What if I told you that Röhm was queer? Would it be said 'hell ya, LGBTQXYZ Macht!'? Well, what if I told you after, that Goebbels was queer? Some confusion I sense? What if I further added Lysenko, Strasser, and Bukharin to the list of queerness? Certainly the hyper-sexual individualists are thoroughly confounded, even upset at this suggestion for a queer list. And why are they upset; these hyper-sexual individualists do not understand the concept of queerness, but have latched on to a Twentieth Century colloquialism, probably originating, as most degenerate slang does, from the Ameri-Cuckfederacy.
I am advocating for a return to queerness of the term queer, peeling off the revisionism of the hyper-sexualists, who feel that they need to revise and ruin every term misapplied in the past... hold on, I need to burn this fag. Much better... wait, I smoke a pipe! Anywise, fag and faggot are also terms which ought to be given this treatment too, but I must focus on one, and I think that queer is far more serious in putting political dissidents in danger, whereas the other two terms have replaceable synonyms, which 'queer' does not in this case.
So what is queer? Queerness means unusual, uneasy, something out of place or hard to reconcile. In ethical, and that means namely political terminology, it rests within the middle of a circle chart, comprised of the spheres of opportunism, hedonism, and evil. Opportunism in this instance means broadly 'that for one's aims', and is not necessarily a negative trait. Exempli gratia, many political activists are opportunists in this sense, as they have what they consider to be noble aims to fulfil. As one goes deeper into the opportunism sphere, however, the trait is more akin to dogmatism or arrogance. Hedonism refers to self-indulgence, including the intellectual variety. Thus, what Marxists tend to call opportunism may be found in the inter-circle region betwixt opportunism and hedonism. Evil is a highly subjective category, but is so pervasive for all of man, that to exclude it should be erroneous.
Goebbels and Strasser are the epitome of queer politicans, revolutionary Leftists who did not fall for Weimar's burgher hedonism (in some ways similar to burgher wokery to-day), but also over-corrected for it, falling into the error of the other insane extreme. But it was not merely that, as friendships, specially in that past Europa where friendship was a serious, heart-felt endeavour, the strongest form of alliance not lightly broken, informed the paths of both Goebbels and Strasser. Do not worry, Lysenko and Bukharin will be treated of after them.
Let us focus in on Goebbels, as I am a bit more familiar with his trajectory. Of course, Goebbels being a socialist, he gravitated towards the Strasser brothers' group. What was it then that caused Goebbels to become queer? It was the evil betrayal of Strasser, stabbing his devoted friend Goebbels in the back (one ought to ask Rupert Rosenheim what he thinks of this!), and Hitler, acting morally within this specific context, proved a true friend to the isolated, hurtfully unfriended Goebbels. If Adolf came up to me, a far more prestigious and charismatic man who need not, and demonstrated a sincere commitment to having my friendship, I must honestly say that, at this point of severe isolation political and individual, I am not sure whether I could turn him away. This is what makes Joseph Goebbels queer, instead of hedonistic or evil. Certainly, Goebbels is the opposite of opportunistic, sacrificing the ardour of some of his beliefs so that he could be a good friend to Adolf.
This is why, whilst I am not interested in any of the NS leadership including Adolf Hitler himself (and Himmler only in a 'how on Earth!'/perverse kind of way), I am rather bewildered by Joseph Goebbels. Goebbels is queer because I feel that I can not justly dæmonise him, nor can I dæmonise him without risk in doing so of myself (or an alternative reality of myself), and therefore being a contradictory hypocrite. I imagine that this is something of the reason why isolated females obsess over two lonely, bullied bad boys, who did a very bad thing at a US high-school (you know the event; I do not fancy getting TOAC bungled up by naming any more controversial matters). In a sense, those two boys are queer in the same manner that Goebbels is. But I must point out that, to my knowledge, Goebbels never personally murdered anyone himself, which is not a defence, but a queer justification.
But do not think that NS leaders are the only ones who cause problems for the hyper-sexual revisionists. As I did promise, I shall shew that comrades such as Lysenko and Bukharin were queer as well, if not quite in the same manner as a Goebbels.
Comrade Haldane points out that Comrade Lysenko merely wanted results in the improvement of the proletariat's and peasantry's standards of living. This is indeed correct. Comrade Lysenko became frustrated by what he considered burgher scientists purposefully placing their pet designs above those which could benefit society. Proletarian science is very real, for it is science which aims, if not succeeds in, as success is never guaranteed in science, to benefit the life and conditions of all society. Burgher science simply refers to the ideological attitudes of some scientists who think that their intellect, being superior to that of the unwashed masses, ought not to be spoiled on anything but that which will grant themselves prestige in the field. The Scientific literati, as Robert F Kennedy the Younger mentioned, have become something of a self-appointed priesthood, or a burgher aristocracy, whose accountability is held to nay one, and whose diktats are far more ,,beneficial'' than the society's own rules. Comrade Lysenko had an extra layer of trouble upon his shoulders, that of the volatile political environment around him, for which he had to calculate his doings carefully. Comrade Lysenko, and really the very state of the USSR in the 1934-1950, were queer.
Comrade Bukharin was queer for very much the latter reason: saying the wrong thing at the wrong time to the wrong men, could end in having a conversation with Comrade Tokarev down in the Lubyanka. Comrade Bukharin was queer out of dire necessity. Comrade Ryutin was not queer, but opportunist, as he purposefully acted against things which he saw as evils, needful of swift, firm correction. The irony is that Comrade Stalin shared the exact same view/position as Comrade Ryutin on the circle chart which we are detailing—strict, perhaps dogmatic opportunism acting against perceived evils! Comrade Bukharin's position was the inter-circle region betwixt opportunism and hedonism (it is well to remember that mild hedonism is not the traditional definition ascribed to 'hedonism'), desiring to achieve his aims, but not at the cost of his or his comrades lives (mild hedonism). Many will see Comrade Bukharin's mild hedonism, personally admirable as it may be, in the light of an evil for his lesser action, which should push Comrade Bukharin into the middle of the chart, with Goebbels. However, I hold to the former view of Comrade Bukharin's position, and that makes him nay less queer for it.
With this verily spelt out, the next time a hyper-sexual individualist attempts to revise the term 'queer', say this: Indeed we political dissidents are queer; what of it, you sexual degenerate? Have you ever faced a probable sentence of capital punishment for the circumstances of your political beliefs? May you never meet with Yezhov, for your need to scream out your sexual practises will be of evil pleasure to his vile parts'!
Comments