Part 1

The recent Jewish sanctification of Alan Turing as noble gay victim and Nazi nemesis is the photographic negative of pre-and post-World War II Jewish efforts to smear Hitler and his National Socialist comrades as “sexual perverts.” For decades the supposedly sordid sex lives of Hitler and the Nazi leadership filled tomes. Allegations of homosexuality were often repeated in Social Democratic and Communist newspapers (often Jewish-owned and -controlled) in the years leading up to Hitler becoming German chancellor in 1933.

Jewish attempts to brand Hitler and other National Socialist leaders as sexual perverts have since been largely abandoned with the ascendant cultural Marxist assault on White heterosexual normativity since the 1970s. Two Harvard-educated (non-Jewish) homosexuals, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, authored what can only be described as an incredibly successful blueprint for marketing the radical homosexual agenda in the United States. In their 1990 book entitled After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90’s, they advocated the demonization of those opposed to homosexuality, painting them as evil as possible until the general public comes to view such people as moral pariahs and avoids them. The authors suggested that Christians and others opposed to homosexuality should be labelled Klansmen, Nazis, racists or unbalanced freaks. Obviously, this approach draws on the long history of the media demonizing and pathologizing Whites who identify as Whites and see pursuing White interests as legitimate, a tradition that has its intellectual roots in the unholy nexus of the Frankfurt School and psychoanalysis.

Although TOO has emphasized that homosexuality should not be condemned by White advocates and that White homosexuals should also realize they have interests as Whites (see, e.g., here), the movement to promote a public culture of homosexuality is injurious for a variety of reasons, and certainly does not further the biological/ethnic interests of White homosexuals. It is deplorable that sexual non-conformists have become a central component of the “culture of the aggrieved” that permeates all Western societies and is a pillar of the political left.

Typical of the left, it has used its power to go beyond vilification to direct infringement on the freedoms of speech and religion of those who disapprove of homosexuality. With “gay marriage” legalized in Canada, Catholic Schools are having a difficult time teaching Catholic precepts on marriage and sexuality and an Ontario statute compels Catholic schools to host “Gay-Straight Alliance” clubs. In the U.S., many individuals and groups are being punished for what amount to thought crimes, such as the couple from Oregon (the same state that allows 15-year old children to have a state-funded sex change operation without parental consent) who were ordered to pay $135,000 for “emotional suffering” to two lesbians when they refused to provide a wedding cake for a gay wedding.

Even non-religious dissenters to the homosexual agenda are being punished for expressing a conscientious objection to having a certain interpretation of sexuality forced on them. The Boston urologist Paul Church, who, after a distinguished career on the faculty of Harvard medical school, was recently expelled from his job at the Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital in Boston for voicing his opinion that the hospital pressuring its staff to participate in Gay Pride Week activities was contrary to its mission to promote healthy behaviors and lifestyles. Using the well-established Kirk/Madsen strategy, email and blogs immediately and aggressively denounced his views, despite their being based on his medical experience, as “ignorant,” “hateful,” “offensive,” and “bigoted.”

To its credit, The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons defended Church, noting that “The penalty for making a truthful but politically incorrect statement that ‘may offend’ someone could be the ruin of one’s medical career.” The U.S. Supreme Court Justice Alito, in his dissenting judgement to the recent “gay marriage” decision, warned that those who supported natural marriage will soon only be able to “whisper their thoughts within the recesses of their homes.”

The radical homosexual agenda could not have made such incredibly rapid strides without Jewish backing. Without this support, the agenda of a small minority, whose behaviour has traditionally been frowned upon, would have gained little traction in the public sphere. Professor of Political Science at Florida University, Kenneth Wald, notes that: “The political power of the gay community does not come close to matching the impressive resource base assembled by American Jews.” An integral part of the “impressive resource base” of American Jewry is, of course, their domination of the media and entertainment industries. Hollywood has been integral to changing Western attitudes towards homosexuality, as Vice President Joe Biden acknowledged when he noted in 2013 that

it wasn’t anything we legislatively did. It was ‘Will and Grace,’ it was the social media. Literally. That’s what changed peoples’ attitudes. That’s why I was so certain that the vast majority of people would embrace and rapidly embrace [gay marriage]. Think behind of all that, I bet you 85 percent of those changes, whether it’s in Hollywood or social media are a consequence of Jewish leaders in the industry. The influence is immense, the influence is immense.

Commenting on Biden’s point, liberal Jewish columnist Jonathan Chait, in his article “The vast left-wing conspiracy is on your screen” notes that:

the world of popular culture increasingly reflects a shared reality in which the Republican Party is either absent or anathema. … When Joe Biden endorsed gay marriage in May, he cited [the television show] Will & Grace as the single-most important driving force in transforming public opinion on the subject. In so doing he actually confirmed the long-standing fear of conservatives—that a coterie of Hollywood elites had undertaken an invidious and utterly successful propaganda campaign, and had transmuted the cultural majority into a minority. Set aside the substance of the matter and consider the process of it—that is, think of it from the conservative point of view, if you don’t happen to be one. Imagine that large chunks of your entertainment mocked your values and even transformed once-uncontroversial beliefs of yours into a kind of bigotry that might be greeted with revulsion. You’d probably be angry, too.

Chait summarizes recent natural experiments showing the power of the media in shaping social attitudes in Brazil (smaller families) and India (smaller families, more assertiveness by women). He also mentions research in the U.S. showing that Will & Grace resulted in more positive attitudes toward homosexuality, especially among people who had little contact with homosexuals.

And [Will & Grace] was merely a component of a concerted effort by Hollywood—dating back to Soap in the late seventies, which featured Billy Crystal’s groundbreaking portrayal of a sympathetic gay character, through Modern Family—to prod audiences to accept homosexuality. Likewise, the political persona of Barack Obama attained such rapid acceptance and popularity in part because he represented the real-world version of an archetype that, after a long early period of servile black stereotypes, has appeared in film and television for years: a sober, intelligent African-American as president, or in some other position of power.

Jewish influence on these cultural shifts is increasingly acknowledged by Jews. In his book Jewcentricity (reviewed here), the Jewish author and founding editor of The American Interest, Adam Garfinkle, admits that “it is striking, one has to admit, that the cultural influence of Jews and Jewishness is what it is, considering that fewer than 5 million American Jews are influencing more than 296 million other Americans.” He notes that critics of what American popular culture has become, including of “the increasingly salacious content of mass media or the apparent elevation of anti-patriotic sentiment and homosexual lifestyles above more traditional values” inevitably find that “there are Jews at every turn, in marketing, in media, and, of course, in the entertainment business itself.” He correctly observes that it “does not take a rocket scientist to connect the dots: liberals are responsible for the dangerous debauching of our society, not least through vapid entertainment-culture garbage, and a disproportionate number of liberals who are doing precisely that are Jews.”

With the legality of “gay marriage” seemingly secured, the next frontier in the campaign to liberate Western societies of their sexual inhibitions is “about deconstructing societal views about what it means to be a man or a woman.” Among the 58 “gender identities” that are listed on the majority Jewish-owned and controlled Facebook are bi-gender, gender questioning, gender variant, pangender, intersex and 26 versions of trans, transgender and transsexual. Plain old male and female do not make the list. Sarah Middleton, an academic from the University of Melbourne, correctly points out that: “We’ve seen, over the past forty or fifty years, an absolute transformation in how we think about gender and sexuality.” Toby Miller, Professor of Cultural Policy studies are Murdoch University, echoing Joe Biden, notes that Hollywood, the media and social media are driving the trend, and that: “Reality TV has been intrinsic to normalizing some of these ideas.”

Now that homosexuality is invariably portrayed by Hollywood as a behaviour that is to an individual’s credit rather than discredit, speculation about Hitler’s sexuality is becoming increasingly unacceptable. One source epitomizes current thinking when it argues that: “When I read these notes about Hitler, I kept thinking over and over again, ‘Why does any of this matter?’ Honestly, does Hitler being gay really even matter at this point? If we found out that he really enjoyed eating raspberries would that matter as well?” For this individual, the only reason why the sexual orientation of anyone would be brought in to question is “because being gay, lesbian, transsexual, transgendered, queer, or any other form of sexual ‘deviance,’ is controversial and often stigmatized in today’s world.” The new politically correct line is that:

anyone can commit horrible acts. Were Hitler’s SchutzStaffel and Nazi soldiers all gay too? Were the 1500s–1800s white male slave owners, who raped and assaulted their black female slaves, gay? Were the fighters for The Crusades, who slaughtered countless people, gay? People of all backgrounds, genders, ages, and sexual orientation commit crimes against humanity. Therefore, we shouldn’t assume that Hitler’s sexuality played any role in his actions.

Note the anti-White nature of all of the historical examples cited above by a non-White (Chinese) writer. So while anyone, regardless of their sexuality may engage in heinous behavior, White males, it is implied, are particularly prone to committing evil acts — especially against the “oppressed” non-White peoples of the earth.

The trend in recent years is to ascribe the aggressively anti-Jewish nature of German National Socialism to Hitler’s neurotic denial of sexuality. As early as 1943 half-Jewish Walter C. Langer‘s 1943 psychoanalytical report for the American Office of Strategic Services (OSS) described Hitler as having “repressed homosexual tendencies.” This line of thought can, of course, be traced back to Freud and his acolytes like Wilhelm Reich. The following account from the writer Wylark Day is typical of the Freudian interpretation of National Socialism, in claiming that:

Hitler put young Germans in “sex-segregated, no nudity Youth Labor Camps; where their young sexuality was now savagely repressed. Coming from such sensual freedom [of the Weimar Republic years] to such savage repression of all sensuality, these young people quickly became warped. As Freud disciple Wilhelm Reich, who witnessed this before he fled Germany, said about it: ‘sadism originates from ungratified orgiastic yearnings.’ Now sexual repression has been a powerful force for redirecting people into the violence needed to conquer and build empires throughput Western history (in fact it does a lot to explain how little England conquered much of the world during the ultra-repressed Victorian Age). Yet never before in history had so much repressed and redirected sexual energy been seen, as was present in Hitler’s young army. … So, with a truly diabolical genius, Hitler successfully repressed and channeled the normal sexual feelings of Germany’s young adults, into a blinding zeal for the ‘fatherland!’”

Non-Western traditional societies revelled in sexual freedom and promiscuity? Regarding Hitler, the prolific Jewish writer on “anti-Semitism” Robert Wistrich similarly proposed that “A particularly striking feature of Hitler’s Judeophobia was his intensely puritanical reaction against the prevailing [Weimar era] hedonism in sexual mores.” Psychotherapist and writer Raymond J. Lawrence has likewise proposed that: “It should strike us as no historical coincidence that Hitler personally promoted a public image of sexual abstinence. He countenanced no display of sexuality in his presence. Keeping his mistress, Eva Braun, in virtual hiding, he maintained an asexual public image, he and Eva didn’t marry until just prior to their mutual suicide.” Lawrence also asserts that “Hitler’s presumed sexual purity played well with anti-Semites. … But Hitler was not the creator of such anti-Semitism; it had a long history in Christendom. The Jews have paid dearly in Christendom for their affirmation of sexual pleasure.”

This kind of Jewish ethno-politically motivated and pseudo-scientific theorizing underlies The Imitation Game which is yet another manifestation of the Jewish culture of critique. In addition to providing yet another reminder of the “evils of Nazism,” the film is a repudiation of traditional Western sexual mores and an implicit endorsement of “sexual liberation.”

There is, of course, another way of looking at Alan Turing’s contribution to history. Subtract the film’s fixation on Turing’s homosexuality, and we are left with yet another White man whose creative genius helped change the course of history and which, in his case, laid the foundations for the computer revolution. Turing’s extraordinary intellectual gifts were, after all, the result of his European biological origins and not his sexual orientation.