch" ("In Plain Language"), as well
as a voelkisch Catholic Priest, Father Bernhard Stempfle, who helped
Hitler in the writing of "Mein Kampf."
On page 84 he says of Hitler, "His closer collaborators -- Ernst
Roehm, Alfred Rosenberg, Dietrich Ecklrt, Rudolf Hess -- came from
various groups amid the welter of voelkisch organizations."
He doesn't identify Kahnert or Hess or Roehm (whom you mention in a
part of your message I deleted for brevity) as members of Thule. What
is your source for your claim that they were members?
One can't establish a point from silence, of course, but it's rather
curious that Bracher would list so many prominent members of Thule and
so many close collaborators of Hitler yet leave some out of the Thule
list if they were actually Thule members.
So what is your source? I suspect you don't have a reputable one
because they weren't members of Thule.
Apuleius
»»Excerpts from, THE PINK SWASTIKA,
For your new book, THE YELLOW SWASTIKA:
Bracher, "The German Dictatorship" chapter "Origins of the National
Socialist Movement" page 87:
"To begin with, there was the sign of the swastika... which... through
a characteristic misunderstanding,,, had been adopted by voelkisch
sects as a symbol of 'Aryan' andi-Semitic revival movements. That the
literary circle around Stefan George with its elitist ideology
contributed to this symbolism, even though well-known Jewish writers
and intellectuals belonged to it, is one of the tragedies of the early
history of National Socialism."
Apuleius
换than 2% of the population. But with societies approval,
换this figure could rise. In 1922 in Germany a servey done
换by Magnus Hirschfeld indicated that there were approx
换100,000 homosexuals in Berlin alone, where sexual deviance
You're arguing against yourself. Homosexuality was illegal in Germany.
Furthermore, in 1939, after 6 solid years of Nazism, the Nazi
scientists themselves were complaining that that they had to deal with
2 million homosexuals, or 10% of the adult population.
Obviously homosexuality increased greatly under Nazi repression. They
drastically increased the legal penalties against and the numbers
practising in jumped.
Apuleius
换this figure could rise. In 1922 in Germany a servey done
换by Magnus Hirschfeld indicated that there were approx
If I'm not mistaken, Hirschfeld was, like you, a Jew.
Nazi propaganda frequently linked homosexuality with Jews and blamed
them for it.
Very interesting. You, a Jew, try to blame the homosexuals for the
Nazis, while the Nazis blamed you Jews for promoting homosexuality.
If Hirschfeld was indeed a Jew, it would appear that Jews were
promoting homosexuality in Germany. (And I have no doubt whatever that
many liberal Jewish socialists advocated decent treatment of
homosexuals.)
So if we are to buy your premise that homosexuals are responsible for
Nazsm, then I guess we must go back one more step and find that
actually Jews were responsible for it.
Now what is the result of this?
That the holocaust ultimately springs from the Jews themselves?
The Jews who, according to the Nazis, promoted German homosexuals?
The Jews who, according to the Nazis, promoted German homosexuals
who, according to you, started the Nazi movement?
Is that where you're leading us, Rabbi Kevin? Do you have a guilt
complex about the holocaust you're trying to work out onto a gay
scapegoat?
Apuleius
换this figure could rise. In 1922 in Germany a servey done
换by Magnus Hirschfeld indicated that there were approx
换100,000 homosexuals in Berlin alone, where sexual deviance
Now Kevin, with all your research, you ought to be able to confirm
whether Hirschfeld was a Jew. I believe he was, but I can't find a
ready source to confirm it.
If he was, then that would make Jews, not Nazis the largest promoters
of homosexuality in Germany. You mentioned Hans Kahnert as an alleged
member of the Thule society and "prominent" role player in the rise of
the Nazis, even though I can't find him mentioned in any book index on
the subject. And you tie him in to homosexuals via a footnote from the
Johnathan Ned Katz (another Jew like you?) book "Gay American
History," because he founded the German (Society for Human Rights) to
promote tolerance for homosexuals.
Now do you think that Jewish (?) Magnus Hirschfeld was also a
homosexual Nazi? Your reference, Katz, says this of Hirschfeld:
"The founder and head of the first homosexual emancipation
organization in Germany, Dr. Hirschfeld was a physician and
sexologist."
Is it any wonder, after Hirschfeld, that the Nazis accused the
Jews of promoting homosexuality and that they compared Jews and
homosexuals as sharing common characteristics in their propaganda? (I
don't think a movement started by homosexuals, as you claim the Nazis
were, would say such things about them.)
Apuleius
换this figure could rise. In 1922 in Germany a servey done
换by Magnus Hirschfeld indicated that there were approx
换100,000 homosexuals in Berlin alone, where sexual deviance
Kevin, the Nazis considered homosexuals the equals of Jews and gypsies
in their hierarchy of demons.
Kevin, how does it feel to be in the same boat as all those
homosexuals?
Here are some things Robert Proctor writes in "Racial Hygiene":
Sexual and Racial Pathologies
It was not just the Jews or the mentally or physically handicapped,
but other groups as well that were stigmatized as "sick" and
"degenerate" by German racial scientists. Jews, Gypsies, communists,
homosexuals, the feeble-minded, the tubercular, and a wide class of
"antisocials" (alcoholics, prostitutes, drug addicts, the homeless,
and other groups) were all marked for destruction.
Consider the case of homosexuals. By the 1930s Nazi medical leaders
could draw upon a sizable literature documenting the supposedly
pathological character of (male) homosexuality....
By the mid-1930s physicians in Germany were united in arguing that
homosexuals posed a threat to public health. Physicians writing in
Germany's leading public health journal, Der Oeffentliche
Gesundheitsdienst, regularly described homosexuality as a "pathology"
and homosexuals as "psycopaths."...
...Homosexuals, in this author's [the one who complains about 10% of
the population being homosexual -- I quoted it in another message]
view, were like the Jews; they build a "state within a state, they are
state criminals. They are not 'poor,sick' people to be treated, but
enemies of the state to be eliminated!"
...Gypsies, like Jews and homosexuals, were often described by Nazi
medical authorities as a "health risk" to the German people.
I'm afraid, Kevin, that as much as you hate homosexuals, you are
inexorably bound up with them, and always will be. To the
right-wingers a Jew is no better than a homosexual.
Kevin, get used to it!
Sara aka Perrrfect
> Readers,
>
> Read THE PINK SWASTIKA: Homosexuality In The Nazi Party, and find
> out why & how homosexuality can become hazardous to eveyones health.
>
> Order by calling 1-800-[number snipped]
>
> Regards,
>
> Kevin E. Abrams
Readers:
Better yet, just listen to Abrams' braying like an ass here on Usenet.
There's nothing in his book you haven't heared already -- the same racist,
homophobic garbage.
But *do* read it. "Know thy enemy" is a wise philosophy.
Sara
--
"You can't stand still on freedom's track,
if you don't go forward, you go back.
You can't giddy-up by saying 'Whoa"
and sitting on your status quo."
Pins & Needles
Rodney gold
>Now Kevin, with all your research, you ought to be able to confirm
>whether Hirschfeld was a Jew. I believe he was, but I can't find a
>ready source to confirm it.
>If he was,
Snip Snip - cut illogical drivel
>were, would say such things about them.)
Whether the perpetrators of the holocast were homosexual or not is
irrelevant. What is the purpose of linking homosexuality to Naziism.?
Do you link heterosexuality to the commiting of crimes like the
Rawandan Massacres? Are you implying that sexual preferences
are the reason for crimes against humanity?
The people who are the most violently Homophobic are those that fear
inside themselves that they are themselves homosexual , or have an
element of homosexuality in their nature. They cannot come to terms
with it and thus turn violently on those that have, venting their
spleen and fear on those that have been brave or mature enough
to admit to it.
Assertations that the Jews , themselves were responsible for the
biggest tragedy to befall the Jewish nation is plainly ludicrous.
Your logic is flawed - i.e. My body holds shit - Therefore I am a
toilet.
The point to be made , despite your flurry of quotations and
references about reasons, nationalities, homosexuality, Rabbi Kevin
etc. is that the holocaust and all those that participated in it, is
an affront to human civilization.
The actions of these Butchers , belie any form of logic.
They were pure evil, motivated by hatred and jealousy, fuelled by
their own sense of inferiority , they partook in an orgy of death and
destruction.
Sir - I submit , it is indeed yourself who is seeking a scapegoat , in
Rabbi Kevin , for your guilt in the actions of your fellow man.
The holocaust is morally indefensible , and I, as a Jewish person,have
nothing but the lowest form of contempt and disgust, at any person who
would try to justify, condone or deny this human tragedy.
Rodney Gold
"The nicest thing about banging your head on the wall is-
the feeling you get when you stop."
Rhonda Rubin
rod...@aztec.co.za (Rodney gold) wrote:
>eea...@mixcom.com (Apuleius) wrote:
>
>
>>Now Kevin, with all your research, you ought to be able to confirm
>>whether Hirschfeld was a Jew. I believe he was, but I can't find a
>>ready source to confirm it.
>
>>If he was,
>Snip Snip - cut illogical drivel
The poster was using Kevin's logic. Glad to see others notice how
illogical Kevin is.
>>were, would say such things about them.)
>
>Whether the perpetrators of the holocast were homosexual or not is
>irrelevant. What is the purpose of linking homosexuality to Naziism.?
I suppose you could ask Kevin, the author of the book, but he'll just tell
you to buy the book.
>Do you link heterosexuality to the commiting of crimes like the
>Rawandan Massacres? Are you implying that sexual preferences
>are the reason for crimes against humanity?
Yes, that is exactly what Kevin is implying.
>The people who are the most violently Homophobic are those that fear
>inside themselves that they are themselves homosexual , or have an
>element of homosexuality in their nature. They cannot come to terms
>with it and thus turn violently on those that have, venting their
>spleen and fear on those that have been brave or mature enough
>to admit to it.
>
>Assertations that the Jews , themselves were responsible for the
>biggest tragedy to befall the Jewish nation is plainly ludicrous.
Apuleius was not really making that assertation. He was applying Kevin's
logic about homosexuality to German Jews of the time to nicely point out
the flawed logic Kevin apparently has used throughout his book.
>Your logic is flawed - i.e. My body holds shit - Therefore I am a
>toilet.
Yep...the point was very nicely made.
>The point to be made , despite your flurry of quotations and
>references about reasons, nationalities, homosexuality, Rabbi Kevin
>etc. is that the holocaust and all those that participated in it, is
>an affront to human civilization.
<Lecture snipped>
Rodney, what you're getting upset about here is the same thing others have
gotten upset over in previous postings of Kevin's. What Apuleius has
succeeded in doing is show how someone can take a few true facts, add a lie
and mix in a generous amount of flawed logic and come up with the perfect
recipe for revisionism. The only difference is that Apuleius is not really
attempting to convince people that this is what happened.
Rhonda
--
"The dew fell with a particularly sickening thud this morning."
kev...@netvision.net.il
Apuleius, B"H
You've been a busy fellow, but not a very prudent or wise
one. With scant documentation, you have assumed many things.
Why didn't you wait for the copy of THE PINK SWASTIKA "you
requested" that we send you, before you go off half cocked?
My co-author, Scott Lively and I, list over 150 sources.
You did promise to include our 1-800-number in your review,
so those who wish, can order their own copies, do some of their
own research and make up their own minds? Ah, this is the beauty
of a `democratic' and `free' society, `freedom' of conscience,
`freedom' of expression, free speach, tolerence and respect for
difference of opinion and civilized debate. The search for greater
truth and understanding. This is the way, don't you agree?
We all look forward to seeing your review, although from what
I've read in your most recent postings, it appears highly unlikely
your analysis will be an "objective" one.
By the way, you're one of the lucky ones. We sent you a
"complimentary copy." Maybe you will kindly include our mail
order address. It's listed in the back of the book along with
multiple ordering instructions, prices etc.
Thanks,
& Regards,
Kevin E. Abrams
For those who read this posting, THE PINK SWASTIKA: Homosexuality In
The Nazi Party 1995, may be ordered and charged to your VISA, by calling
1-800-828-2290.
Sara aka Perrrfect
>
>
> Sara,
>
> You certainly have a way with words.
> And who & what, is "thy enemy," Sara?
>
> Regards,
>
> Kevin E. Abrams
>
> 2% But *do* read it. "Know thy enemy" is a wise philosophy.
>
> 2% Sara
That's an easy one, Kevin.
People who hate. Homophobes, for one.
You've written a book, based on spurious "facts" to support an agenda of hatred.
You hate gays. Therefore you've attached the homosexual label to the Nazis
-- to try and prove some bizarre theory.
You're a hateful and hate-filled man, Kevin. You are the enemy.
Scott A. Safier
! Ah, this is the beauty
! of a `democratic' and `free' society, `freedom' of conscience,
! `freedom' of expression, free speach, tolerence and respect for
! difference of opinion and civilized debate. The search for greater
! truth and understanding. This is the way, don't you agree?
I have seen nothing in what Kevin normally posts that would indicate Kevin
understands the above. He may talk-the-talk, but he doesn't
walk-the-walk.
--
Scott Safier Robotics Institute
internet: cor...@cmu.edu Carnegie Mellon Univ.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/scotts/www/
Keith Turner
Tom Hall
<Pine.SOL.3.91.951220...@winnie.freenet.mb.ca>,
pir...@freenet.mb.ca says...
>
>Not to complain, but - do we really need this massive spamming?
Of _course_ we don't need it..
But -- every day is Christmas on the net, where there is no end to the
giving of the unneeded to the undeserving... :)
Merry Christmas...
Tom
kev...@netvision.net.il
kev...@netvision.net.il wrote:
> > Readers,
> > Read THE PINK SWASTIKA: Homosexuality In The Nazi Party, and find
> > out why & how homosexuality can become hazardous to eveyones health.
2% Readers:
2% Better yet, just listen to Abrams' braying like an ass here on Usenet.
2% There's nothing in his book you haven't heared already -- the same racist,
2% homophobic garbage.
kev...@netvision.net.il
Rodney wrote,
Text deleteted
> Sir - I submit , it is indeed yourself who is seeking a scapegoat,
> in Kevin , for your guilt in the actions of your fellow man.
Rodney,
Your accusations are presumptuous and your conclusions, largely the
result of your ignorance. ( no offence intended ) Often `truth' is
stranger than fiction.
Order our book, THE PINK SWASTIKA: Homosexuality In The Nazi Party,
check our sources, and maybe try to obtain a copy of Samuel Igra's 1945
book, "Germany's National Vice." Once you have completed the preceeding,
contact me, and I'll be happy to discuss the issue further with you and
recommend additional sources.
Regards,
Kevin E. Abrams
Order by calling 1-800-828-2290
William December Starr
In article <4b2tkb$l...@news.netvision.net.il>,
kev...@netvision.net.il said:
>>> If this is what the Lambda Report does., "Prove to the world that
>>> homosexuality is evil." Then they are obviously on the right
>>> track. Anyone operating with a full deck of cards knows
>>> homosexuality is "evil" and the apex of a destructive and brutal
>>> death culture. [kev...@netvision.net.il]
>>
>> Can your "anyone operating with a full deck" _prove_ this, or do
>> they just all "know" it? [wdstarr]
>
> Readers,
>
> Read THE PINK SWASTIKA: Homosexuality In The Nazi Party, and find
> out why & how homosexuality can become hazardous to eveyones health.
I repeat my question, sir, since you have failed to address it: Can
your "anyone operating with a full deck" _prove_ that homosexuality is
'evil' and the apex of a destructive and brutal death culture," or do
they just all "know" it?
And I'll add a second, bonus question: Did you really _mean_ to imply
that you believe that "anyone operating with a full deck" means
"anyone who has read my book and accepted all of its main premises?"
-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
lage...@pi.net
Is there any chance that the discussion on this travesty of history will be
closed ? I'd say that the only thing one had to do to point out how
unbelievable the whole theory is by replacing homosexuals by jews and nazis by
bolsheviks and voila ! Doesn't that ring a bell, mr. Abrams ?
That is of course unless you want to continue the tradition of 'historical'
works like 'The protocols of the elders of Zion'.
Utterly fed up with reading about your book.
Hans Lagewaard
dion...@infinet.com
}You've been a busy fellow, but not a very prudent or wise
}one. With scant documentation, you have assumed many things.
Now if this isn't irony, I don't know what is.
--
<a href="http://www.infinet.com/~dionisio">Finger</a> for PGP public key
And the Thought of the Moment (tm) is...
|
/~\
Oxxxxx| (|=========================-
\____/\_/
| "From the dawn of time we came, moving silently
down through the centuries, living many secret
lives, struggling to reach the time of the Gathering, when
the few who remain will battle to the last. No one has ever
known we were among you......until now."
-- Ramirez, from the movie _Highlander_
J.Benkin
>
>kev...@netvision.net.il wrote:
>
>> > Readers,
>
>> > Read THE PINK SWASTIKA: Homosexuality In The Nazi Party, and find
>> > out why & how homosexuality can become hazardous to eveyones health.
>
>> > Order by calling 1-800-828-2290
>
Better yet call the number and make Jerimah Press broke, by loosing
all that money they have to pay for the 1-800 Number and give them a
piece of your mind! This the same group that did that propaganda
video, "The Gay Agenda" that only showed mostly white male gays did
not include any picutres of gay people of any other color, (Mandy
Carter of the National Black Gay and Lesbian leadership forum is still
waiting for her royalty check) and tried to picture people who were
anti-gay of a multiracial group. Fundamentalist christian try to
recruit by having sunday school at chuch, tv ministries, bible study
groups, witnessing on street corners and by trying to brainwash gays
into ex-gay ministries. Yes, conservative christianity is a choice
and is learned behavior! Ex-gay ministries are only 30% successful
at best.
The Christian Right ought to look in the mirror if they want to see
who is doing the real recruiting!
Joshua Benkin
Same Jesus, different attitude!
Apuleius
alt.politics.homosexuality:
换eea...@mixcom.com (Apuleius) wrote:
换Sir - I submit , it is indeed yourself who is seeking a scapegoat , in
换Rabbi Kevin , for your guilt in the actions of your fellow man.
换The holocaust is morally indefensible , and I, as a Jewish person,have
换nothing but the lowest form of contempt and disgust, at any person who
换would try to justify, condone or deny this human tragedy.
换Rodney Gold
And the emotional effect on you is quite obvious. You really don't
seem to have the slightest idea of what has been going on here.
Apuleius
alt.politics.homosexuality:
换eea...@mixcom.com (Apuleius) wrote:
换>Now Kevin, with all your research, you ought to be able to confirm
换>whether Hirschfeld was a Jew. I believe he was, but I can't find a
换>ready source to confirm it.
换>If he was,
换Snip Snip - cut illogical drivel
换>were, would say such things about them.)
换Whether the perpetrators of the holocast were homosexual or not is
换irrelevant. What is the purpose of linking homosexuality to Naziism.?
Ask Kevin. We'd all be interested in hearing his alibi.
dion...@infinet.com
}I repeat my question, sir, since you have failed to address it: Can
}your "anyone operating with a full deck" _prove_ that homosexuality is
}'evil' and the apex of a destructive and brutal death culture," or do
}they just all "know" it?
Well, how about a comparison of countries and their various policies?
Surely we can mostly agree on which countries are generally thought of as
"evil", and perhaps we might even draw a correlation between their
policies requarding homosexuality and their "evilness"...
[ Begin ]
* Islamic Republic of Iran (where repression, torture and political murder
are commonplace. The river of blood this regime has spilled since 1979 is
truly horrific. They are nice to gays, however. Apparently, they have a
choice of being tossed off a cliff or being stoned to death.)
* Argentina, the Soviet Union when it existed, and South Africa. No
freedom for dissidents, and often no citizen voice in governance
whatsoever. People disappeared without returning. Political oppression ran
rampant. Interestingly, the current Russia has _repealed_ it's anti-gay
law and is more open to homosexuality now that it has moved towards
democracy. The same appears to be happening in South Africa. Hmm.
* Nazi Germany. It murdered millions, among whom were many who were
murdered only for their homosexuality. Enough said.
* the United States (although to a far lesser extent than the above.) The
most violent industrialized country, with the largest incarceration rate.
Her decaying urban areas are often as dangerous to live in as is
conducting police action in war zones. Infant mortality in urban hospitals
approach THIRD WORLD levels. People are moving into housing developments
which are literally fenced in, so afraid they are of violence and crime.
Now look at societies which are unusually tolerant of homosexuality, some
even recognizing gay marriage:
Sweden, Denmark, Holland, New Zealand --- These societies are not
particularly violent, repressive, authoritarian, nor unpleasant. In fact,
citizens of this country enjoy a relatively high standard of personal
freedom and safety. It's not rocket science: a reasonable person sees
instantly that every entry in the second list is more civilized than any
entry in the first.
The reputed causal link between intolerance levels towards homosexuals and
resulting societal health has been disproven by example. Not only do the
above cited examples contradict the proposed relationship directly, but
they suggest that it's exactly backwards: attitudes about homosexuality
REFLECT the level of cultural health, not act as a causal agent. In other
words, intolerance of homosexuality appears to be the effect of violent,
harsh, and/or authoritarian regimes, while tolerance of homosexuality
appears to be the hallmark of humane and civilized cultures.
[ end ]
--
<a href="http://www.infinet.com/~dionisio">Finger</a> for PGP public key
And the Thought of the Moment (tm) is...
Gain the trust of the masses, then use that power to rule Earth.
Scott A. Safier
! * Nazi Germany. It murdered millions, among whom were many who were
! murdered only for their homosexuality. Enough said.
I like to nitpick about this, since I think being imprecise only plays
into Kevin's (and his ilk's) hands.
Many gay men were imprisoned in concentration camps Some of these were
deported to execution camps or died in the camps, but many survived. Most
of these survivors became very closeted, and refused to come forward.
Pierre Seel's _I_Pierre_Seel:_Deported_Homosexual_ gives a good personal
account of this man's struggles after being released from a French camp.
There was one woman imprisoned at Ravensbruck (sp?) for lesbianism(*), but
as a whole, lesbians could still serve their role of bearing children and
were not imprisoned. The largest effect of Naziism on the gay and lesbian
community was the destruction of its press, repression of its political
expression, and driving the community underground.
I've been pointing people to a new book by Gunter Grau called "The Hidden
Holocaust". I picked up a copy at the USHMM. Plant's _The_Pink_Triangle_
and Heger's _The_Men_with_The_Pink_Triangles_ have also been recommended
at various points in this thread. Also, _The_Buchenwald_Report_ has
several articles on the treatment of gay men in that camp.
Scott, who mentioned most of the reputible references in this one post
(*) The Holocaust Museum in DC has just gotten some Soviet records that
document lesbianism in Nazi Germany and in the camps. I have not examined
this testimony yet.
Scott A. Safier
! Ex-gay ministries are only 30% successful
! at best.
Do you have a reputible source for this? The only studies I have heard of
used bias sames ("we gave them files of people we thought were still
acting straight")?
I think it is fun to point out that the two men that founded Exodus fell
in love and have since denounced the organization.
Apuleius
换You did promise to include our 1-800-number in your review,
换By the way, you're one of the lucky ones. We sent you a
换"complimentary copy." Maybe you will kindly include our mail
换order address. It's listed in the back of the book along with
换multiple ordering instructions, prices etc.
I don't think my editor will have a problem with that, but as long as
your 800 number is in order, I'll see how much space I have.
PS: Some members of your religion (I presume) are getting more than a
little pissed off at all this stuff appearing in the "israel" oriented
lists. And now I note that you've added another one,
uk.religion.jewish.
Well, I don't know where you find them in a list of over 10,000
newsgroups, but I suppose one could export the list and work on it
with a word processor.
At any rate, I responded to an irate message from one of your readers
in those other groups telling him to go after you, not us as the
numero uno purveyor of (non-pork) Spam.
So if you get irate messages from them, you might want to join my
crusade:
I've noticed a lot of Usenet newsgroup
moderators complaining about spamming
(inappropriate cross-posting).
I think most of this occurs quite innocently
because people respond to messages with
inappropriate newsgroups in the headers, or
with inappropriate newsgroups deviously
sneaked into the "Follow Up To" header.
I suggest that instead of all these polite
warning messages (and some not so polite)
the newsgroup moderators should put their
energies into something useful:
CHANGE THE USENET SOFTWARE !!!!!
ONLY NEWSGROUP MODERATORS CAN DO IT !!!!!
The Usenet software should be changed so it
accepts only ONE newsgroup for every post.
The "Follow Up To" feature should be
eliminated entirely.
The Usenet moderators should work for this
change instead of spending their time trying
to discipline posters.
The major problem is that people reply to
messages having many, many newsgroups listed
in the headers, including groups that are
inappropriate.
Those who try to make an honest effort to
trim the lists are not often successful,
and why, in the first place, should they
be burdened with the task?
The Usenet software should be changed so it
accepts ONLY ONE newsgroup.
Those with a genuine need to cross-post can
do so very easily by duplicating their message.
With a newsreader such as Free Agent it only
requires opening a sent message in the outbox,
changing the newsgroup, and re-posting it.
It they're too lazy to do that, they have no
business cross-posting.
A further abuse involves sneaking inappropriate
newsgroups into the "follow-up to" header. The
original sender posts to legitimate newsgroups,
but those answering find that they're unwittingly
spamming all over the net.
The FOLLOW UP TO feature should be eliminated from
Usenet software.
* * * * *
In addition to changing the Usenet software, there
is another readily available option, which is to
change to a bit.listserv or similar group.
In such a group the moderator can eliminate "spam"
before it is posted publicly. If they already
moderate the newsgroup to vet inappropriate posts,
there would be little extra effort to do this.
Sending out pleas and warnings to spammers really
doesn't guarantee results and makes a lot of tedious
work for everybody. Innocent posters can spend a lot
of time vetting long lists of newsgroups because they
feel their response should go to some of the cross-post
newsgroups but not to all. Service providers have a lot
of headaches if they genuinely have to put a limit on
someone, and they can open themselves to legal action
if they do. Moderators know what headaches they have.
All this could be avoided if the usenet software were
changed to accept only ONE newsgroup.
Apuleius
换That is of course unless you want to continue the tradition of 'historical'
换works like 'The protocols of the elders of Zion'.
换Utterly fed up with reading about your book.
换Hans Lagewaard
You've given him the title for his next one:
"The protocols of the elders of San Francisco".
Since you're "fed up", join my anti-Spam crusade:
Apuleius
换video, "The Gay Agenda" that only showed mostly white male gays did
换not include any picutres of gay people of any other color, (Mandy
换Carter of the National Black Gay and Lesbian leadership forum is still
换waiting for her royalty check) and tried to picture people who were
换anti-gay of a multiracial group. Fundamentalist christian try to
换recruit by having sunday school at chuch, tv ministries, bible study
I occasionally watch fundamentalist TV shows.
They make me think of Nancy Reagan when she was overheard on the
telephone after a trip telling President Ron "It's so nice to see all
these white faces again."
There's a whole church full of Southern Baptist white faces from
Dallas or Ft. Lauderdale on the TeeVee, and if you look real hard you
can see one lil ole colored boy or girl in the choir. They must have
some store where they can rent 'em for the occasion to prove that
they's "integrated."
And I remember grandpappy Chriswell, the "original" father of Southern
Baptist fundamentalism bragging about his mission to the hispanics (I
don't recall exactly what term he used). Only thing was, they had a
mission churcy of their OWN, they warn't a single latino face to be
seen in Pappy Chriswell's church.
But, what can we expect from the slave states?
Apuleius
alt.politics.homosexuality:
换Not to complain, but - do we really need this massive spamming?
Join my anti-Spam crusade:
Apuleius
alt.politics.homosexuality:
换In article
换<Pine.SOL.3.91.951220...@winnie.freenet.mb.ca>,
换pir...@freenet.mb.ca says...
换>
换>Not to complain, but - do we really need this massive spamming?
换Of _course_ we don't need it..
换But -- every day is Christmas on the net, where there is no end to the
换giving of the unneeded to the undeserving... :)
换Merry Christmas...
换Tom
So Join my anti-spam crusade:
JustMe
<4bfcsj$c...@homer.alpha.net> of alt.sex.pedophilia, eea...@mixcom.com
(Apuleius) wrote:
>I've noticed a lot of Usenet newsgroup
>moderators complaining about spamming
>(inappropriate cross-posting).
>
>I think most of this occurs quite innocently
>because people respond to messages with
>inappropriate newsgroups in the headers, or
>with inappropriate newsgroups deviously
>sneaked into the "Follow Up To" header.
>
>I suggest that instead of all these polite
>warning messages (and some not so polite)
>the newsgroup moderators should put their
>energies into something useful:
>
>CHANGE THE USENET SOFTWARE !!!!!
>
>ONLY NEWSGROUP MODERATORS CAN DO IT !!!!!
>
>The Usenet software should be changed so it
>accepts only ONE newsgroup for every post.
>
>The "Follow Up To" feature should be
>eliminated entirely.
This seems much to simple and obvious. They'll probably never do
it...
Jim Parks
>Those with a genuine need to cross-post can
>do so very easily by duplicating their message.
>With a newsreader such as Free Agent it only
>requires opening a sent message in the outbox,
>changing the newsgroup, and re-posting it.
You don't understand how Usenet works, or the definition of spam.
Spam is posting the same message to multiple groups *without*
crossposting. Crossposted messages are only stored once (on most news
servers) and only transmitted to each news site *one time* no matter
how many groups are included.
Posting to multiple groups without crossposting would create a whole
lot more trouble than it eliminates. For one thing, it would probably
be impossible to keep up with a full newsfeed, and if you could, where
would you store it?
>All this could be avoided if the usenet software were
>changed to accept only ONE newsgroup.
Which usenet software would that be? The servers? Um, lets see,
there are dozens of them. The newsreader software? There's even more
of those. If every news server package was modified to accept only
one newsgroup in each article, do you know what the next step would
be? Someone would write a newsreader which would accept a list of
newsgroups, and it would automatically post the multiple messages for
you.
So, if you don't like inappropriate posts, stick to the moderated
newsgroups. Otherwise, learn how make a kill file, kill those who
offend you, and spend your time on more productive pursuits.
John
> Otherwise, learn how make a kill file, kill those who
> offend you, and spend your time on more productive pursuits.
I've spoken with people about akill file but they said it was not
available through the Netscape newsreader or WinWV (which are the two
sharewares I have). Do the commercial versions have this? If not which
readers wupport a kill file (without having to know how to program in
Unix or something just as offbeat for a newbie). I HATE spam.
====================================
John C. Pielsticker
John A. Stanley
cor...@cmu.edu (Scott A. Safier) wrote:
>In article <c157cb$7231...@news.sisna.com>, jo...@upx.net (J.Benkin) wrote:
>
>! Ex-gay ministries are only 30% successful
>! at best.
>
>Do you have a reputible source for this? The only studies I have heard of
>used bias sames ("we gave them files of people we thought were still
>acting straight")?
The figure is 3%, not 30%. That doesn't amount to much more than
statistical noise, and it shows just what frauds those
ministries are.
--
John A. Stanley jsta...@gate.net
Elias Halldor Agustsson
# The Usenet software should be changed so it
# accepts ONLY ONE newsgroup.
#
# Those with a genuine need to cross-post can
# do so very easily by duplicating their message.
# With a newsreader such as Free Agent it only
# requires opening a sent message in the outbox,
# changing the newsgroup, and re-posting it.
You mean spamming? You are inciting people to spam? Do you
realize how Usenet works at all?
# It they're too lazy to do that, they have no
# business cross-posting.
Sorry, but this is too idiotic. How will people reply to such posts?
By individually posting replies wherever they see copies of the original?
In fact, the best debates come from when an article has been inappropriately
crossposted, when, let's say someone from alt.food.mcdonalds writes a
brilliant riposte to an article crossposted from, let's say, alt.revisionism.
# A further abuse involves sneaking inappropriate
# newsgroups into the "follow-up to" header. The
# original sender posts to legitimate newsgroups,
# but those answering find that they're unwittingly
# spamming all over the net.
The Followup-To: header is actually designed to prevent just that.
# The FOLLOW UP TO feature should be eliminated from
# Usenet software.
Meaning that cross-posting will always become more excessive.
# In addition to changing the Usenet software, there
# is another readily available option, which is to
# change to a bit.listserv or similar group.
#
# In such a group the moderator can eliminate "spam"
# before it is posted publicly. If they already
# moderate the newsgroup to vet inappropriate posts,
# there would be little extra effort to do this.
#
# Sending out pleas and warnings to spammers really
# doesn't guarantee results and makes a lot of tedious
# work for everybody. Innocent posters can spend a lot
# of time vetting long lists of newsgroups because they
# feel their response should go to some of the cross-post
# newsgroups but not to all. Service providers have a lot
# of headaches if they genuinely have to put a limit on
# someone, and they can open themselves to legal action
# if they do. Moderators know what headaches they have.
#
# All this could be avoided if the usenet software were
# changed to accept only ONE newsgroup.
Why don't we just change the world to accept only one ISP?
For instance America Online? I'm sure they are very sympathetic
to your ideas, in fact, their idea of "Net Access" is somewhat
akin to yours.
Elías
Actually ... how can anyone with the name of Apuleius and the username
"eeeaaaeee" be anything other than an ass? (or even a troll?)
--
© Elias Halldor Agustsson
© mailto:e...@itn.is finger e...@itn.is for PGP
© URL: http://www.itn.is/~eha (or http://www.nyherji.is/~eha )
Elias Halldor Agustsson
Wessels
entire round of fencing off of newsgroups or even penalizing for
"intellectual trespass"
Commercial advertising is not banned from these groups so broader
definitions are used. A posting going to 20 header destinations is
"Spamming"
The fact that "900 #'s" can pull paying customers from about anywhere
gives and illusion of "inappropriate cross-posting" when in fact they are
following standard advertising practices.
Public access TV has been plaqued by commercial enterprises
"showcasing" for years. There is no mystery to the 900 #'s (meet girls in
your area). They are treating these newsgroups like it is a "shopper"
tabloid.-Ken
--
Our e-mail knows not day or night around our globe
Apuleius
alt.politics.homosexuality:
»»[spam deleted]
^^^
^^^
And I thought the Public Key weenie was bad, but now we have in
addition a copyright weenie. Things are getting nerdier and nerdier
around here.
PS:
I want to give a compliment to all those who patiently tolerate
cross-posts without upsetting their ulcers. I have not trimmed the
newsgroups list on this message, which is a very long list. That seems
to upset some people very greatly, but I'm happy to say only one or
two people are so upset. To that person who fills my mailbox every
time she or he sees a message of "junkmail," I say that you will be
more effective if you send your complaint to the person who originated
the newsgroups line in the message to which I responded. I'd also
suggest that instead of sending email, you'd be far more effective if
you simply post your message to the newsgroups with a simple followup
message. Then you get your gripe to everyone at once, and all people
of good will can have the benefit of your reminders to watch their
newsgroup lists. I've been getting an education here, because I see
newsgroups I never heard of and can't imagine, simply because SOMEBODY
ELSE has been adding them to the list.
Finally, we all get mailboxes full of "junk mail" brought to us by the
U.S. Postal Service. Do we let it upset our ulcers? Do we forward it
with irate complaints to alt.usmail.box-abuse? Do we write letters to
sales departments and charities asking to be removed from mailing
lists? Or do we simply toss it? I'd say the best way to handle plsts
you don't like is to lighten up and use your delete key. With 2 simple
key strokes, DEL and Yes, I handle all the mail I don't want to read
(and my stomach is in good shape).
Robert Stephens
Would like to reply with my story. Tell me how.
-Robert
Lee Anthoni
headed by a scum-sucker called Pat Robertson. It's goal is to see a
society like IRAN where the religious leaders are also the political
leaders and control all aspects of an individual's life.
They do support anyone who will advance the twisted concepts of their
self-made "christian religion" which has nothing in common with the man
for whom they pretent to worship as a GOD. They exist for the purpose of
scamming mainly older citizens or individuals of limited intelligence -
(regardless of education or degrees held) much the same as a good
telemarketer selling one of the many cons out there to the same type of
suckers who always seem to fall for these smooth talking charlatans.
Nothing: not overpopulation, a possible nuclear accident or terrorist
attack, global warming, food shortages, disease, rape, murder, the
revival of communism, or any type of natural disaster can even begin to
approach the danger to those of us who enjoy our constitutionally given
individual rights and freedoms as these sexually-repressed, religiously
oriented "witch doctors" whose purpose in life is to make everyone else
as miserable as they are.
Шахиджанян Владимир Владимирович
The worst place for a gay to live in is Russia. They can get fired,
be picked on at the univercity. To make a gay's life better
and easier, to make the society accept them, I am writing a book on gay
and lesbian sexuality,talk about these issues on radio and TV. I am a Moscow State Univercity professor.
I am lookin for advice on the best way to write this book, which will be
called "I+I". This stands for "looking for one of my kind".
I want to have answers for the following questions:
What is the best way to illustrate it: with comics or color photographs?
Do you think there are any people outside Russia who would be willing to translate and publish this book?
Will it be interesting for you to read about peculiarities of the Russian gay community?
When you read such a book, are you looking for answers on questions such as: how to find a lover, how to be faithful, how to support=
the relationship wiyh the one you love?
Are you comfortable with being gay? What do you need to feel comfortable?
Have you discussed gay issues with your friends/relative? Did they understand you?
Many people feel lonely and think that nobody needs them. HAve you thought about trying to understand other people better?
Do your way of living, your profession, your interests, etc. match your sexual orientation? Were they determined by it?
My address is Russia 107014, Moscow, P.O.B. 1001, Vladimir Shahidjanjan.
The phone is +7(095) 269-4180.
Elias Halldor Agustsson
# e...@itn.is (Elias Halldor Agustsson) wrote to and
# alt.politics.homosexuality:
That's a weird feature you have got on your newsreader software, Apu. It
posts the name of the group you post from? You did the same in an earlier
article on this thread, <4bfctu$c...@homer.alpha.net> (Re: Putzele Kevin
claiming Jews caused the Holocaust?????)
# »»In article <4bfctu$c...@homer.alpha.net>, eea...@mixcom.com (Apuleius) wrote:
#
# »»[spam deleted]
#
# »»--
# »»
# »»© Elias Halldor Agustsson
# »»© mailto:e...@itn.is finger e...@itn.is for PGP
# »»© URL: http://www.itn.is/~eha (or http://www.nyherji.is/~eha )
#
# ^^^
# ^^^
# And I thought the Public Key weenie was bad, but now we have in
# addition a copyright weenie. Things are getting nerdier and nerdier
# around here.
What's a weenie?
#
# PS:
#
# I want to give a compliment to all those who patiently tolerate
# cross-posts without upsetting their ulcers. I have not trimmed the
# newsgroups list on this message, which is a very long list. That seems
# to upset some people very greatly, but I'm happy to say only one or
# two people are so upset. To that person who fills my mailbox every
# time she or he sees a message of "junkmail," I say that you will be
# more effective if you send your complaint to the person who originated
# the newsgroups line in the message to which I responded.
You mean ni...@gate.net (Magenta!!)? That is the owner of the oldest
article in a chain of references that exists on my server, but the thread
might even be older. It has often changed names, but essentially been
posted to all those groups since December 13.
# I'd also
# suggest that instead of sending email, you'd be far more effective if
# you simply post your message to the newsgroups with a simple followup
# message. Then you get your gripe to everyone at once, and all people
# of good will can have the benefit of your reminders to watch their
# newsgroup lists. I've been getting an education here, because I see
# newsgroups I never heard of and can't imagine, simply because SOMEBODY
# ELSE has been adding them to the list.
#
# Finally, we all get mailboxes full of "junk mail" brought to us by the
# U.S. Postal Service. Do we let it upset our ulcers? Do we forward it
# with irate complaints to alt.usmail.box-abuse? Do we write letters to
# sales departments and charities asking to be removed from mailing
# lists? Or do we simply toss it? I'd say the best way to handle plsts
# you don't like is to lighten up and use your delete key. With 2 simple
# key strokes, DEL and Yes, I handle all the mail I don't want to read
# (and my stomach is in good shape).
But you troll and become offended if someone flames you. Not a sign of a
controlled temper, on the contrary, it seems quite bilious.
Elías
Rich Bland
>John <john...@computek.net> doth speak:
>>Jim Parks wrote:
>>> Otherwise, learn how make a kill file, kill those who
>>> offend you, and spend your time on more productive pursuits.
>>I've spoken with people about akill file but they said it was not
>>available through the Netscape newsreader or WinWV (which are the two
>>sharewares I have). Do the commercial versions have this? If not which
>>readers wupport a kill file (without having to know how to program in
>>Unix or something just as offbeat for a newbie). I HATE spam.
>
>popular MS Windows newsgroup reader. It does not support killfiles for
>individuals, but you can mark individual topic threads as "ignore".
>
>I do not know of any MS Windows software with true Killfile support.
>
News Express.
Archie search on nx*.exe or nx*.zip. True kill file support.
A must for any usenet reader...
Derek M
cares? Don't you think that you are holding on to a bit too much anger and
resentment? It seems that Pat has more control over your feelings than you
do. I used to go around and spout this same type of hate language. Still
do, but getting better at not doing it. Many of us percieve Pat as "The
Enemy". But how can we defeat an enemy by becoming that enemy or worse.
I am a recovering drug addict as well as a proud homosexual. The 12
step fellowship that I attend held a convention at the Founder's Inn. When
I first heard about it, I flipped and went on a rampage. Many people felt
as I did, not all of them were gay either. But the long term members of my
fellowship told me to trust and have a little faith. The members
responsible for getting the contract signed told the managent of the Inn
that we would be having people from all walks of life, including
non-christians, members of the tranlesbigay community. We would not turn
them away or ask them to be quiet or hide themselves in any way. The Inn
had no problem with this. Signed the contracts and the convention was
held.
I did go. And I went with a chip on my shoulder expecting trouble and
hoping for it. I wore a T-shirt that proclaimed for all that I was gay and
not in the least very angry with Pat and his followers. What I got was
kindness and acceptance from the people who worked there. The people that
I talked with told me the same things: 1. they did not believe in the 700
club as a church or that Pat was a man of God. 2. they all basically
scarped the place off them when they went home. It was only a job to them.
3. when they choose to go to church services they do not go where Pat is
they go to a "real" church. Oh this could go on and on, basicly the people
I talked with only work there, nothing more. And this is a place that does
ask illegal questions on job applications like are you christian? And does
by policy openly descriminate against non-christians and homosexuals in
employment. Even though they have homosexuals working there. Oh I have to
mention that most of the men that I talked with were off duty and lounging
around the pool and sauna, I had most of my conversations in the sauna,
naked as j-bird and was very open that I am gay. My point is that not
everyone who works or belongs to the Club is a fundi or homophobe. And
there are a lot of better ways to effect change than letting our anger and
hate guide our actions and speech.
Peace on the journey...
--
Derek M. dmo...@usa.pipeline.com
Greg R. Broderick
>I use Agent, which is the commercial version of FreeAgent, the most
>popular MS Windows newsgroup reader. It does not support killfiles for
>individuals, but you can mark individual topic threads as "ignore".
>
>I do not know of any MS Windows software with true Killfile support.
NewsXpress comes the closest -- it will allow you to kill both thread titles
and postings from certain email addresses, in just one group, a variety of
groups, or globally. Some rudimentary regular expression parsing is (I think)
built in, but I've not taken advantage of it yet. Beta three had problems
with the killfile support that caused GPFs. These problems were remedied with
beta four.
>Also Agent does not handle cross-posts all that well. It re-downloads
>the post for each group it appears in, and it does not mark a post
>read in one group if you already read it in another.
News Xpress also handles crossposting better -- marks the crossposted article
as read in all groups that it is crossposted to, when you read it in one
group. Your configured news server name has to match the news server name
given in the Xref: header line for this to work reliably, though.
NX is probably not for you if you like or need to do your news reading offline
-- this is very cumbersome, IMO.
Cheers
--
============================================================================
Greg R. Broderick And it came to pass that in the hands of the
ignorant, the words of the Bible were used to beat
plowshares into swords.
gr...@qrd.org -- Alan Watts
gany...@sccsi.com
7014...@compuserve.com
============================================================================