Featured Video

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

25 December 2013

Sir Paul Coleridge under fire for defending the right thing

High Court judge Sir Paul Coleridge has been disciplined for media comments he made in support of marriage – but he says the response is “disproportionate”.

The formal warning relates to his involvement in articles for The Times newspaper in December last year and for The Telegraph’s website in July.

The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) – the official body that deals with judicial discipline – says the comments amount to “judicial misconduct”.

Sir Paul, speaking about same-sex marriage, told The Times in 2012: “So much energy and time has been put into this debate for 0.1 per cent of the population, when we have a crisis of family breakdown”.

And in his Telegraph article the judge commented: “‘Stability’ is the name of the game and comparatively speaking that means marriage.”

Last month Sir Paul said he will retire early, partly because of the lack of support from some of his colleagues for his pro-marriage beliefs.

He says many agree with him, but won’t say so publicly: “With one or two exceptions they have been very, if quietly, supportive.”

In 2012 the judge set up the Marriage Foundation which aims to be a “national champion” for the institution.

Criticising the formal warning from the JCIO, Sir Paul said: “I strongly disagree with the overall conclusion of the JCIO, which underlies this announcement that my occasional comments on the huge social problem of family breakdown or my public support for the Marriage Foundation amounts to misconduct or brings the judiciary into disrepute.

“Indeed I think the contrary is true.”

“My involvement with the work of the Marriage Foundation may indeed be unusual and unconventional for a judge, but I do not agree that that renders it, of itself, ‘incompatible with my judicial responsibilities’.
‘Lower profile’

“It has not in any way interfered with my judicial work and no one who has appeared in my court has ever suggested that it has or does”, Sir Paul commented.

Last year the judge was told to keep a “lower profile” over his role at the Marriage Foundation by the JCIO’s predecessor.

At the time the body said a lower profile role within the organisation would be “more appropriate for a serving judicial office holder”.

21 December 2013

More Jewish History


Judaism, however, was subverted long before the Khazar/Ashkenazi wolves slipped under the deceptively useful Judaic sheepskin. Almost eight centuries earlier Christ’s apostle John records in Revelation 2:9, “I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.” How did this catastrophic confusion and misrepresentation come about?

Immanuel Velikovsky in his epic work Ages in Chaos: From Exodus to Akhnaton presents record of the Israelites battling the Amalekites on at least two occasions as they fled Egypt, doubtless replete with rape of and co-mingling with the Israelites. 

This contributed not merely to the Israelites’ failure to follow the leadership of Moses, but by the time of Christ, to have adopted satanic teachings subsequently distilled into written form by Rabbis Aschi, Maremar and Abina as the Babylonian Talmud. 

The Amalekites prove to be forebears of the Khazars and descendants of the Edomites. Gerald Soman, in the Manifesto of the World Jewish Federation, January 1, 1935 writes, “No one can deny that the Jews are a most unique and unusual people. That uniqueness exists because of their Edomite heritage. You cannot be English Jews. We are a race, and only as a race can we perpetuate. Our mentality is of Edomitish character, and differs from that of an Englishman. Enough subterfuges! Let us assert openly that we are International Jews.”

Hasdai ibn Shaprut, foreign minister to Abd-al-Rahman, Sultan of Cordovia, in a letter to King Joseph of the Chazars (about 960 AD) speaks of … the Chazars [who] once dwelt near the Seir Mountains.
“Thus dwelt Esau in mount Seir. (Genesis 36:8).

The Seir mountain range south of the Dead Sea was known as the “land of Edom” (Genesis 36:21) and was home to the Edomites for nearly a millennium. They arrived in the region at the end of the 14th and beginning of the 13th century BC (Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 6, pg. 372). In the 6th century BC, “after the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC, the Edomites began to press northward” into what became Khazaria. (The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, Henry S. Gehman, 1970, pg. 418)

Edom is another name for Esau, brother of the biblical patriarch Jacob (aka Israel), father of the twelve tribes of Israel. Esau rejected God, sold his birthright to his brother Jacob, and defied God and his family by intermarrying with Canaanite women. 

He hated God and Jacob, and vowed revenge against Jacob and his descendants, the Israelites. Throughout history to this day Esau/Edom’s descendants have waged war against the true descendants of the Israelites and have systematically worked to destroy Western Christian civilization oppressing all races other than the Jew. (www.vaticproject.blogspot.com)

By the time of Christ, these who “claimed to be Jews but were not” were adequately in control to pressure the Roman government to arrest and crucify Christ. Cicero, a Roman legislator, spoke of the manipulation exercised by Jews a century before the crucifixion of Christ. 

Softly! Softly! I want none but the judges to hear me. The Jews have already gotten me into a fine mess, as they have many other gentleman. I have no desire to furnish further grist for their mills.” 

Marcus Tullius Cicero, a first century BC Roman statesman and writer, quietly expressed this to the presiding judges in his oration as defence counsel at the trial of Flaccus, a Roman official who had interfered with Jewish gold shipments to their international headquarters in Jerusalem. 

For a man of Cicero’s stature to have to “speak softly” reveals how pervasive was the malevolent influence of organized Jewry on the Roman Empire. Cicero also writes, “The Jews belong to a dark and repulsive force. One knows how numerous this clique is, how they stick together and what power they exercise through their unions. They are a nation of … deceivers.” 

Describing the savage Jewish uprising against the Roman Empire acknowledged as the downward turning point of that great state, Dio Cassius, a second century AD Roman historian, records in Roman History, 

The Jews were destroying both Greeks and Romans. They ate the flesh of their victims, made belts for themselves out of their entrails, and daubed themselves with their blood… In all, 220,000 men perished in Cyrene and 240,000 in Cyprus, and for this reason no Jew may set foot in Cyprus today.

17 December 2013

'The most evil man in the world'

It is 1982 and as day breaks in Liberia, the Krahn tribe prepares for the initiation of its high priest. Against the sound of the drumbeat, he is taken to an isolated area, led by a man in a carved black mask. The priest stands before an altar, naked. The elders bring a little girl, unclothe her and smear her body with clay. The priest slays the child.

In a ritual that spans three days, her heart and other body parts are removed and eaten. In the course of those days the priest has a vision: he meets the devil who tells him he will become a great warrior.

The devil says to increase his power he must continue the rituals of child sacrifice and cannibalism. The initiation is complete and the priest is now one of the most powerful leaders in West Africa. The priest is 11 years old. As prophesied, the boy priest grew up to become one of Liberia's most notorious warlords: General Butt Naked. He and his boy soldiers would charge into battle naked apart from boots and machine guns.

The initiation sacrifice that he carried out aged 11 was the first life he took out of the 20,000 deaths for which he now claims responsibility.His rivals dispute the number of deaths as impossible to prove.Yet what is indisputable is that during Liberia's 14 years of civil war, the man became known as one of the most inhumane and ruthless guerrilla leaders in Africa's history.

After the former General Butt Naked confessed his past to Liberia's Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) in 2008, one internet blogger asked: 'Is this the most evil man who ever lived?' His crimes included child sacrifice, cannibalism, the exploitation of child soldiers and trading blood diamonds for guns and cocaine, which he fed to boy soldiers as young as nine.

Yet today he says he is a reformed man. In July 1996, the warlord had 'an epiphany'. Having spent 14 years holding nightly conversations with the devil, he had a blinding vision of Christ who told him to end the killings and convert.

This was a Damascene conversion like no other: the former tribal priest and warlord is now known as Pastor Joshua Milton Blahyi. Aged 39, he is married, a father of three and lives as a Christian preacher. He says if he can change, anyone can. He also calls for the tribal religious practice of child sacrifice and cannibalism to end, saying it still goes on in Liberia to this day.

Liberia's TRC, set up to investigate the war's atrocities, reported in 2009 and called for a pardon for Blahyi on the grounds of his candour and remorse.Now in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, Blahyi says he is willing to go the International Criminal Court at The Hague and be tried for war crimes.

He lifts the lid on Liberia's secret societies that conduct child sacrifice and cannibalism, as well as his role in the war  -  and his desire to change.His interview paints a terrifying portrait of one man's descent into Hell and his quest for redemption. It is a confession that will leave many asking whether such crimes can ever be forgiven. It is a question he asks himself. Along with Ethiopia, Liberia is the only African country without roots in European colonisation. It was founded and colonised by freed American slaves in the early 1820s.

Yet its recent history has been blighted by civil war.

Between 1989 and 2003, Liberia's inter-tribal war killed 250,000 people, displaced one million and led to one in five children becoming soldiers. During the course of the conflict, this corner of West Africa became a nexus for the trade in blood diamonds and cocaine, gunrunning and laundering the funds of terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda.

The instability emanating from this one country posed a danger far beyond Liberia's border, as far as our shores. General Butt Naked was one of the leading warlords, fighting guerilla groups including that of Charles Taylor, who later become president of Liberia and is now being tried for war crimes at The Hague.

I meet Blahyi for the first time in the dusty courtyard of Hotel Zeos, 45 minutes' drive from Monrovia, Liberia's capital. He has chosen this deserted spot because, after his confession to the TRC, he became the subject of assassination attempts.

He strides towards me, arms spread, smiling widely. 'Welcome to Liberia.' It had taken months to find Blahyi because he went underground after the last assassination attempt. In the end, I obtained his number from a Liberian film director living in New York.

I remember calling his mobile for the first time.The voice that answered was initially wary. But once satisfied of my identity, he became warm, even friendly and would ring my mobile in London at random times for a chat. Interest in the General has renewed since his evidence to the TRC and, of course, his dramatic conversion to evangelical Christianity.

He is the subject of an American documentary at the Sundance Festival next year.The filmmakers' interest was the same as mine: could a man who claimed to have done such evil truly change or is he just a brilliant trickster?

Over the days spent with him in Liberia, I get to know a man who is many things: genuinely sorry; tortured by the knowledge of his actions; frighteningly honest about his atrocities; and at other times vulnerable and desperate to please. Lucid, compelling, charismatic.

But a damaged man, nonetheless. The first thing you notice about the General is his bulk.He left armed combat more than a decade ago, yet his physical presence remains intimidating.

The second thing is his eyes  -  everything he has done is held therein. We take a seat in the gloomy bar. Against the buzz of traffic we talk, him sipping a bottle of malt drink.

His shoulders and arm muscles strain against his khaki T-shirt. When agitated by a particular subject, he gesticulates wildly, his face reliving every moment.

At one such moment, he knocks his bottle off the table. Without taking his eyes off me, he catches it a split second before it smashes to the ground. The soldier's reflexes remain as sharp as ever.

I ask him how his life was as a child. He describes how he was told first by his father, then by his tribal elders that he was born to be a warrior.

On the orders of the elders, he was conceived and taken from his mother minutes after birth. Aged seven, his father handed him to the elders who tutored him in the rituals of the priesthood. When he was initiated, he became a powerful figure as every tribesman now bowed to him.

In 1982, as the high priest, aged 11, Blahyi remembers performing black magic rituals at the presidential palace to protect the then Liberian leader, Samuel Doe, from enemies. Doe had been a member of the Krahn tribe and came to power in a violent coup in 1980.

In 1990, Doe was seized in the presidential palace and murdered by the troops of a rebel leader  -  an act that led to an escalation in the conflict which raged for another 13 years.

During the whole time, Blahyi was a high priest. One of his most important jobs was the performance of sacrifice rituals and cannibalism. In Liberia today, 75 per cent of people are Christian, 20 per cent are Muslim and the rest follow the tribal religion that performs these sacrifice rituals.

But during the war, experts claim many more practised the tribal faith.

In his book The Mask Of Anarchy, Professor Stephen Ellis of Free University, Amsterdam, wrote of the rituals practised by various tribes in Liberia and used during the war.

'Of the countless atrocities carried out by various factions, perhaps the most appalling was the eating of human flesh. This was a practice with a long history . . . after 1991 it became common to encounter traumatised refugees who witnessed such events.'

By 1994 the Catholic Church was so disturbed by such reports it officially condemned the practice. But Blayhi maintains it still goes on in secret in the villages. As a priest, he says, he would have a vision about a chosen child. He would tell the elders the child's village, the family name, and certain secrets of that child known only to the family.

The elders would then lead a procession to the child's house, known as 'the House of Honour'. The child would often remain oblivious until the moment came where he was taken away from the village to the altar, where he would be stripped and covered in a type of mud.

'As priest, I said the invocation. The child is killed. His body has different, different parts taken off.'

Were you alone during this time? 'I was the only one with the body.'

Does this still happen in Liberia? 'It still happens. If you went to my village now and spoke of this, they'd kill you. Since my conversion, I know witchcraft is wrong. I know "eating" is wrong. I must speak out now.'

During his days as a tribal priest, Blahyi says, the rituals were for the good of the tribe. But once he became leader of the Butt Naked Brigade, Blahyi would sacrifice a child before every battle. In this case, there was no religious significance for the tribe. Blayhi has an appallingly clear recollection of how he sacrificed children before battle  -  and the cannibalism involved.

The belief was that by killing and eating children, the soldiers would be strengthened and purified for the battle. The worst aspect of all was many of the Butt Naked Brigade were children themselves.

It was not the only guerrilla group to use child soldiers. Aid workers estimated that as many as 20,000 child soldiers were recruited by rebel and government forces during the last war. The Butt Naked Brigade had a sideline in drug, weapons and diamond dealing. The Liberian coast was used as a drop-off point by Mexican drug cartels. The General's men would do a trade.

'I was not giving cocaine for arms, I was giving gold and diamonds for arms and cocaine,' he explains.

What did you do with the cocaine? 'Gave it to the boys. Mashed it into their food.'

From the age of nine? 'Yeah.'

His voice drops as he bends his head into his chest. The diamonds came from territory captured by the Krahn tribe factions.

The guerrilla groups would use captured civilians to mine the diamonds and then use the gems to finance their war, just as was depicted in the 2006 Leonardo DiCaprio film Blood Diamond, set in Sierra Leone.

It was the diamond-funded drugs  -  sold to finance conflicts and bankroll warlords and diamond companies across the world  -  that helped push many of the younger rebel soldiers across the boundaries of humanity.

The naked dress code proved to be a terrifyingly effective military tactic.

'The fear principle was behind it. The first thing you want to impose on the enemy is that you're an animal, not a guerrilla.'

For years Blayhi was priest and warrior for his tribe. He coerced his brigade of 80 boys to kill without pity.

Although his figure of 20,000 deaths has been accepted by Liberia's TRC, others accuse him of wild exaggeration, saying the total is impossible to verify.

'How can he know?' Liberia's Information Minister, Norris Tweah, asks me. 'Two hundred and fifty thousand people were killed in the 14-year war. He is using this to make himself sound like a great warlord.'

But sitting with Blayhi and listening to him describe his personal depravity in forensic detail, it seems clear that he, at least, believes every word. Yet the turning point came. It was the summer of 1996 and his clansmen were caught up in a ferocious battle. It was decided that a sacrifice was needed. As the rockets rained down, a mother brought her three-year-old daughter to him.

Something about the child struck the pitiless General and for the first time in his life he hesitated. As he relives the moment with me, his face becomes contorted.

'The child was very unusually beautiful and kind. Most of the children are brought to me by the elders, they're crying, they're fighting. This child was peaceful,' he recalls. 'I thought, "This child must not die." I struggled.

'Of all of the thousands that I killed, I wish I did not kill that little girl . . . ' his voice trails off.

He is close to tears for the first and only time. 'Right after killing her, I had my epiphany.'

He claims he saw a white light in the shape of a man. A voice told him, 'repent and live or refuse and die'. He believes it was Christ.

The impact was immediate. From that day the killing, the sacrifices and cannibalism ended and Blahyi entered a period of turmoil that led his men to believe he had gone mad. Within months he had left the Butt Naked Brigade and by the end of September 1996 he was baptised in the sea near Monrovia.

By now the sun has set. Blayhi looks wasted from describing the encounter with the little girl and its impact. The confession has left him consumed by guilt. The next day he is due to preach to a congregation at a church 15 minutes away. We arrange to take him there.

As we leave, the hotel manager checks that Blahyi is going for good. In the eyes of others Blahyi is not just a pastor: he is still seen as the murderous General and cannibal. His reputation and name still strikes terror into Liberian hearts.

We cannot talk in public places, we cannot sit in busy hotels, we cannot be seen eating together. As we drive to the church, Blahyi sits in the front. I sit behind, watching him. He's wearing a red suit and black shirt and his shoulders loom either side of the seat. He is singing hymns.

'Did you sleep well?' he asks. 'Yes,' I lie. 'You?' 'Very well.' 'You seemed upset at the end of our interview,'

'I was. But I always sleep well. No matter what.'

He jumps out of the car and greets the local pastor, who is wearing white winkle-picker shoes. His battered old, red Mercedes with a numberplate reading 'Be Holy' is parked outside. A band is playing and the 300-strong congregation is clapping, singing and dancing. The church is at the site of a former Liberian army barracks and Blahyi has been invited to address the 'deliverance service'.

As the drums and synthesiser grow louder, the crowd chant 'Jesus, Jesus' as if at a rock concert. When Blayhi takes the microphone, the place erupts. He is electrifying and sinister at the same time. His sermon ranges from the dangers of fast food to the devil's ways and to the inappropriate dress sense of singer Beyonce.

An hour later, sweating in his red suit, he leaves the building to sit alone in the shade, praying. Preaching is now his mission and part of that is saving former child soldiers. Later in the week, Blayhi takes us to a rehabilitation centre he runs for ex-combatants in the bush outside Monrovia.

The photographer and I realise Blahyi is our only guarantor of safety.

As we turn up it is clear all is not well. There is a split in the camp as half the boys complain of getting too little to eat  -  one cup of rice a day.

They live in two or three brick rooms with no running water or electricity. Blahyi remains the adored father figure. But the reunion turns sour.

Nana Gbolor is the most angry. He is 26 and had been a soldier since 18.

Joshua Milton Blahyi threatens a fellow fighter with a knife in May 1996
'When the war ended, I moved to a ghetto called Solale. I slept in a cemetery among the bodies. Then one day the pastor came for me, he wore a T-shirt that said "God Bless Liberia". He didn't give up on me. Now all is want is more than one cup of rice a day and to learn construction.'

Unless boys like this are saved, many fear the past could return.

Liberia is a country with 80 per cent unemployment. Eighty-five per cent of its 3.9 million population live on less than 78p per day, according to UN figures. Inter-tribal warfare brought Liberia to its knees.

The TRC report on Blahyi is just one part of the clean-up. It also called for 49 individuals to be banned from political office for 30 years, including the current president, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, a former World Bank economist who has been dubbed Africa's Iron Lady.

The TRC states she was a former supporter of Charles Taylor. But she has been widely credited with helping turn around the troubled nation  -  by securing the cancellation of £3.7 billion of debt to the World Bank. Her government looks in no hurry to implement the TRC's demands on prosecutions.

Could victims really go back to living alongside their persecutors? I ask Information Minister Norris Tweah.

'Everyone's a victim here,' he says. 'Everybody lost somebody. In a country where everyone was complicit, everyone has blood on their hands, where does the blame end?'

Blahyi is in no doubt that saying sorry is not enough. Talking to him inside the shade of an empty church, he says he feels forgiven by God. But forgiveness on Earth is another matter.

'I believe the Bible strongly and it says God has forgiven me.'

Would you be willing to be tried for war crimes at The Hague?

'Yes. I would say I am guilty and if the law says I should be jailed for war crimes, then jail me. If the law says I should be hanged, then hang me.'

Blayhi tells me he still struggles to cope with the enormity of his savagery. At times it threatens to break him.

Did you think of suicide?

'Many times.'

Before we leave him, he goes to a second - hand shoe shop and spends £6 on trainers for his boys and his children. Carrying them in a black binliner, he says his goodbyes and for that moment he seems alone. He heads for the bus that will take him home.

Home is not where his family is; they live in hiding in Ghana. His greatest fear now is not death, but losing his own children  -  an irony not lost on him.For me, our week together has been like being with a split personality. Describing his past life is a painful and violent catharsis, leaving him and those around him drained and traumatised.

Then there's the other side: the reformed pastor dispensing a bag of doughnuts to local schoolchildren, telling the story of Jesus and the loaves and fishes with great warmth and humour. We all get caught up in the laughter, until I suddenly find myself recoiling with the memory of all he has told me.

This is his fate from now on: for as long as he lives, no matter how much he reforms, he will never be able to escape the horror of his past. The story of Joshua Milton Blahyi is more than a story of Africa's bloodshed and savagery. It is also a story of a man struggling for redemption and change.

His victims cannot forgive him. He is more likely to face a bullet in the head than the day in court he says he wants.But his story is evocative of his country as it struggles to leave the demons behind and look to a future of prosperity and peace.

 'The most evil man in the world' http://bit.ly/ep8R4E

06 December 2013

Feminists fume about euphoric properties of semen

I was originally intrigued by this story as just another confirmation of God’s good, all natural plan for human sexuality and procreation. That liberal feminists were angry about the study’s findings came as no surprise.
But then I stepped back. Really? Can nothing good come from a man, literally?

This debacle, which involves attempting to destroy a brilliant surgeon’s career without blinking, further exposes the incestuous and harmful relationship between the homosexual and population control ideologies.

The other side is all green, natural, organic, and environmentally friendly until it comes to sex. Then, they censor information if it elevates natural heterosexual sexual relations over homosexual and unnatural (contracepted) sexual relations.

The story goes that renowned surgeon Dr. Lazar Greenfield, inventor of the Greenfield Filter (which traps blood clots), wrote a piece in the February issue of Surgery News touting the positive properties of semen. According to the Huffington Post on April 25:
Dr. Greenfield noted the therapeutic effects of semen, citing research from the Archives of Sexual Behavior which found that female college students practicing unprotected sex were less likely to suffer from depression than those whose partners used condoms (as well as those who remained abstinent).
Presumably it was the closing line that caused the controversy: “So there’s a deeper bond between men and women than St. Valentine would have suspected, and now we know there’s a better gift for that day than chocolates.”
The attempt at Jackie Mason-humor apparently didn’t sit well in certain quarters. Dr. Greenfield resigned as editor of the Surgery News and gave up his stewardship of ACS after learning that his article had spurred threats of protests from outside women’s groups….
Dr. Greenfield explained
The editorial was a review of what I thought was some fascinating new findings related to semen, and the way in which nature is trying to promote a stronger bond between men and women. It impressed me. It seemed as though it was a gift from nature. And so that was the reason for my lighthearted comments.
Greenfield’s column has been retracted and scrubbed but can still be read here. I’m guessing his comparison of menstrual synchronization between lesbian and heterero cohabitators, in which he found the former wanting, also hurt him.
The study Greenfield cited found, according to Scientific American:
In fact, semen has a very complicated chemical profile, containing over 50 different compounds (including hormones, neurotransmitters, endorphins and immunosupressants) each with a special function and occurring in different concentrations within the seminal plasma.
Perhaps the most striking of these compounds is the bundle of mood-enhancing chemicals in semen. There is good in this goo. Such anxiolytic chemicals include, but are by no means limited to, cortisol (known to increase affection), estrone (which elevates mood), prolactin (a natural antidepressant), oxytocin (also elevates mood), thyrotropin-releasing hormone (another antidepressant), melatonin (a sleep-inducing agent) and even serotonin (perhaps the most well-known antidepressant neurotransmitter)….
The most significant findings from this 2002 study… were these: even after adjusting for frequency of sexual intercourse, women who engaged in sex and “never” used condoms showed significantly fewer depressive symptoms than did those who “usually” or “always” used condoms.
Add to that, according to the same article:
Now, medical professionals have known for a very long time that the vagina is an ideal route for drug delivery. The reason for this is that the vagina is surrounded by an impressive vascular network. Arteries, blood vessels, and lymphatic vessels abound, and – unlike some other routes of drug administration – chemicals that are absorbed through the vaginal walls have an almost direct line to the body’s peripheral circulation system.
There’s much more information on semen than I have no time for here. But sticking to the topic of its properties, which include female hormones that may stimulate ovulation, here is fascinating information from the study’s authors:
The primary putative mind-altering ingredients in semen:
Luteinizing hormone: astounding concentration in semen; linked to high sperm count and motility. Absorption into female bloodstream may facilitate or even induce ovulation.
Prolactin: influences maternal behavior, oxytocin secretion; mediates bonding
Estrone and estradiol: assists in recipient’s absorption of other compounds such as progesterone; may boost woman’s sexual motivation and mood
Testosterone: may increase sex drive and motivation; the more intercourse, the higher the testosterone levels in women, and the stronger the sexual desire. More than half the amount of testosterone in sperm has been found to be absorbed by the vagina.
Cytokines: these are the “warriors,” they suppress immune reaction to semen invading the vagina and cervix and therefore increase likelihood of pregnancy
Enkephalins: these opioids may contribute to orgasmic experience. They may decrease anxiety and cause drowsiness after sex. There’s also speculation that they assist in immune function and “reinforcing effects” — making a woman come back for more, i.e. addiction (although the absorption rate in female bloodstream is unknown)
Oxytocin: assists in stimulation of ovulation, increases production of other hormones, initiates bonding, facilitates orgasmic contractions; may strengthen bonding and make sexual activity more rewarding
Placental proteins, including human chorionic gonadotrophin (hcg) and human placental lactogen: associated with sperm motility; may increase chances of pregnancy
Relaxin: made in the prostate, this hormone may facilitate fertilization, implantation, and uterine growth. The role of relaxin suggests that women should keep having a lot of sex during pregnancy because sperm has pregnancy-maintaining properties. Relaxin also facilitates implantation and prevents preterm labor.
Thyrotropin-releasing hormones: potential anti-depressive; works by stimulating the release of thyroid-stimulating hormone, which in turn triggers hormone production in the mood-mediating thyroid gland. In pill form, it’s used to treat PMS and depression.
Serotonin: increases sperm motility. It also mediates mood, although not much known yet about vaginal absorption. Even if it doesn’t make it to the brain, it may indirectly alter behavior and emotions by contributing the building blocks of serotonin
Melatonin: increases effects of steroid hormones; induces sleepiness and fatigue, which may help the woman relax after sex; may stimulate reproductive function, also mood mediator; low melatonin levels are associated with depression and “reality disturbance”
Tyrosine: a precursor of neurotransmitters such as dopamine, the hormone of reward and addiction, and norepinephrine, involved in attention and arousal
Oh, and there’s also sperm in there, the DNA-bearing courier. Sperm is less than 3% the total volume of semen. But as it turns out, the bath water is nearly as important as the baby.
This is all such interesting, helpful information, right? No. Greenfield’s playful Valentine’s Day column spotlighting the study’s findings was greeted by such outrage from feminist groups that, along with his other punishments, Greenfield was forced to resign as president of the American College of Surgeons on the day he was to assume the position, which they threatened to protest.

You see, lesbians hate the thought of better sex between heteros. Gays hate the thought of natural unnatural sex (condomless anal sex) spreading HIV. Obviously, population control pushers stand to lose ground if couples switch to natural family planning, as does the contraceptive industry.
In fact, the only industry standing to gain ground from this information is the abortion industry.

30 November 2013

Charles Johnson in Munich,1936

20 November 2013

The Talmud – The Shame of Jewish People


In an effort to speak the truth about certain matters I will begin with my people; the Jews. I am of Jewish descent  and I am supportive of many of the ideas, beliefs and customs of Jews. There are however some things that are simply an embarrassment to me and should be an embarrassment to all Jewish people.

14 November 2013

Why isn’t the world recognizing the Holodomor as an act of genocide?


By Oleksandr Kramarenko 

This article was prompted by Minister of Foreign Affairs Borys Tarasiuk’s recent appeal to the international community to recognize the Holodomor of 1932-1933 in Ukraine as an act of genocide. As with his previous appeals, the world did not react to this one. I think that Mr. Tarasiuk, who is an experienced diplomat, was not counting on the success of that hopeless endeavor, just as he had not expected that last year’s appeals to step up Ukraine’s integration into NATO would have any positive effect.

Vivid proof of the unpreparednesss of the minister’s measures is the fact that our own Verkhovna Rada still has not recognized the Holodomor as an act of genocide. So, it was no surprise that in response to some Ukrainian parliamentarians’ appeal to the Israeli Knesset to recognize the Holodomor as an act of genocide, the Israeli parliament said it did not know anything about this genocide. This happened when Kyiv was marking the 65th anniversary of the Babyn Yar tragedy, so our MPs must have expected the Jews, moved as they were by the hospitality of the Ukrainian establishment during the ceremonies, to reciprocate.

I think that those gentlemen from the Verkhovna Rada not only have a rather vague idea about the Holodomor, they also failed to closely follow the events in Babyn Yar. They must have missed the speech delivered by Viacheslav Kantor, the leader of the Jewish communities in Russia, who angrily rejected all attempts to identify the Holodomor with the Holocaust because, in his opinion, the famine of 1932-1993 was not genocidal and that many peoples of the former USSR had also suffered.

We have heard statements like this before, haven’t we? Another possibility is that Kantor, as a representative of such a democratic country as Russia, simply had no choice. Yet his sharp condemnation of Ukrainians who had allegedly massacred Jews in Babyn Yar is evidence that he was voicing his own view.

Miracles do not happen in this world. The world will never recognize an act of genocide that is not perceived as such by the absolute majority of the people who suffered as a result of it. The question does not concern just the Verkhovna Rada’s procrastination (despite the fact that the parliamentarians are elected by those very people). Kantor’s speech in Kyiv must have been heard by our entire political leadership, including the president, by people who are supposed to be at the head of the movement to recognize the Holodomor as an act of genocide. Yet we have not heard a single response to the Moscow guest’s insolent statement. 

You must agree that against this background Ivan Dziuba’s speech during the ceremony (published in The Day) was like Don Quixote fighting windmills. [See below Невсипуща пересторога людству: Голодомор, Геноцид і Голокост]

At the same time, there is an essential methodological error in statements made by Tarasiuk and other politicians concerning the recognition of the Holodomor as an act of genocide. They all demand recognition of genocide with regard to Ukrainians in Ukraine, whereas this tragedy affected all Ukrainians who lived in the USSR at the time, Moreover, the consequences of that genocide were even more horrifying for Ukrainians who lived outside Ukraine.

When the Russian opponents of the Ukrainian genocide declare today that the famine took place not just in Ukraine but also in certain regions of Russia (the central Chernozem area, the North Caucasus, Central Volga region) and Kazakhstan, the Ukrainian side has no counterevidence. 

The impression is that our leaders either lack information about the Holodomor or are simply afraid to cross the Rubicon in their relations with the “elder brother” because he may react unfavorably.
Be that as it may, one could respond to the Russians in different ways, for example, by quoting Lenin’s right-hand man, Leon Trotsky, who can hardly be described as a Ukrainophile: “Nowhere else did repressions, purges, suppressions, and all other kinds of bureaucratic hooliganism in general acquire such a horrifying scope as in Ukraine, in the struggle against powerful forces concealed in the Ukrainian masses that desired more freedom and independence.”

True, this is an opinion voiced by a person who held a grudge against Stalin, but one can introduce more objective evidence of the Ukrainian genocide. Let us consider statistics-Soviet statistics, of course, but this very fact is what makes them more eloquent. The 1926 census points to 81,195,000 Ukrainians in the USSR, roughly the same number as the Russian population in this period. In 1939 the Soviet population showed an overall increment. There were considerably more Russians, but almost three times fewer Ukrainians: 28.1 million.

Even if we take the Holodomor death toll according to the maximum research figures (14 million victims), a big question remains. What happened to the other 39,095,000 Ukrainians? There were no world or civil wars in the Soviet empire between 1926 and 1939, and it was practically impossible to emigrate from the USSR.

It is impossible to answer this question immediately. No matter how you try, you have to begin looking for an answer from a distance. I will start by quoting Andrei Sakharov, the world-renowned Russian intellectual: “A large country was under communist control. Most of the population was hostile to the system. Representatives of the national culture and even a considerable part of the communists accepted Moscow’s rule only conditionally. 

From the party’s point of view, this was bad enough, but also because it represented a great danger for the regime in the future.” The great scientist said this precisely in regard to those 81,195,000 Ukrainians (as a humanist, Sakharov was hardly likely to regard Ukraine as only the territory determined by the Bolsheviks) of the 1920s, who, much to the chagrin of Comrade Stalin and his milieu, had no problems with national consciousness.

At the time the Russian Bolsheviks had to carry out Ukrainization in all ethnic Ukrainian lands. They were able to conquer Ukraine during the Civil War only on the third try. They succeeded only because none other than Ulyanov-Lenin, the evil genius of Bolshevism, realized in a timely fashion the mistakes of his chauvinistic policy and granted Ukrainians throughout the whole empire (not only the Ukrainian SSR) linguistic and cultural autonomy that would exist until the early 1930s.
Hence, there were more than 80 million people who were anything but Soviet, and on whom, strange as it may seem, the future of the Soviet empire depended, with its collectivization and industrialization campaigns, owing to the industrial and agricultural potential of the territories they inhabited. 

To understand this geopolitical discrepancy better, here is what V. Ovsiienko, a human rights champion from Kharkiv, has to say on the subject: “Ukrainians as an ethnos, with their profound religiosity, individualism, tradition of private property, and devotion to their plots of land, were not suited to the construction of communism, and this fact was noted by high-ranking Soviet officials. Ukraine had to be erased from the face of the earth, with the remainder of the Ukrainian people serving as material for a ‘new historical community,’ the Soviet people, the bulk of which were Russians and the Russian language and culture. Ukrainians as such could not enter communism in principle.”

But that is not all. Toward the end of the 1920s the Red Army did not have enough tanks, aircraft, and artillery for this materiel to play a decisive role in combat. In these conditions human resources and their combat experience counted for more, and cavalry was the main factor of success in battles.

All this was in the hands of the Ukrainians, who then occupied a large swathe of territory (300-400 km north of the Black Sea and over 1,500 km from the Zbruch River to the Terek. There were still Ukrainian veterans who had fought in elite tsarist units during the First World War. 

There were practically as many of them as the entire mobilization resource of the Red Army. During the New Economic Policy (NEP) almost every Ukrainian family had horses. There were also the Kuban and Terek Cossacks. At the time ethnic Ukrainians made up 83 percent of the Kuban population; 75 percent together with Stavropole; and 64 percent in the Russian part of Slobidska Ukraine (Kursk, Voronezh, and Belgorod oblasts). The Don area, part of this Ukrainian danger zone for the empire, would hardly have supported the Reds after the repressions against the White Cossacks.

Moreover, various kinds of otamans who terrorized Bolshevik grain delivery detachments would not lay down their arms until 1929, so in the event of an all-Ukraine uprising they would serve as battle-hardened field officers. All that such an uprising was missing was an organizer of the caliber of Symon Petliura. Such a personality could have emerged from among the nationally conscious Ukrainian communists or national intelligentsia, as some of these intellectuals had a classical military education.

That was why Stalin and his henchmen annihilated the Ukrainian intelligentsia and nationally conscious party members, dekulakized all potential leaders of a possible Ukrainian uprising under the guise of collectivization, and killed half the Ukrainian peasantry by famine. The other half suffered moral and psychological damage during the Holodomor, which has not healed to this day. This assumption is confirmed by the fact that there was no Holodomor in compact Ukrainian settlements in the Far East. They had the same mentality that was unacceptable to the regime, but they were safely isolated from the Ukrainian danger zone in the southwestern part of the empire by vast distances and means of communication of those days.

Of course, the Cossack population of the Kuban and Stavropole suffered the worst during that Bolshevik genocide. Those people were better organized in military terms and, naturally, fought the Red terror with all their might. Also, the Cossacks were forcefully Russified by a resolution of the CC AUCP (B) and the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR of Dec. 14, 1932.

The level of national consciousness of the Kuban people is attested by the fact that, starving as they were, they rebelled against the campaign of Russification, but were crushed by GPU troops. The Bolsheviks shot and sent to concentration camps a total of 200,000 Ukrainians. All 17,000 residents of the Cossack village (stanytsia) of Poltavska were deported. The stanytsia was then renamed Krasnoarmeiskaia and resettled with Russians.

However, famine is one thing, but the Holodomor is another. The latter’s peak dates to the second half of 1933. After that even the proud Cossacks turned into miserable people without family or clan. Thus, when they and other Ukrainians living outside the Ukrainian SSR were invited to register themselves as Russians during the 1939 census, they did not object.

Moreover, after the Holodomor a number of Kuban Ukrainians and those in the Russian part of Slobidska Ukraine, after realizing why they had been killed, voluntarily Russified their surnames. That is how we now have Garbuzov instead of Harbuz, Matvienkov instead of Matviienko, Zozulin instead of Zozulia, Primakov instead of Pryimak, Chepurnov instead of Chepurny.

Ask some of your friends with such distorted surnames whether their grandparents and great-grandparents were Russian. In most cases they will reply in the negative. Ask them why they consider themselves Russian, and you will hear something like, Kakaia raznitsa? (What difference does it make?). So here are your answers to the questions of what happened to the majority of Ukrainians after the Holodomor in the USSR; why the population of the Kuban has a low percentage of Ukrainians, what was that famine in the North Caucasus and Central Chernozem region, and how this genocide, unprecedented in the history of mankind, destroyed national consciousness.

The Stalinist totalitarian regime tried hard to ensure that everyone kept silent about the Holodomor, even people who had survived it, as well as their children and grandchildren; so that no one knew about this genocide abroad, and if they found out about it, they would keep silent. This is precisely what the Nazi regime did to conceal its genocide of the Jews from the international community. Sad but true, the international community pretended not to notice what was happening in both cases. Nazi Germany was defeated by that community, and the bankrupt communist regime in the USSR was transformed into an oligarchic regime, as instructed by its leaders, doing so painlessly, primarily for those leaders.

That was why there was a Nuremberg for fascism but no Nuremberg for communism. That is what the whole world knows about the Holocaust, while even most of those whose relatives died a most horrible death by starvation know nothing about the Holodomor.

I have visited villages in Luhansk oblast alone and as a member of a group of representatives of the Association of Holodomor Researchers. This area is inhabited by Ukrainians and Russians (mostly Don Cossacks). In Russian villages old people were eager to talk about the famine of 1932-1933, and they mentioned fellow villagers who had not survived it. They were all buried in village cemeteries, in accordance with tradition, in separate graves. No one could remember a single case of cannibalism.

Ukrainian villages presented an altogether different picture. It was hard to find a person willing to talk about the famine, as most old men and women treated those who were asking questions with suspicion and distrust. Those who agreed to answer our questions talked about the Holodomor as a disaster and wept. None of them demanded justice for the murderers of their parents, grandparents, brothers, and sisters.

There are also stories about cannibalism. The main difference between Ukrainian and Russian villages was that elderly Ukrainians pointed to a place, usually near a graveyard, where several hundred fellow villagers who had starved to death lay buried. Crosses had been erected in some of these places only recently.

In Luhansk oblast the distance between Ukrainian and Russian villages is sometimes only several kilometers. I consider this vivid proof of the Bolshevik genocide against the Ukrainians. However, to prove this to the international community, I think our state must open all these common graves in the presence of law enforcement officials, historians, ethnographers, forensic medical experts, and especially foreign journalists. 

Only then will the world learn that in Ukrainian villages and at Soviet railroad stations (and nowhere else) half the Ukrainian population died in 1933 alone (in some cases whole villages died). In fact, every Ukrainian village, except in western Ukraine, has its small Bykivnia.

The state must implement such measures on a daily basis and for many a year. Those who say that the famine encompassed all of the USSR at the time are right, of course. Yet, unlike the Holodomor, the peoples of the USSR survived that famine without such horrible losses. Only Ukrainians have such horrifying common graves that must be shown to the world. The presence of historians and ethnographers will be required in case Russia also wishes to show such graves in its “Russian” villages in the Chernozem region and in Cossack villages in the Kuban and Stavropole.

When all this happens, the international community will have no more arguments to refute the Bolshevik genocide of the Ukrainians. Of course, there will be no Nuremberg (there is no one left to stand trial), there will be no compensations from Russia — we don’t need them anyway.
But perhaps the most important thing will happen; its historical memory will finally be restored to the Ukrainian nation, and after that it will understand many things and will not allow outsiders to treat it the way they are doing now. 

This is now understood by a handful of Ukrainians who already know the truth about the Holodomor.

Le Pen and Wilders forge plan to 'wreck' EU from within

Two of Europe's leading far-right populists struck a pact on Wednesdayto build a continental alliance to wreck the European parliament from within, and slay "the monster in Brussels".

Marine Le Pen, the leader of France's rightwing nationalist Front National, and Geert Wilders, the Dutch maverick anti-Islam campaigner, announced they were joining forces ahead of European parliament elections next year to seek to exploit the euroscepticism soaring across the EU after four years of austerity, and the financial and debt crisis.

Le Pen, who has predicted that the EU will collapse as did the Soviet Union, said the aim was to bypass Brussels and restore freedom to the nations and people of Europe.

The rise of populists on the right and the left, from Sweden to Greece, has worried the mainstream EU elites and is already shaping policy ahead of the May elections. At the top level of EU institutions in Brussels, there is talk of "populists, xenophobes, extremists, fascists" gaining around 30% of seats in the next parliament and using that platform to try to paralyse EU policy-making.

"This is a historical day. Today is the beginning of the liberation from the European elite, the monster in Brussels," declared Wilders after meeting Le Pen in the Dutch parliament in The Hague. "We want to decide how we control our borders, our money, our economy, our currency."

The aim of the electoral alliance appears to be to form a Trojan horse in Brussels and Strasbourg: a large parliamentary caucus dedicated to wrecking the very institution that the far-right has entered. To qualify for caucus status, the new group needs at least 25 MEPs from seven countries, which they will get easily on current poll projections, although it is not clear if they can yet muster seven national parties.

"We want to give freedom back to our people," said Le Pen. "Our old European nations are forced to ask the authorisation of Brussels in all circumstances, forced to submit their budget to the headmistress."

Both politicians are currently riding high in the polls in their own countries. A poll last month in France put the Front National at 24% ahead of the governing Socialists and the mainstream conservatives. Wilders' Freedom party, while suffering setbacks in elections last year, is currently leading in Dutch opinion polls.

Eurosceptic parties or those actively committed to wrecking the EU and to ditching the single currency are also expected to do well in Greece, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Poland and elsewhere in eastern Europe, while Nigel Farage's UK Independence party is being tipped as a possible winner of European elections in Britain.

"As a result of the economic fallout from the eurozone debt crisis, populist parties on both right and left have seen and will likely realise a significant surge in their popularity," said analysts at the Eurasia Group. "The crisis has provided populist and nationalist parties with an excellent opportunity to clean up and modernise their rhetoric. Political parties hitherto thought of as 'nasty' or 'racist' can no longer be considered so."

The pact sealed in The Hague is a big boost for Le Pen who is successfully developing a more moderate image distanced from the overt antisemitism of her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, and for her campaign to form a broader "European Alliance for Freedom" on the nationalist right.

The effort to pool policies and campaigns has foundered in the past because the various nationalists invariably find enemies in other nations and because far-right parties tend to be dominated by leaders enjoying a cult of personality.

The aim of the Franco-Dutch alliance is to bring in Sweden's Democrats, also rising in the polls, the anti-immigration Danish People's party, Austria's Freedom party of Heinz-Christian Strache, which took more than 20% in recent national elections, and the rightwing Flemish separatists of Vlaams Belang.

By forming a new caucus in the European parliament, the group would gain access to funding, committee seats and chairs, and much more prominent chamber speaking rights. Farage, leading a caucus of 33 MEPs, has exploited the opportunity deftly to raise his European and national profile.
Wilders said they wanted UKIP to join, but Farage has said he will not collaborate with Le Pen because of the Front National's reputation for antisemitism.

There are also several major policy differences that Wilders and Le Pen appeared to be burying on Wednesday which are likely to resurface. Coming from the Dutch libertarian tradition, Wilders is strongly pro-Israel, pro-gay, pro-women's rights. The Front National is seen as homophobic, anti-gay marriage, and no friend of Israel.

The two big policy areas they have in common are anti-immigration and anti-EU. They have ruled out collaborating with more overtly fascistic parties such as Golden Dawn in Greece and Jobbik in Hungary.

The attempt at a concerted campaign comes as support for the EU is haemmorhaging across Europe.
Gallup Europe, following polling in September, found that only 30% viewed the EU positively compared to 70% 20 years ago, and concluded that "the European project has never in its history been as unpopular".

Even in traditionally pro-EU countries, such as Germany, support is atrophying. It remained high among older people but the 25-50 age group was split 50-50 between EU supporters and opponents. Across the EU, eurosceptics outnumbered EU-supporters by 43-40%.

A new study by Mark Leonard and Jose Ignacio Torreblanca for the European Council on Foreign Relations identified five "cleavages feeding centrifugal tendencies in the EU".

The European elections "will be held against a background of economic crisis and loss of confidence in Europe as a political project," the authors found, pointing to the possibility of a "Tea party-like scenario" in which eurosceptic parties capture a large quota of the seats, turn the institution into a "self-hating parliament" which is then "effectively prevented from acting".

12 November 2013

Another Word for “Holocaust”

He told us we would work at night, feeding the horses linseed cakes mixed with chopped straw. He said we should do this when people are asleep, because if they were awake, they would eat the horses’ fodder. We said, “How can we do that? People are more important than horses.” And he said, “We need the horses to cart the corpses away.” (oral testimony of Fedir Wereteno)

The Soviets criminalized any mention of the famine and continued to officially deny its very existence until the 1980s, enabled all the while by the slavish gullibility of Western-press useful idiots such as The New York Times and The Nation. The most egregious offender and serial denier was Walter Duranty of the Times, who dismissed rumors of a Ukrainian famine as “mostly bunk” and pecked out this notorious line:

Conditions are bad, but there is no famine….But—to put it brutally—you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.

Well, and I guess you can’t mention Holocausts without mentioning Jews, either.

Yes, “Jews.” Put down your sandwiches and get ready to type, ye faceless keyboard warriors of the Taki commentariat!

Whether or not one views communism as a “Jewish ideology,” it’s undeniable that there was a drastic statistical overrepresentation of Jews in Russian Bolshevism, particularly in the NKVD police forces. Soviet Jews such as Lazar Kaganovich and Genrikh Yagoda are often fingered as the gleeful masterminds behind the murders of millions of Eastern European Christians. Is it possible they felt justified in striking back against centuries of pogroms and persecution? Ironically, Jewish Bolsheviks may have taught the Nazis a thing or two about the quarantining and mass murder of political, religious, and ethnic enemies.

Should it be a bloody thought crime to wonder whether beneath the surface ideologies of Russian Bolshevism and German National Socialism lurked a far more primal and utterly amoral ethnic power struggle between Europe’s Jewish and non-Jewish elites? Wouldn’t that be a far more reasonable and nuanced approach than the simplistic fairy tale of innate German evil versus compassionate Soviet heroism? Don’t loaded terms such as “anti-Semitism” imply a superhuman Jewish capacity to do no wrong? After all, the Russians won World War II—and, despite what Hollywood tells you, so did the Jews—and the winners always reserve the right to declare themselves the good guys rather than the more naked truth, which is that they were obviously the better killers. Or is all this simply too complex for the tribally wired human brain to grasp, and everyone should just shut up and pick sides?

To this day, you have hunchbacked dust mites such as Abe Foxman lecturing Ukrainian politicians not to draw false equivalencies between his people’s suffering and theirs. And thus the eternal status game of genocidal dick-sizing continues unhampered.

People can argue death tolls and intent and whether it’s nobler to kill people over class and ideological trifles than over ethnic competition, but one message emerges clearly from this blood-misted morass of death, misery, and denial:

The Ukrainians definitely need a better PR team.

Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki's Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don't get paid for their work. Email editors@takimag.com to buy additional rights. 

04 November 2013

Has equality destroyed your sex life?

By Linda Kelsey

A controversial book claims feminism and the rise of ‘new men’ have killed off women's libidos...

Corporate lawyer Amy, 38, goes to work in killer heels and a pencil skirt, commands a mega-salary and has a team of assistants at her beck and call.

‘At work, I’m always the one in control and I admit that I like it that way. It’s exciting and it’s sexy being an Alpha woman,’ she says.

But when it comes to her partner Max, who is also a lawyer, albeit with a less high-profile job, she often finds herself feeling confused about who calls the shots — especially when it comes to sex. ‘When I get home, I no longer want to be the power broker, the one who’s always in charge and in control. I need to be wooed and 

seduced, and to feel that Max has power over me,’ she says. 

‘Sometimes he fulfils the role, but sometimes he doesn’t and I feel disappointed. It does make me wonder why I’m reluctant to take the initiative in bed when I’m confident and in charge at work.’

Amy’s desire to be dominated in the bedroom certainly appears to be at odds with her behaviour at work, but does it follow that if you’re adept at giving orders in the office, you’ll want to bark orders between the sheets as well?

According to the authors of an explosive new book, A Billion Wicked Thoughts: What The World’s Largest Experiment Reveals About Human Desire, the answer is a resounding ‘No’.Using the internet, neuroscientists Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam analysed half a billion sexual fantasies, preferences and practices, then correlated their findings with animal behaviour studies and the latest findings in neuroscience, to come to the very non-PC conclusion that when it comes to sex, women are wired to find sexual submission arousing.

And that gender equality, far from liberating women sexually, actually inhibits desire.

‘If you feel compelled to approach sex with the same gender attitudes as the working world, it’s going to be difficult to be aroused,’ says Ogas.

Feminism, to put it as bluntly as these two do, is bad for sex, and is the prime reason why increasing numbers of women are seeking help for problems associated with low libido.

Nearly half a century on from the start of the Swinging Sixties and the birth of modern feminism, these pronouncements come close to heresy. But do these well-qualified scientists have a point worth paying attention to?

According to Ogas and Gaddam, we can learn some important lessons about female sexual behaviour from observing rats in the laboratory.

They insist that if you put a male and female rat in close proximity to one another, the female will start to come on to the male, performing actions associated with sexual interest — running and then stopping to encourage the male to chase her.

But after a bit of kiss-chase, the female rat stands still, adopting a submissive stance until the male takes action. They also claim that almost every quality of dominant males — from the way they smell to the way they walk and their deep voice — triggers arousal in the female brain, while ‘weaker’ men, who are not taller, have higher voices or lower incomes, excite us less.

What they seem to be suggesting is that the cavemen were right all along and that what women really want is to be dragged by the hair, all the while feigning reluctance, by macho men waving clubs.

When I put this proposition to my friend Katie, 42, who runs a successful event planning business and is married to Geoff (who gave up a job with the police force that he hated and is doing a stint as house-husband, looking after their sons, aged three and six), she blushed with embarrassment.

‘It seems so disloyal to admit this because Geoff is so lovely in every way. He’s brilliant with the children, he does all the shopping and cooking, but the truth is I’m just not turned on any more,’ she says.

‘He knows how tired I am at the end of the day, and though he’s just being considerate, instead of asking me if I’m in the mood for sex, I long for him to be a bit masterful and say: “I want you. And I want you now.”

‘On the few occasions when we do make love, the only way I can get excited is by having a lurid fantasy about being taken by force by a man in uniform.’

Psychotherapist and author Phillip Hodson thinks Katie’s response is not as strange as it appears.

‘In her rational, conscious mind, a woman might tell herself she has worked hard and fought for independence, and no man is going to tell her what to do in or out of bed,’ he says.

‘But she may have been raised with different expectations of the male role, and find it difficult to express herself sexually and emotionally with a man who earns far less than her or who is sexually less confident.’

As further evidence for their theory, Ogas and Gaddam cite the continuing popularity of erotic fiction. Certainly, if you were to judge by the still booming sales of Mills & Boon novels you would find it difficult to disagree.

Three million books a year are sold in Britain alone by these purveyors of not-too-naughty erotica. For best-selling novelist Jilly Cooper, this is no surprise.

‘Men are so beaten into submission these days. They’re so weak and worried and confused that one simply has to reach into romance novels to find a proper hero,’ she says.

Ogas and Gaddam’s findings have hit a nerve, but they don’t take account of all the reasons a woman might suffer loss of libido — from tiredness to financial worries or constant rows.

As for female sexual fantasies, the counsellor and psychologist Linda Young offers a word of caution.

‘The kind of guy that stars in a woman’s sexual fantasy is not necessarily the same one who shares her values or shares parenting,’ she says. ‘And, yes, women - including feminists — are often aroused by “bad boys”. But to say feminism is causing loss of desire is misleading.

'Feminism is about social, economic and political equity, and is independent of what turns someone on in a bedroom or a fantasy.’

There is plenty of evidence to counter the claims made by Ogas and Gaddam. One major study, involving 27,500 people conducted in 29 countries by the University of Chicago, showed that men and women aged 40-plus reported less satisfaction with the quality of their sex lives in countries where men have a dominant status over women, such as the Middle East.

In relationships based on equality, couples reported sexual lives more in keeping with both partners’ wishes.

This certainly holds true for Bill and Dana, in their 50s and married for the second time. ‘In my first marriage I was the little wife, bringing up the children, doing the housework and looking after my husband’s every need,’ says Dana.

‘He expected sex on demand, but took no interest in pleasing me.

‘When I went back to college as a mature student, I met Bill. We shared interests and eventually began an affair. For the first time I felt free to express myself sexually. Sometimes he’s in charge; sometimes I am. Sometimes it’s wild, sometimes it’s gentle. But always there’s a sense of mutuality. ’

This is a view echoed by Phillip Hodson: ‘There is no reason why each of you can’t be sometimes dominant, sometimes neutral, sometimes submissive. What makes for successful long-term sexual relationships is that you can surprise and delight one another.’

Women are still coming to terms with the incredible pace of change in their lives over the past half-century. To admit to sometimes having fantasies of submission is nothing to be ashamed of. Even if you’re a feminist. It’s all part of desire’s rich tapestry. And there’s nothing remotely wicked about that.


Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More