Transsexuality in the Third Reich

Due to recent events, it has become necessary to research the history of the transsexual condition.1 The central question is this:  was transsexuality tolerated in the Third Reich? A resounding “no” is usually touted as truth, but this was not the case. Before arriving at an unexpected answer, it will be of utmost importance to outline what the National Socialist government did not tolerate under any circumstance.

Transvestism and homosexuality were absolutely banned in Germany during the period of 1933-45. Punishments for these aberrations ranged from prison sentences to chemical castrations. What was taboo in these two conditions was their tendency to destroy what is masculine and what is feminine, to blur the lines between the sexes—in a word, to decline the German birthrate, which had been abysmal during the Weimar period.

There was hardly any distinction between these two aberrations from healthy human sexuality; even if a man were to dress like a woman in private, he would be investigated for homosexual tendencies, although exceptions could be made and certificates for legal transvestism issued or extended.2 National Socialism conceived of transvestism as a sort of trickery that would fester homosexual tendencies in otherwise healthy people, and, as such, it was banned from public view and (in most cases) the private domain.

On top of the destruction of the gender polarity, National Socialists saw a correlation between homosexuality and criminality. Often, transvestites would be involved in prostitution or other deviant activities, much like “traps” today. What a detriment to society this would have been, and what a detriment it remains! All in all, it is no surprise that these perversions were outlawed and prosecuted during the period of German rebirth, and it is no surprise that legal castrations were sought by homosexuals to be free of their degenerate sex drives.

Despite this legal and moral context, we find a toleration for and even sanctioning of transsexuality proper during the Third Reich. Transsexuality proper, meaning a total attempt at change of sex, was actually recognized as a boon to both personal health—when, and if, the patient in question was suffering in his natural sex and severely manifested the need to change. Of course, there will be found hardly any material related to transsexuality proper due to its total infrequency (which is to be expected in a healthy society)—but enough material exists for the subject to matter.

In the paper Transvestitismus in die NS-Zeit and a recent dissertation by Volker Weiß on the development of transsexuality throughout history, we discover a case in which transsexuality proper (along with surgical intervention) was tolerated during the National Socialist period. Even more shocking than this, however, is that fostering a child was not beyond the realm of possibility for the transsexual woman.

This particular transsexual had for eight years sought to become a woman and was castrated in 1931. Placed in a mental institution due to charges of schizophrenia, which he would claim to be false, he became extremely distressed about his life situation. Threatening suicide if surgery was not carried out to complete his transition, in a diary he wrote of being terrified of remaining a man forever and of receiving no further medical intervention. This situation changed, however, in 1934, when he was granted both a legal name change (taking on the name Toni) and permission to wear women’s clothing.

After reporting that she had become happy and balanced, there was consideration for further surgical intervention. Toni requested that a functional vagina be crafted; between 1939 and 1940, she began a series of surgeries which would result in a “Vagina artificialis.” While Toni had been given the approval for legal change of sex marker even earlier than this (October 1934), it was not fully processed and applied until 1948, three years after the fall of the Reich.

Because Toni’s condition was not brought about by fetishistic transvestism or homosexuality, she was allowed after these surgeries to utilize her femaleness according to the National Socialist ideology of the sexes. The test of her femininity would ultimately culminate in foster care. After training at the Mutterschule (mother’s school) in the winter of 1940-1, she would begin looking after a four-week old daughter.

There is one other concrete case to analyze, though it did not end in explicit sex-reconstruction surgery:  Henriette (Hinrich) B. She is distinguished from cases of transsexuality that were started or “completed” during the Weimar period.

On July 21 of 1941, police investigator Hans-Heinrich Huelke had to process Hinrich B on suspicion of homosexuality. In the hearing, Hinrich was determined to have been born in 1908, to have never desired sex with women, to have dressed exclusively in women’s clothing while working as a bar maid starting in 1925, and to have had sexual contact with a man in the same year (age 17). He desired at that point to self-castrate because “he felt as a woman and wanted to be such.”So convincing was Hinrich that men who had courted him had no idea that he was male before the act; this factored into the determination of whether or not homosexuality was present.

For avoidance of military service, he was sentenced to six months in prison. In 1943, he sought through medical officials to avoid further trouble legally and morally by requesting total removal of sex organs and subsequent change of name to Henriette, which were both granted in Hannover. This was seen as the most humane solution to the problem.

Huelke reflected on the distinction of transsexuality proper from transvestism by way of this case. While transvestism encourages and promotes homosexual activities and thoughts, transsexuality proper reflects the natural gender order in a roundabout way:  by adapting as close as possible to the female form, one functions as a female within the sexual dynamic and promotes heterosexual images. Rather than blurring the gender line, or masculinizing women and feminizing men, transsexuality proper reinforces the split between the sexes in its recognition of the painful difference between bodily maleness and femaleness.

In the context of punishment for transvestic and homosexual degeneracy, one would assume that transsexuality proper would be just as taboo in the Third Reich. On the contrary, because transsexuality either eliminated homosexual propensities in surgery or positively adapted the male-to-female transsexual for the opposite sex role, it was tolerated (quietly, of course). Due to the low frequency of legitimate cases of transsexuality, this should not come as a surprise; much unlike our own time, the threat of punishment for degeneracy ensured that only the truly suffering transsexual proper would seek medical and legal intervention.Medical and legal approval of transsexuality proper in the Reich never meant approval of degeneracy, but approval of the attempt of a niche population to live the most functional lives possible in the most healthy society ever to exist.

1While it’s certainly true that this post will be more personally oriented than others, the most objective possible outlook is given here with the facts at the forefront.
2For example, Gerda von Zobeltitz of Berlin.
3“…er fühlte als Frau und wollte auch eine solche sein.”
4Because of the current liberal and Jewish attacks on the family unit and heterosex, transsexuality is turned from a legitimate illness requiring surgical intervention and affirmation of the appropriate sex role into some sort of monstrous gender-weapon, a weapon that aims to dismantle the sex roles entirely to grant “sexual freedom” to all deviants. In this milieu of “freedom” many end up having medical interventions which are not necessary, paralleled by lives characterized by worthless acts of depravity and debauchery. These degenerates, who universally end up dysfunctional and depressed, are certainly the transsexual norm, but they cannot claim the title of transsexual proper. The rates of suicide for transsexuality are extremely high due to this multitudinous, filthy dross; transsexuality proper is only signified by intense suffering and dysfunction in the original sex role and intense happiness and productivity in the new one.


Sources consulted:

Herrn, Rainer. “Transvestitismus in Der NS-Zeit.” Zeitschrift Für Sexualforschung 26.04 (2013): 330-71. Thieme. Web.

Weiß, Volker. “Eine Weibliche Seele Im Männlichen Körper.” Diss. FU Berlin, 2008. Eine Weibliche Seele Im Männlichen Körper. FU Berlin, 19 Feb. 2010. Web.


The Deathly Core of Feminist Ideology

Some of us tend to look upon feminism as a sort of farce in which women unreasonably betray any traditionally held values. Unfortunately, there is a grand, architecturally sound reason or logic beneath the apparent rot of feminism’s ideological surface. Liberation of women from men is not the core of feminism any longer; no, today, feminism means liberation from biology itself, the transcendence of finitude over eternity.

This logic, taken in its immediate terms, generates a situation for women in which nothing of permanence must bother her casual existence. Abortion is enshrined as the holy art of preserving female freedom, marriage is flouted in the romantically sound migration from partner to partner, etc.

Yet, if we examine the logic in terms of what it will inevitably accomplish if left unimpeded in its workings, something far more insidious emerges. What we grapple with at the end is not transcendence of biology, but the sum total death of biological reality. This end, of course, demands at the start what is immediately positive (such as the right to abortion), but in its finality bursts forth into all of its negative elements:  death of the sex distinction, death of the species, death of the female individual.

Feminism as such proposes that females, as finite or mortal individuals, must be granted the right to subsist in themselves apart from all essential demands of reality (e.g., creation of new life in the womb). What is granted to women in feminism immediately is simple enjoyment of current “liberated” conditions; what they do not see is their own divorce from eternity1, the point at which their enjoyment also demands their future nonexistence. Feminism ends in the late-term abortion of ancestral eternity, which precludes, and includes, her individual being.

As long as feminism continues along its deranged path, bent on destroying family, folk, and faith, it will claim more and more lives for the sake of a flittering freedom that cannot last. Each woman is a manifestation and guarantor of the life of the ancestral-eternal, and each one that is lost to this deathly ideology brings us closer to the eclipse of progeny. A new awareness of woman’s place in relation to the sacred cycle of reproduction must be outlined, lest she be forever lost in the clutches of animalism, of immanence, of death.

1Without fulfilling her essential role as life-giver in society, woman condemns herself to erasure from world-history. This fact of life—in which her individuality does not extend beyond her, in which she has no vital existence within the eternal racial body—must be made apparent to her.

Youth Knows No Danger!

The world situation today is dire.

Everywhere languishing are national peoples who live out increasingly meaningless lives of spiritual and physical poverty. Each day the nihilistic thought gains more and more traction, and in every mouth the word of the day is…


But on the horizon, a smirking youth appears. Like daybreak, the joyous figure emerges shining over the desolate landscape. Vital through and through, golden and healthy, he gazes at the world situation, sees the languishing peoples of today, and laughs.

Slowly but surely this laughter spreads to the depressed peoples. Vitality regains momentum, hopelessness becomes a byword, the international situation becomes a joke. Youthful vitality laughing at the notion of its extinction—that is on the horizon of world history.

With this weapon most potent against fear, youth marches on unimpeded toward spiritual rebirth.

To be able to laugh is to accept the situation as it is, as a temporary blight on our grand history. To spread laughter is to combat that useless nihilism which retreats inward and grants the enemy every right to cause the extinction of peoples. When we laugh, we release ourselves from the fetters of fate and accept that nothing exists for us but the propensity for revitalization.

So, laugh, youth of the world! Know no danger!

Spread the joy that transcends death, the joy of an immortal mission that cannot take anything but pure and total victory seriously! In the face of brutal and terrible enemies, smirk! For tomorrow is ours; at the table of kinship we will joke of this age into eternity.

Latent Truth in Effective Propaganda

Today, the notion of propaganda as dishonest pervades collective consciousness. “No propaganda can tell the whole truth,” or so the claim goes, “for propaganda is just another form of corporate advertising!” Effective propaganda, however, is not an appeal to mere want or a hoodwink:  it interprets the truth latent or unclear in the minds of the masses it targets, brings out the truth in the form of a phrase or image, and draws out action from the masses based on the now clear, visible truth which would have otherwise remained a mere passive thought. In essence, propaganda is the medium between truth and action.

As such, propaganda is the producer of action through the forming of already existent thoughts. While the masses might already have an idea of the nation, for example, they might not know who really belongs to the nation, who the enemy is, or what defines the national character. When propaganda makes these things known, it gives the people not only an idea of what is to be done, but how it is to be done. Propaganda should be utilized to provide an impetus for clear-cut history making.

In light of this historical possibility, the introduction of propaganda gives shape to the basic thoughts of the masses, a concrete form that can meet the critique of any enemy of any creed. Where otherwise there might be confusion over how to express a thought to an enemy, a propagandist would arm the people so that this confusion does not exist. The propaganda front should be the machine that produces consistent belief and unchanging defenses among the people, for a consistently resilient idea cannot go unnoticed.

What this all means for political action is simple:  without propaganda, it will lack the consistency and direction necessary to go anywhere important in world-history. Without the medium which converts mass feeling and thought into consistent action, a political movement has nothing cohesive about it internally or in the face of its enemies. Propaganda, therefore, is absolutely necessary and must be considered one of the top priorities of any movement, for it converts the truth we all recognize in various ways into a potent, singular front.

The creation of such a front, however, is complicated. Because many people are not capable of critical thought at an abstract level, we must represent critical notions to them mostly through the senses. Images are the greatest means to this end for they immediately present associations with latent truths that abstract thought must otherwise struggle to grasp. As a famous psychologist once said of effective jokes (which share a similar composition as propaganda), “We save having to express a criticism or give shape to a judgment; both are already there in the name [or image] itself.” Propaganda is, in this way, a critique separated from the thought processes that inspired its creation, a critique suited to give shape to the thinking of every man.

Securing the everyday thoughts of the masses and presenting them in a clearly formed, consistent way is the most effective method for obtaining world-historical results. Without propaganda, the latent truth inherent in our brethren will languish in inconsistent expressions or nihilistic realizations instead of action, and nothing substantial will result. In order to counter this, we must create a propaganda front that unites the people around a common thought-form amenable to the latent truth in them all.

Unhealth in the Erasure of Vital Human Interaction

One girl, hospitalized in a state mental hospital, had slashed her wrists and explained her act by saying that she wanted to see if she had any blood. This was a girl who felt nonhuman, without any response to anyone; she did not believe she could express or, for that matter, feel, any affect. Her lack of interest and incapacity to respond was so great that to see her own blood was the only way in which she could convince herself that she was alive and human.

– The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness, Erich Fromm

While we should all doubt the merit of Erich Fromm’s work, his observation of this tormented girl deserves to be understood in the light of modernity. As we all know quite well, our generation has been defined by a tendency to enshrine the unwholesome aspects of living in their various manifestations. Strikingly, Fromm recognizes here the essence of our generation’s deathly demeanor:  the worship of unhealth is the product of the inability to form healthy human bonds.

Man, being a social animal, is healthiest when he can genuinely socialize with others. True isolation can only be maintained by a beast or a God, for asocial existence is qualitatively unbearable; biologically, we are born not to be atomistic units but holistic members of family and folk. Thus, lacking an appropriate medium through which to interact with others in our international, acultural (or multicultural) world, we must find unconventional ways to signal to others that we exist, to express or even feel that we are alive. Unhealthiness is the unconventional means to social life where healthy culture no longer exists.

Illness automatically attracts the attention of others—as caring, organic beings, an ailing person will catch our eye and demand our aid immediately with the goal of bringing the person back to health. Normalized sickness, whether that be gender confusion or fatness, takes this demand to a new level:  aid the person with attention, but leave them alone in their unhealth to perpetuate said attention. Unhealthiness in an acultural world serves the purpose of sustaining human interaction by abusing the natural instincts for care in a vital, healthy people.

In normalized illness, then, we see the replacement of vital interpersonal relationships with a perpetual plea for help. The sick individual that cries for aid demands that he be recognized as such eternally, for to be restored to health means a lack of attention and a return to the inhumanity of everyday existence. Without a vital culture to sustain the individuals of a nation, individuals fall into unwholesomeness as a means to counter an unlived life.

“Destructiveness is the outcome of unlived life,” says Dr. Fromm in Escape from Freedom. He cites the international capitalist machine as the reason for our current world situation of death-worship and then proposes a Jewish solution:   “The Jews admitted the fact of death realistically and were able to reconcile themselves with the idea of the destruction of individual life by the vision of a state of happiness and justice ultimately to be reached by mankind in this world.” In essence, Fromm denies any other solution to the glorification of illness and death in the world other than the application of a universal Jewish ethic and eventual Messianic state.

What he fails to admit, however, is any Jewish role in what is unliving to-day, even though he had already demonstrated internationalism as a reason for unwholesomeness:  “[Modern man] has become estranged from the product of his own hands, he is not really the master any more of the world he has built; on the contrary, this man-made world has become his master, before whom he bows down, whom he tries to placate or manipulate as best as he can.” Who is the master? It is not the Führer as he claims, nor labor, nor the product of our labors:  it is the international “multicultural” complex brought about by Jewish involvement in our cultural existences. It is quite clear that internationalism is the root of the vitality problem in the social life of various peoples, though we ourselves might be the branches of unhealthiness.

In short, though we might as a people currently perpetuate unhealthiness as a means to social life, our cultural reaction would normally be one of aiding illness without internationalist involvement in everyday national life. To be rid of modern norms that prevent any true aid of unhealthy persons is only the first step in a massive cure of the populace; what remains is to return the people to a genuine state of social life which is culturally and racially appropriate. Internationalism must be defeated if we are to return to true happiness and health, whether individually or collectively.

Masculine Imagery in the Propaganda Front

In the short time I have been active as a member of our cause, our propaganda has been focused on invading hordes of foreign men or lone white women. While these images serve an important function overall, our propaganda front lacks something fundamental which will spell ruin for its entire aim and function:  powerful, masculine imagery. This lack implies detriment to both the cause and participating individuals in a variety of ways:

  1.  Too much focus on the beauty of our women. When we present images of women without husbands beside them we imply much that might not be obvious at first glance. All positive aspects aside, the lack of masculinity in these images attracts the unwelcome gaze of foreigners and presents passivity as the highest ideal. We make a target of women by displaying them unprotected and unattended; presented alone, we instill a passive negativity in the hearts of our men, the negative of what will be lost. To be represented under the care of a man implies a detriment to the gazing foreigner, protection for the woman in question,and the inspiration to fight for what can be gained from her rather than fighting to prevent her ultimate loss.
  2. Too much focus on the masculinity of invading hordes. Leaving the foreign threat unopposed in our images is problematic at its core even if it is true in everyday reality. What we need to demonstrate more than the animalistic, violent nature of foreigners is the orderly, powerful and intelligent nature of our own men. Contrasting images of unkempt hordes with the implied superiority of native personalities will greatly improve the desire to repel what is foreign and strengthen what is native. What we must imply is that we are ready to go to war at any time and defend what is irrevocably, uniquely ours.
  3. Lack of focus on fighting spirit or will. It is too obvious that passivity currently pervades the propaganda front. Focusing on what is to be lost and the active foreign elements among us, we lose sight of our own possibility for action and the idea of hopelessness gains traction. Without masculinity posed at the forefront of our world-picture, will shall not have its proper ground. Masculine representations are inherently representations of will—without them, a massive reinstatement of will cannot be easily achieved.
  4. Lack of heroism. Without the image of the hero in all his manifestations circulating, our men lack a stable identification of personality which might build resistance to the modern mass-identification of passive hopelessness. Reviving personality is an aim of masculine imagery insofar as it focuses on the qualities that a man should either acquire or already have in order to emerge victorious for the cause.

To remedy these ills, I propose that masculine imagery return in full force, appearing always alongside images of our women (pregnant or not) and always contrasting with foreign hordes. We must present our men as attractive, orderly, heroic, and family-oriented. This does not require that they be portrayed as warriors or kings—on the contrary, they should be represented in an elevated, everyday sense.

With the return of masculinity in the propaganda front our cause will be further defined by hero-identification and the enshrining of will. Without masculine representation, the picture painted by the front would consist only of something to lose and something to fear; in that case, hopelessness might easily enter the mass psyche, defeating the whole purpose. Alongside images of beautiful women to be protected and angry hordes to be warded off at any cost, heroic man must be present to complete a picture of assured, self-confident victory.

1An additional, unrelated bonus implied in this image:  “independent” women will be drawn to the protection and happiness of traditional coupling.



Womankind in Intellectual Turmoil: The Case for Sex Distinction in Education and Vocation

Only men, broadly speaking, are capable of objective studies. Only men can learn to face fact without flinching, unswayed by feeling or preference. The reality with women is the way the fact affects them. Original investigation, creative art, the resolute facing of the world as it is, belong to man’s world, not at all to that of the average woman…

– A quotation from Science Monthly in the book Woman’s Unfitness for Higher Coeducation, Ely van de Warker

Existence is anxiety for the woman who thinks like a man. Due to her increased sensitivity to the concrete—a natural mechanism that translates to the mental world—thoughts will always be bound up with feeling. Not even I can escape feeling in ratiocination.1

What does man think? The real as it is, as an unknown. Why does he think this, since it is so terrifying? It is traditionally he who sets out against the unknown, physically and metaphysically, in order to conquer and make known what is feared; it was man historically who conquered nature by grasping it abstractly and altering it to suit his ends. Thus he establishes a domain for both sexes in which existential fear has been banished to the back of our minds.

Women cannot detach themselves enough from feeling (body, concreteness, etc.) to approach the unconquered unknown in normal circumstances. Why else would it be that even in the known, in a typical gender studies class, ideas as innocuous as sperm entering an egg are interpreted as massive conspiracies of rape and violence laid down by men against women? Feeling such as this is the hem of a woman’s intellectual skirt:  she approaches the unknown within the boundaries of fear, while men face it with unlimited courage.

University has failed women—or rather truly, women of authority have failed women—in that it assumes two distinct sexes can be acclimated to the same form of discipline. Why must men and women now think the same? Only turmoil will be bred in the mind of the girl when she takes up the study of a man, for she has not the detachment necessary to avoid the perilous unknown. I do not claim that men think without fear, but for women fear (or, positively, grounding in the familiar) dominates their entire existence as a mechanism of survival; even the feminists assume this and claim it as a sign of oppression.2

The question now is:  what is to be done? The attempted acclimation of female minds to male disciplines has completely and totally failed in terms of necessity, producing as a result the decline of birthrates and a culture of hatred against masculinity.3 At this point we should reconsider the ideas of an antifeminist woman that did not make it through the last hundred years of botched evolution.

Catharine Beecher (1872) outlined a plan for educating women that did not seek out any sort of parallel with the education of men. A man is taught chemistry that he might further a specific scientific interest for the good of the race; why not teach a woman domestic chemistry that involves the upkeep of the home from which the race itself spawns? If women are taught how to develop the race within the confines of the known, men can continue to breach the unknown and further advance the peace of the whole. With women meddling in affairs that will only terrify them into destroying what little peace we have, who will perform the essential function of carrying on the race in physical form?

“Woman, as mother and as teacher, is to form and guide the immortal mind. She, more than any one else, is to decide the character of her helpless children, both for this and the future eternal life” (Beecher). In fearing the motives of man—having been initiated into his mode of thought—woman has forgotten the unlimited joy of her own sacred office. In achieving the height of womanhood we cultivate the world to come, and if the intellect in us is wanting we cannot achieve this aim. Those of us that choose motherhood are not uneducated, stupid, or hoodwinked; we simply recognize the truth of our concreteness and play it out to the fullest, leaving the conquering of terrifying realities to men as it has been since the beginning.

Domestic philosophy (which is not “inferior” except for the feminist) is our lot from birth:

“Woman is all sex. Her faculty of potential motherhood, the periodical insistence of her sexual life, like a stigmata, forces the logic of her being into her conscious existence. It becomes with her a physical and mental attribute. She cannot forget.”

Woman’s Unfitness for Higher Coeducation, Ely van de Warker

As women, we are to feel out the universe that men have made safe for us all. Our concreteness, our feeling, allows us to develop more greatly than men the capacity for care, and in this our whole purpose and joy is to be found. Domestic philosophy and its various branches of study would allow for the development of care into a science, furthering our collective advancement in a way that careless careerism never will.

1Though this limitation is undoubtedly individual, it has some sort of universality to it, especially if I am considered an exceptional sort of intellectual.
2For example, they cite a woman’s fear of walking down the street alone at night as a symptom of patriarchal culture in which they must fear rape at every turn. They forget about the woman who does not leave the side of a man (e.g. husband, brother, father) and feels safe under his protection at all times.
 3While it is true that women make fine doctors, lawyers, scientists and the like, and produce great results, there are many men who would do a much better job in these fields if the propagandistic lie of equality did not reign in our time. If individual women wish to be the exception, fine; but exceptional women nowadays are those who choose motherhood over careers absolutely, which is a sign of unhealthiness.