Featured Video

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

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.

03 November 2013

Fake Jews and Communism

"The Jews welcome this revolution in the Christian world, and the Jews should show an example. It is not an accident that Judaism gave birth to Marxism, and it is not an accident that the Jews readily took up Marxism: all this was in perfect accord with the progress of Judaism and the Jews." (A Program for the Jews and Humanity, by Rabbi Harry Waton, p. 148).

"Use the courts, use the judges, use the constitution of the country, use its medical societies and its laws to further our ends. Do not stint in your labor in this direction. And when you have succeeded you will discover that you can now effect your own legislation at will and you can, by careful organization, by constant campaigns about the terrors of society, by pretense as to your effectiveness, make the capitalist himself, by his own appropriation, finance a large portion of the quiet Communist conquest of that nation." (Address of the Jew Laventria Beria, The Communist Textbook on Psychopolitics, page .

"There is much in the fact of Bolshevism itself. In the fact that so many Jews are Bolsheviks. In the fact that the ideals of Bolshevism are consonant with the finest ideals of Judaism." (The London Jewish Chronicle, April 4, 1919)

"Some call it Marxism -- I call it Judaism." (The American Bulletin, Rabbi S. Wise, May 5, 1935).

"The Bolshevik revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish brains, of Jewish dissatisfaction, of Jewish planning, whose goal is to create a new order in the world. What was performed in so excellent a way in Russia, thanks to Jewish brains, and because of Jewish dissatisfaction and by Jewish planning, shall also, through the same Jewish mental an physical forces, become a reality all over the world." (The American Hebrew, September 10, 1920)

Fake Jews and the Communist destruction of Russia: http://on.fb.me/1bPTVKx

02 November 2013

Did Zionists sacrificed Jews to the Holocaust?

The London-based Illuminati bankers wanted Jews to set up the State of Israel in order to colonize the Middle East. (Zionism was a "British" creation. The "British Empire" was a vehicle for Illuminati Jewish bankers. It is now morphing into the NWO. )

However European Jews wanted no part of Israel. The Illuminati created the Nazis partly to trauma brainwash Jews into supplanting the Palestinians. Zionists and Nazis were mirror images of each other. Both espoused racial purity.

In his book, Perfidy (1961) author Ben Hecht describes how the Nazis lacked the manpower to round up Jews and relied on the Zionists to do it. The Zionists betrayed their fellow Jews yet reaped the moral and political capital from the holocaust. The more Jews died, the stronger the moral case for Israel. This crucial information is not new, but they're trying to dump it down the memory hole. We need to be reminded.

According to the article below, Zionists bribed Eichmann which enabled him to escape to Argentina. They also saved the lives of other war criminals at Nuremberg.

An Excerpt from: How Britain's Biggest racists Created Zionism - by Mark Burdman
The Campaigner  Dec 1978 - Edited by henrymakow.com

The book Perfidy, written by playwright Ben Hecht in 1961, is the single most damning statement to date on the interchangeability of the British-Zionist cabal that ran Israel during its early years and the leadership of the Nazis.

In the book, Hecht presented extended excerpts from the famous 1953 Kastner trial, in which the pro- Nazi activities of Rudolf Kastner, left, head of a Hungarian branch of the so-called Jewish Agency Rescue Committee during World War II and later a spokesman for the Ministry of Trade and Industry in the new Israeli state, were brought to light in excruciating detail. In a trial that rocked Israel to its foundations, Kastner, one of the inner circle of the Zionist elite around Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion during the 1943-53 decade, was revealed to have been the main Zionist agent of the Nazi exterminators of Hungary's Jews.

Kastner, an Israeli court was shown, systematically deluded the leadership of Hungary's 800,000 Jews into believing that the Nazis were interested merely in mass relocation of the Jews, not mass murder. In return for this genocidal deception, Kastner was allowed to handpick a small Zionist elite of 388 Jews, mostly from his own family, to flee to Palestine.

Hecht's book detailed Kastner's collaboration with Heinrich Himmler, Adolf Eichmann, and others with such precision that his book was suppressed, censored, and removed from libraries. Hecht's wife, who after his death tried to get the book re-published, has been subjected to pressure and threats from the Zionist lobby in the U.S. Today, copies of Hecht's book are distributed virtually on a blackmarket basis.

Excerpts from Perfidy are printed below. We begin with Adolf Eichmann's testimonial to Kastner's activities, which Hecht quoted from "Eichmann's Confessions" published in the November 28 and December 5, 1960 editions of LIFE magazine.
In Hungary my basic orders were to ship all the Jews out of Hungary in as short a time as possible. . . . In obedience to Himmler's directive, I now concentrated on negotiations with the Jewish political officials in Budapest . . . among them Dr. Rudolf Kastner, authorized representative of the Zionist Movement. This Dr. Kastner was a young man about my age, an ice-cold lawyer and a fanatical Zionist. He agreed to help keep the Jews from resisting deportation -- and even keep order in the collection camps -- if I would close my eyes and let a few hundred or a few thousand young Jews emigrate illegally to Palestine. It was a good bargain. For keeping order in the camps, the price . . . was not too high for me ....

We trusted each other perfectly. When he was with me, Kastner smoked cigarets as though he were in a coffeehouse. While we talked he would smoke one aromatic cigaret after another, taking them from a silver case and lighting them with a silver lighter. With his great polish and reserve he would have made an ideal Gestapo officer himself.

Dr. Kastner's main concern was to make it possible for a select group of Hungarian Jews to emigrate to Israel. . . .As a matter of fact, there was a very strong similarity between our attitudes in the S.S. and the viewpoint of these immensely idealistic Zionist leaders . . . . I believe that Kastner would have sacrificed a thousand or a hundred thousand of his blood to achieve his political goal. . . . "You can have the others," he would say, "but let me have this group here." And because Kastner rendered us a great service by helping to keep the deportation camps peaceful, I would let his group escape. After all, I was not concerned with small groups of a thousand or so Jews. . . . That was the "gentleman's agreement" I had with the Jews.
A coexterminator of Eichmann's, S.S. Colonel von Wisliczeny, expanded on the nature of this Zionist-Nazi relationship.
Our system is to exterminate the Jews through the Jews. We concentrate the Jews in the ghettos -- through the Jews; we deport the Jews -- by the Jews; and we gas the Jews -- by the Jews. (p261)
Hecht develops these points more fully in the body of the text.

The Final Solution was decided on in Berlin in 1941 -- total extermination of all Jews before the German military defeat put an end to the opportunity.

The S.S. Colonels in Budapest had a knotty problem to solve in carrying out their end of the work speed-up. How to capture and deport eight hundred thousand Jews for killing in Auschwitz with only 130 S.S. as foremen? And only five thousand Hungarian gendarmes....

The only possible way of getting Hungary's Jews to Auschwitz on schedule was to keep them ignorant of their fate. Even more, to do everything possible to spread the delusion among them that the Germans in Horthy's Hungary were human folk with no murder in their eye.... (A quote from Eichmann years later):

"With Hungary we were particularly concerned. The Hungarian Jews had lived through the war relatively untouched by severe restrictions. We wanted Hungary combed with a tremendous thoroughness before the Jews could really wake up to our plan and organize partisan resistance." The S.S. launched their delusion offensive at a first get together with Hungary's leaders of Jewry.... With the Jewish leaders properly drugged, the Germans started the Jew round-up cautiously....

But the Germans smelled trouble ahead. Reports were coming in that Jewish groups were meeting in secret, trying to organize armed resistance. Other Doubting Thomases were escaping across the border to areas that offered haven for Jews. The exodus might grow.....

Enter here, an answer to the German problem -- Rudolf Kastner.... The Kastner personality is definitely a plus in Nazi eyes. It can be utilized. But more important than who Kastner is, is what he is. He is the representative of the Jewish Agency of Palestine, and a member of Ben-Gurion's Mapai Party.... He will continue the "Elite policy" of Weizmann (the policy enunciated by Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann in 1937 that Europe's Jews were "dust ... in a cruel world.... They must meet their fate.... Only a branch will survive. They must accept it." -- ed.) and, after some modest protests, will be satisfied with the rescue of a selected group of six hundred....

With Eichmann's approval, Dr. Kastner alters the original deal somewhat. Instead of picking Jews from any "outlying towns," he picks three hundred and eighty-eight Jews from Kluj (Kastner's home village --  ed.) alone. They are the "best," the most important members of Kluj Jewry -- mainly Zionists. [Possibly they are members of a closely knit cult of Sabbatean-Frankists. hm]

He includes also his own family.... Kastner knows the truth about the Final Solution, about the S.S. plan to deport all the eight hundred thousand Jews of Hungary to Auschwitz for cremation.... If Kastner breathes a word of this truth to a single condemned Jew in Kluj, the entire Final Solution will be wrecked. The twenty thousand Jews of Kluj will knock over their handful of guards and escape to Rumania, three miles away....

Kastner walks among the twenty thousand Jews in the town ... helps cool the trouble-makers down. He has the Zionist organization to help him. In Kluj, the Zionists are the leaders of Jewry.... Authority speaks. The wise tongues wag. The respected ones dazzle their twenty thousand listeners with their respectability. And the day is saved -- for authority. They will ride off to life, their twenty thousand listeners to  death...." (pp. 95-109)


Eichmann dressed Kastner up in a S.S. uniform and took him to Belsen to trace some of his friends. Nor did the sordid bargaining end there. Kastner paid Eichmann several thousand dollars. With this little fortune, Eichmann was able to buy his way to freedom when Germany collapsed, to set himself up in the Argentine.... (pp. 261-262)

Hecht also presented cogent evidence that the  Jewish Agency (the Israeli-state official governing body for Israel) and the Joint Distribution Committee systematically and willfully withheld information  from the world's press and governments about the mass extermination of Jews by Hitler; that affidavits written by Kastner immediately after the war were solely responsible for the acquittal by the Nuremberg Trials of such genocidal murderers as Kurt Becher; and that Kastner's activities were only a somewhat extreme variant of the hegemonic attitude of the Zionist leadership of David Ben-Gurion, Moshe Sharett, and others, whom Hecht frequently identifies as nothing more than British stooges.

After noting that the judge who was presiding over a libel case that Kastner had brought against a journalist who accused him of collaborating with the Nazis stressed that Kastner's wartime duties were "part and parcel of the general duties of the S.S.," Hecht documented the extreme political discomfort felt by the British-loving Ben-Gurion elite as a result of the Kastner expose and the failure of the libel trial. As the possibility mounted in 1950s Israel that Kastner would be put on trial himself for Nazi collaboration and that the whole Mapai group would be tarred with the same charge, Rudolf Kastner was suddenly assassinated -- by a young man who, Hecht noted, had been in the employ of Israeli intelligence just months before the assassination occurred.

Two additional anecdotes from Ben Hecht's Perfidy. One witness at the libel suit which Kastner brought against his accuser provided documents which proved that during the war the Allied powers refused to bomb the crematoria at Auschwitz even though nearby industrial and related installations were hit by bombing raids.

Tens of thousands of Jews, it could be surmised, would have escaped death if this operation had been carried out. Hecht concludes his book with an account of the Joel Brand case. Brand, a member of a Jewish Rescue Committee in Hungary, had arranged an exchange deal with Adolf Eichmann whereby Eichmann would deactivate plans for extermination of Hungary's Jews in return for several thousand trucks for, Germany. 

In full collaboration with British intelligence, Hecht points out, the Jewish Agency executive -- including David Ben-Gurion, Moshe Sharett, and Ehud Avriel -- had Brand arrested by the British in Syria when he came to the Middle East to plead his case for the deal. Brand was detained for four and a half months. Needless to say, the deal with Eichmann was sabotaged by this British-Zionist operation. Nearly a million Jews perished as a result.


Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More