Scott Lively’s defense of Holocaust revision

Scott Lively has a new blog. His first post of substance is a defense of his revision of events surrounding the Nazi’s treatment of gays during WWII.

There isn’t much new there or of any real defense. He essentially says he’s right with no response to the claims raised against him. His defense boils down to this:

7. The Pink Swastika has not been “discredited” except by homosexualist reviewers, most of whom have failed to disclose their ideological conflict of interest. The few non-homosexual critics of the book have no expertise in the history of the “gay” movement and are thus not qualified to render judgment.

From his own perspective, Lively has no “ideological conflict of interest” which of course is contradicted by the body of his work. And, despite lacking the training he demands of others, he feels qualified to render his judgment.

Of course, his defense is self-serving. A gay person is just as capable of rendering the facts correctly as he is. Ideology matters but he is just as biased as any gay reviewer. And regarding his non-gay critics (e.g,, me), they are just as qualified to read and report what they read as he is.

Lively’s blanket dismissal of his critics obscures the fact that trained historians have dismissed Lively’s theories as inconsistent with the total picture. As I documented here in 2009, trained non-gay, even Christian, historians have considered The Pink Swastika and criticized Lively’s methods and his conclusions. Perhaps Lively will use his blog to actually respond to those critics, but I doubt it.

In light of the fact that he will not respond to the substantial and scholarly criticisms of The Pink Swastika, no one should take him up on his offer to debate. The ball is already in his court.

For more on The Pink Swastika, click the link.

For coverage of Scott Lively’s visit this weekend to an Oklahoma church, see this story.

Print Friendly

  • Jim Guinnessey

    Scott Lively. Ugh! Even the mention of his demented name is repugnant. Yet, this hateful evangelical preacher makes his lecture rounds amongst equally repugnant and bigoted so-called Christian evangelical circles. Lively should read Dante’s “Inferno” and check out the place in Hell reserved for hucksters like himself.

  • Bernie

    Am I gathering this correctly, he will only debate Homosexuals? If an authoritative WW2 historian were to debate him, that is not allowed?

    It seems that he is not cricket in the mind.

  • Richard Willmer

    I have posted this on his blag (sorry, I meant ‘blog’):-

    ” In 1935, the Nazi Government tightened the then anti-gay laws in Germany (these laws were ‘relaxed’ in both East and West Germany at different times after the War). This is a fact that does not sit easily with the ‘thesis’ in ‘The Pink Swastika’. Convictions for ‘homosexuality’ peaked in the period 1937-39 … years when the Nazis were in power. It is also credibly claimed by many that a considerable proportion of those so convicted were sent to concentration camps once they had completed their sentence, and some of these people died under the prevailing harsh conditions in such camps. This is rather difficult to reconcile with the notion that Nazism was somehow ‘pro-gay’, is it not?

    ” You, Scott Lively, and your accomplice are very much at odds with what many historians, gay or otherwise, have to say on the whole issue, the homosexuality of people like Ernst Roehm (who, one should recall, was ‘purged’ in 1934) notwithstanding. Many suspect your motives for advancing your ideas are very far from honourable. “

  • Richard Willmer

    BTW, I notice that Lively calls himself ‘Pro-Israel Christian’. While I certainly believe that BOTH Israelis AND Palestinians should have peace, security and justice, it might be worth pointing out to him that the Christian population of the Holy Land is predominantly Palestinian.

  • Richard Willmer

    Two further points:-

    1. There are many credible reports of people in Nazi Germany being detained WITHOUT TRIAL for being gay. The number of such people should be added to those convicted by the Nazi ‘courts’.

    2. Lively suggests that Hitler himself was gay. On what evidence?

    Commenters on this blog have suggested that Lively himself might be a ‘closet case’. While I would not go so far as explicitly to suggest that, it might be suggested that the violent streak so publically displayed by Lively in 1991 (AFTER his alleged conversion to alleged Christianity), and that was the cause of punitive damages awarded against him by a court, is in some ways consistent with his own (historically self-serving?) concept of the ‘butch gay’.

  • Richard Willmer

    Scottie actually published my comment (which surprised me a little), expressed ‘hurt surprise’ (demanding an apology for citing facts) and offering me a free copy (on line) of his book (how generous of him!).

    Obviously there is no need for me to read the book, since my comment was in response to his [factually-challenged] ‘thesis’: “The National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazi Party) has its roots in the German homosexual movement and was controlled throughout its history [a history that included a tightening of anti-gay laws, increased numbers of convictions for 'homosexuality', and the credibly-alleged detention without trial and/or murder of gay people] by an inner-circle of men, including Adolf Hitler [who was obsessed with his (presumably female) niece, and who had a(n alleged) mistress whom he eventually married], who shared a common homosexual orientation.”

    [You will notice that I have augmented the text of his 'thesis' above with a few, I hope well-chosen, comments.]

  • Patrocles

    The term “Holocaust revisionism” doesn’t get better by repetition.

    First, it’s an obvious trial to smear Lively by associating him with Holocaust deniers – a cheap strategy.

    Secondly, it’s anyway not a subsequent “revision”. As I said before, he’s got his ideas from the contemporary polemical literature of the 1930s and 1940s which got a certain dignity by being incorporated in the “Frankfort school” publications.

  • http://musings.northerngrove.com/ Jarred

    Clever!

    1. If the person criticizing Lively is gay, then that person is clearly too biased and can be dismissed for that bias.

    2. If the person criticizing Lively is not gay, then that person is clearly not familiar enough with the gay movement and therefore can be dismissed as unknowledgeable.

    Under this convenient paradigm, everyone who disagrees with Lively can be dismissed.

  • Richard Willmer

    Well put, Jarred. Very pithy. :-)

  • http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com Timothy Kincaid

    Let’s see. To be considered credible,

    1. One must not be “homosexualist” (a “homosexualist” is a person, gay or straight, who is not ideologically opposed to the legality of homosexuality).

    2. One must have expertise in the history of the “gay” movement.

    It would seem that the only persons whom Lively considers credible are anti-gay activists. And should, by some miracle, an anti-gay activist suggest that such declarations are not consistent with recorded history, they become – by definition – homosexualists.

    Ah, the contortions a delusional mind goes through to protect itself from reality.

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton Warren

    Patrocles – So using obviously tendentious sources to create a tendentious product is not revisionism? Holocaust tendentiousism is a lot harder to say and is probably not a word.

  • Richard Willmer

    ‘Holocaust revisionism’ can surely be as much about making up silly stories about who/what caused the Holocaust as it is about saying the Holocaust didn’t happen. So, I think that suggesting that Lively is a ‘revisionista’ is very much a tenable proposition.

    Is there really anything in the “Frankfurt Schools” publication that suggests that ‘homosexuality’ caused Nazism and the Holocaust?

  • http://blakealverson.blogspot.com/ Blake

    Eh. I’m not afraid of free discourse. You should debate him Warren. Even if the ball is in his court we can shut him up if we shut him up. The trick is going to be not letting him set the terms of the debate (which probably explains why nobody’s ever taken him up on it).

  • Richard Willmer

    Well, I’ve been ‘chucked off’ Lively’s blog merely (in my view) for questioning his assumptions and motives, and how he has used sources in his (little red-and-black?!) book. A number of comments I put up have been deleted.

    So much for Lively’s claim that he is prepared to debate with whomever!

    He and I are now having a private dialogue, although this too looks like ‘running into the ground’. Why? Because he seems ‘reluctant’ to provide a rather important source material which I cannot get hold of, and which he claims supports a central aspect of his ‘thesis’.

    (As has been discussed in the past, his apparently highly selective use of Gunther Grau’s work stirkes as … well, more than a little ‘rash’.)

  • Richard Willmer

    Still waiting for Lively’s response to my offer of further discussion on his (mis?)use of sources. He’s been beavering away (blogging) at his computer today, so he must know of my ‘offer’.

    Let’s see what the next 24 hours brings …

  • Richard Willmer

    Still nothing.

  • Richard Willmer

    Still nothing: clearly Lively won’t send me one of the source materials by which he sets such store; nor does he wish to discuss Gunther Grau’s work.

    Can’t say I’m surprised, if I’m honest.

  • Lynn David

    Lively shot off a letter to Putin and sent him an autographed copy of the Pink Swastika. He’s happy the book is being translated into Russian. As if the Russians need a further reason to fuel their homophobia.

    http://www.scottlively.net/2013/08/30/an-open-letter-to-president-vladimir-putin/