Robert Spencer, Candace Owens and the Historical Lies of Paid Israeli Shills
Back in February 2024 Robert Spencer – an Israeli shill par extraordinaire – wrote an opinion piece for ‘PJ Media’ attacking Candace Owens’ defence of the Third Reich’s destruction of Magnus Hirschfeld’s ‘Institute for Sexual Research’ in May 1933 (1) and I thought it worth responding to show how individuals like Robert try to twist anything to try and defend obvious nonsense positions because to them National Socialism and the Third Reich are the devil incarnate and cannot be positively mentioned ever.
Why?
Because of the so-called ‘Holocaust’.
He writes that:
‘“The entire field of psychology was built by pedophiles and perverts,” Candace Owens asserted on Saturday. While she certainly had a point, the increasingly controversial conservative firebrand went even further, observing that the National Socialist (that’s what Nazi means, kids) thugs who burned books were burning books by those pedophiles and perverts. It’s not hard to see where this is going: if the National Socialists were right to burn those books, in Owens’ view, maybe they weren’t all that bad.’ (2)
I mean shock horror Robert… the National Socialists did things that were good and far better than other government of the day and even today by a long shot by and took out and burned books – and it wasn’t just books Robert as you’d know if you both you actually read Richard Evans’ ‘The Coming of the Third Reich’ rather than just act like you have – that even you won’t defend.
You see the thing here is that Robert can’t attack Owens’ support for the SA and SS making a bonfire of Hirschfeld’s books, his vast collection of homosexual pornography and the dildo collection that he was displaying in his ‘Museum of Sex’ in Berlin’s Opernplatz (3) so he tries to make it all about how it ‘the Nazis’ so you cannot ‘support’ or ‘defend’ it.
This is made increasingly clear when Spencer continues that:
‘The Jerusalem Post reported Sunday that in her show on psychology, Owens targeted not only Sigmund Freud “and the controversial 20th-century researcher, John Money, but also Magnus Hirschfeld, the Weimar-era German-Jewish sexologist whose work was burned by Nazi brownshirts.” Owens “asserted that all three men were gay (exclusively using the term ‘homosexual’ throughout her monologue) and that they had a suspicious interest in the sexuality of children.” What’s more, she “suggested that Hirschfeld showed a perverse interest in the sex lives of colonized Africans.” Hirschfeld, Owens asserted, “was the guy who actually first coined the term “transsexual.”’ (4)
Owens is quite correct since Hirschfeld was a jewish homosexual, (5) while John Money was at least bisexual (6) and Sigmund Freud also quite possibly was as well. (7) She is also correct in asserting that Hirschfeld was the person who coined the term ‘transsexual’ in 1923 to be exact with it only making the jump into the English language in 1949/1950.
Further Owens is correct that Hirschfeld did show a ‘perverse interest in the sex lives of colonized Africans’. (8)
We should note Spencer – or the ‘Jerusalem Post’ for that matter – don’t engage the issue of whether Owens statements are factually correct – as they clearly are – because that would disrupt their attempts to style Owens as some kind of horseshoe-sucking fruit loop hence the use of weasel words like ‘suggested’ to… well… suggest that what Owens stated was somehow incorrect or silly when in fact it is quite factual.
The true rhetorical swipe by Spencer comes next however when we read that:
‘The National Socialists, however, fought back against Hirschfeld’s baneful influence in their own sweet way. “I was shocked,” Owens declared, “that I never learned that the brownshirts— the student activists that went around burning a bunch of books — were burning books that they deemed to be Marxist and that they deemed to be overtly sexual,” including Hirschfeld’s books and related works at his Institute for Sexual Studies.’
Hang on a minute, Candace. The brownshirts were “student activists”? That’s an awfully gentle term for the uniformed thugs the National Socialists called Storm Troopers, who brawled in the streets with foes of Hitler and physically menaced those who dared to enunciate their dissent too loudly. Although they fought with the Marxists, they were more like today’s Antifa than anything else. In "The Coming of the Third Reich," historian Richard J. Evans explains how, in the early days of National Socialist Germany, Stormtroopers (Brownshirts) “organized campaigns against unwanted professors in the local newspapers [and] staged mass disruptions of their lectures.”
‘To express dissent from National Socialist positions became a matter of taking one’s life into one’s hands. The idea of people of opposing viewpoints airing their disagreements in a civil and mutually respectful manner was gone. One was a National Socialist, or one remained silent and fearful. “Activists.” Yeah.’’ (9)
The first paragraph quoting Owens is quite correct as the National Socialists did just that and it was for that reason Hirschfeld’s ‘Institute for Sexual Research’ was targeted but also because it was a centre of pro-abortion propaganda (10) which had been outlawed by the Third Reich on 15th February 1933 (11) as well as (homosexual) pornography which had similarly been outlawed on 23rd February 1933. (12)
The second and third paragraph are almost entirely counter-factual nonsense with Spencer claiming the people who raided Hirschfeld’s ‘Institute for Sexual Research’ weren’t ‘student activists’ at all but rather ‘uniformed thugs’ ‘called Storm Troopers’ (he means the SA here) yet Spencer’s own source – Richard Evans’ ‘The Coming of the Third Reich’ - explicitly endorses Owens’ description not Spencer’s.
To quote Evans:
‘On the morning of 6 May 1933, a group of vans pulled up outside Dr Magnus Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Science in the smart Tiergarten district of Berlin. Out of them leapt students from the Berlin School for Physical Education, members of the National Socialist German Students’ League. They drew up in military formation, then, while some of them took out their trumpets and tubas and started to play patriotic music, the other marched into the building. Their intentions were clearly unfriendly. Hirschfeld’s Institute was well known in Berlin, not only for its championing of causes such as the legalization of homosexuality and abortion, and for its popular evening classes in sexual education, but also for its comprehensive collection of books and manuscripts on sexual topics, built up by the director since before the turn of the century. By 1933 it housed between 12,000 and 20,000 books – estimates vary – and an even larger collection of photographs on sexual subjects. The Nazi students who stormed into the Institute on 6 May 1933 proceeded to pour red ink over books and manuscripts, played football with framed photographs, leaving the floor covered in shards of broken glass, and ransacked the cupboards and drawers throwing their contents onto the floor. Four days later, more vans arrived, this time with stormtroopers carrying baskets, into which they piled as many books and manuscripts as they could and took them out onto the Opera Square. Here they stacked them up in a gigantic heap and set light to them. About 10,000 books are said to have been consumed in the conflagration. As the fire burned on into the evening, the students carried a bust of the Institute’s director into the Square and threw into the flames.’ (13)
Then Spencer manages to also lie about the historical context of the Kampfzeit (i.e., the ‘Struggle for Power’) by claiming that while the Nazis ‘fought Marxists’ ‘they were actually like Antifa’ and that ‘everyone was afraid of them’. The truth is actually that ‘the Nazis’ were the ones being systematically victimized and the ‘political terror’ that is often alleged about them in the early days of the Third Reich in 1933 is simply dishonest as Nigel Winters has recently pointed out at length:
‘To give us a glimpse into who was more likely to be responsible for violent clashes just before the ascent of the National Socialists to power, we can see from statistics gathered by the Prussian ministry of the interior that “acts of terror” were largely the result of Communist and other assorted left-wing agitation, whereas the National Socialists were still present but by no means as rowdy as is commonly maintained. From this ministry report we read that cases of terror documented in Prussia a few months prior to the November 1932 election, excluding Berlin, showed that from 1 June to July 20, 1932, in 322 recorded cases of street terror, there were 72 deaths and 497 seriously injured. Those responsible were Communists in 203 cases, National Socialists in 75 cases, and members of the Reichsbanner (a para-military formation dominated of Germany’s Social Democrats) in 21 cases. Those responsible for the remaining 23 cases are unknown. Violence clearly wasn’t a one sided affair.
It’s also a fact that the Prussian police regularly seized more weapons from the Communists, and much more frequently than they did from the National Socialists. The Reich ministry of the interior had built up twelve volumes of files containing information purely on weapons and explosives seized from the KPD. The intentions of what the Communists planned to do with all these weapons and explosives isn’t hard to guess. The Communists obviously had just as much a penchant and capability for violence, and probably more so considering the demands for violence that their Marxist ideology made of them. One has to wonder, are these truly men worthy of the political martyrdom and moral uprightness they’re today bequeathed by the academic establishment who constantly rattles on about how the National Socialists had terrorized the ‘poor Communists’? I don’t think so. It is hard not to appreciate the irony of Marxists complaining about the excesses of revolution.’ (14)
And further that Hitler’s:
‘Popular reputation had exploded – he is “not only admired; he is deified,” read one report. And of course, even this incident was specifically targeted at elements within Germany who were a danger to the stability of the country, and not the German people as a whole, 95 percent of whom “lived relatively securely and fairly undisturbed under the Nazi regime.” This great majority was “never even remotely endangered by state repression.” These facts are not what one expects to hear when discussing the Third Reich, yet they must be heard and accepted, for one cannot explain the flexibility and endurance of the regime without them.
Even when the National Socialists assumed power in January 1933, the brief period of lawlessness which ensued did not entail an excessive amount of violence. In that year alone, mainstream historians estimate that anywhere from 500-1000 political opponents (mainly Communists and Socialists) of the NS-Regime lost their lives. Yet, when one considers the lives lost on the side of the National Socialists in clashes with the Communists and other left-wing militants in previous years, one can really only marvel at how comparatively restrained the National Socialists were. Dr. Kerry Bolton was surely right when he wrote:
“The fighting between the Nazis and the Reds was a bloody affair. Even the police casualties (1928-1932) from Communist violence resulted in 11 dead and 1,121 injured. Over the same period the Nazi casualties from Red violence were 128 Nazis killed and 19,769 injured. That SA vengeance resulting in perhaps 1,000 dead Communists seems remarkably restrained given the years of conflict.”’ (15)
In other words, it was ‘the Nazis’ who were getting routinely killed and injured by communists (aka Antifa) as well as social democrats (i.e., leftists) not the poor innocent communists and the social democrats getting killed and beaten up by ‘the Nazis’!
Then we see the truth of Spencer’s dishonest position and intellectual desperation when he writes:
‘Owens concluded: “In my view, he’s a pervert. It doesn’t mean that his library or his institute should have been burned down— there’s no excuse for burning down an institute— but we don’t then also pretend that somebody that is perverse is also a hero.” That’s right. Magnus Hirschfeld was anything but a hero. We do not, however, have to choose between the Storm Troopers and the transsexuals.
The deeply problematic aspect of Candace Owens’ approval of the brownshirts’ burning books is not that she is registering approval of book burning. In Sweden and elsewhere in Europe recently, some courageous human rights activists have been burning the Qur’an in order to protest against the violence done in its name and in accord with its teaching and to stand for the freedom of expression in its waning days. No, the problem is that in applauding the brownshirts’ actions, Owens is opening the door to further approval of other actions of the brownshirts, and of the National Socialists in general.’ (16)
Put another way Spencer claims it is false dichotomy in that we ‘do not have to choose between the Storm Troopers and the transsexuals’ but the truth is that in fact you did, and you do.
The reason for this is because so-called ‘conservatives’ like Spencer had spent the Imperial German era as well as the Weimar Republic turning a blind eye to homosexuality and pro-homosexual activism (as well as the jewish role in it) (17) which had led to widespread sexual degeneracy that was on open display in the Weimar years to the open disgust of even the liberal anti-Nazi journalists of the era (18) – much like today I might add - and support for the status quo and the pro-jewish conservatives like Spencer was actually support for ‘the transsexuals’ despite their claims to the contrary because they did nothing about it, while support for ‘the Storm Troopers’ was the only way that you could (and can) oppose ‘the transsexuals’ as well as the homosexual agenda.
Spencer however is clearly trapped in a catch 22 situation since he is supposed to support ‘free speech’ but yet to support ‘free speech’ means to support ‘the transsexuals’ but yet to support ‘the transsexuals’ would offend his primarily ‘conservative’ audience so Spencer tries to hedge his bets and claim there is a ‘third option’ but never states what that ‘third option’ is!
That’s because there is no other option: it is National Socialism or Globalhomo.
It is that simple.
References
(1) https://pjmedia.com/robert-spencer/2024/02/26/candace-owens-yes-the-nazis-burned-books-but-they-were-bad-books-n4926784
(2) Ibid.
(3) Robert Beachy, 2014, ‘Gay Berlin: Birthplace of a Modern Identity’, 1st Edition, Knopf Doubleday: New York, pp. xii; xiv; 162-164
(4) https://pjmedia.com/robert-spencer/2024/02/26/candace-owens-yes-the-nazis-burned-books-but-they-were-bad-books-n4926784
(5) Ralf Dose, 2014, ‘Magnus Hirschfeld and the Origins of the Gay Liberation Movement’, 1st Edition, Monthly Review Press: New York, p. 7
(6) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-006-9132-5
(7) This is implicit in Freud’s own theory of homosexuality: https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/psychoanalysis-unplugged/202005/was-freud-gay-friendly and https://aninjusticemag.com/freud-believed-that-everyone-is-bisexual-5f7d7eadac27
(8) Cf. Paul Schrader, 2019, ‘Fears and fantasies: German sexual science and its research on African sexualities, 1890–1930’, Sexualities, Vol. 23, Nos. 1-2, pp.127-145
(9) https://pjmedia.com/robert-spencer/2024/02/26/candace-owens-yes-the-nazis-burned-books-but-they-were-bad-books-n4926784
(10) Beachy, Op. Cit., p. 182; Richard Evans, 2004, ‘The Coming of the Third Reich’, 1st Edition, Penguin: London, p. 375
(11) Cf. Henry David, Jochen Fleischhacker, Charlotte Hohn, 1981, ‘Abortion and Eugenics in Nazi Germany’, Population and Development Review, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 81-112
(12) Richard Plant, 1986, ‘The Pink Triangle: The Nazi War against Homosexuals’, 1st Edition, Henry Holt: New York, p. 50
(13) Evans, Op. Cit., p. 375
(14) https://codoh.com/library/document/the-myth-of-nazi-terror/
(15) Ibid.
(16) https://pjmedia.com/robert-spencer/2024/02/26/candace-owens-yes-the-nazis-burned-books-but-they-were-bad-books-n4926784
(17) Plant, Op. Cit., p. 40
(18) For example: Edgar Ansel Mowrer, 1937, ‘Germany Puts The Clock Back’, 2nd Edition, Penguin: London, p. 149