Source that she was a lesbian?
Theres an article that talks about some signs that she was but i cant find anything that couldn’t be interpreted as being non binary and asexual.
After some unpromising beginnings as a naval reservist, London clubman, and jazz band leader, Knight’s first undercover job in 1923 was to penetrate the extreme right “British Fascisti” movement. The BF was a far cry from the jackboots of Hitler or Mussolini. Its founder was a lesbian former ambulance driver named Rotha Lintorn-Orman. Its membership included the captain of the England cricket team and the Irish fitness fanatic William Joyce, who would resurface later in Knight’s career as “Lord Haw-Haw”.
Thats a mention but it has no source of its own.
I found this on the wiki:
“Lintorn-Orman was dependent on alcohol and drugs, and rumours about her sexual orientation began to damage her reputation. Eventually her mother stopped funding her after hearing lurid tales of drink, drugs and orgies. Lintorn-Orman was taken ill in 1933 and was sidelined from the British Fascists”
A rumor isn’t the same as “it been know she slept with other women at these parties” it could also stem from “have you realized she has never dated a man?”
But i also understand that with historical things like this you cant exactly ask the dead what is and isn’t true.
Why ? Because a lesbian can’t be fascist?
Why ? Because a lesbian can’t be fascist?
Less “can’t” and more “homophobia is generally associated with fascism”. Like how Ernst Rohm and the early SA were outliers.
Röhm also liked them young.
It’s pretty foolish for a lesbian to support the fascism of that era, yes. The UK fascism post-wwi was in support of the rise of the Nazi party, which was pretty happy to kill homosexuals.
Well, she was instrumental in starting the fascist movement of Britain, which predated the Nazi party’s rise to prominence. And even the Nazi Party’s virulent homophobia didn’t fully bloom until the Night of the Long Knives erased the SA’s power.
Yes, the two are incompatible
Would seem to be, and probably should be if self preservation enters the mind of the person in question, but ideologies, even those that would seem to have a pretty narrow appeal can (at least at a surface level) make themselves appealing to people of all sorts.
A current example of this would be Alice Weidel, AfD. A lesbian in a German facist party who spends most of her time (allegedly) in Switzerland at her partners place.
Ernst Rohm (an out gay man) was in the previous iteration right up until he was no longer useful to the state/party apparatus.
Hell, Mussolini was originally a Communist who, I guess, decided he was tired of working on making a better world and decided to settle for immediately making a worse one because at least he’d be in charge of part of it.
You underestimate the human potential for contradiction. Ernst Röhm entered the chat to tell you that homosexual fascists are in fact a thing, a niche thing but nonetheless a known phenomenon. There is a great documentary about gay men in the neonazi scene by Rosa von Praunheim, called “Männer, Helden, schwule Nazis” not sure if it is available in english though.
You underestimate the human potential for contradiction.
Yes. There even was Nazi Jews…
They where all purged. Ernst Röhm, nor any of the Brown Shirts for that matter where openly homosexual.
They where all purged
I seriously doubt that. There were probably still Nazis who were secretly homosexual when the war ended.
When they “purged” Röhm that was simply because they saw him as a threat because he commanded the SA which had grown into a serious power factor in the Reich. His homosexuality was utilized as a pretence against him to destroy his reputation afterwards but it was not the reason they took him out.
Ernst Röhm, nor any of the Brown Shirts for that matter where openly homosexual.
I never used the word open …
Can’t wait for the day when colorized pictures become the norm and more people realize that 100 years wasn’t that long ago and that the main difference is the speed of communication, the quality of the medical system, the fact that rural areas have the quality of life city folk have and the fashion. Ofc some social issues have advanced considerably, but it’s roughly still the same themes and topics.
So what you are saying is "everything is different "
Are you a doctor in some rural ditch that really likes fashion or something? Otherwise I don’t see how that’s “everything”. The daily life of your average western person wasn’t too different in the 1920s, nor were their political opinions. The main point I wanted to make is that we still generally talk and care about the same issues. If we weren’t addicted to scrolling social media and were esthetically blind, most of us wouldn’t immediately realize it if we were transported back in time.
If we weren’t addicted to scrolling social media and were esthetically blind, most of us wouldn’t immediately realize it if we were transported back in time.
I don’t know about that. We didn’t even have a public radio station in the US until 1920. Television didn’t come around until 1925. Frozen food in 1929.
The simple act of driving to the store to get shopping done for dinner would be quite different.Oh right, forgot about America… Imagine bulldozing your entire city just so you can live the American dream of driving for basic necessities.
Also I don’t watch TV or listen to radio. Many people don’t. I generally don’t buy frozen goods either, I can just grab anything I want fresh from the store, it’s literally down the street (Or have it delivered, like what my gf does, tho that’s definitely a modern luxury). I usually just grab some meat and cream on my way from work.
My daily lifestyle outside of work as a developer doesn’t differ too much from my great grandparents.
Things are dramatically different from even 20 years ago. 100 years ago was a completely different world. Of course they had some of the same social issues, because they were human and history repeats itself, but the experience of living then and now was nothing alike.
Feyd-Rotha
