Shlimazls and
Priestesses
By Israel
Shamir
Men do fight and die for
fair women: Sir Lancelot over Queen Guinevere, Tristan over
Isolde came to grief but satisfied their passion. Others died in
the attempt, they were sung about or bewailed. But a guy who
dies for pussy he is not going to get anyway - deserves
derision. Heinrich Heine, that ironic genius, used to call such
a fall guy “Schlemihl;” or Shlomiel in modern Hebrew, Schlimazl
in Yiddish. The original Shlomiel was killed by mistake in a
fight for a pretty Moabite girl (Num. 25:6), and since then his
name has become the synecdoche for a sucker who never had a
chance. There is no honour in such a death: if an Israeli man is
afraid of anything, it is of being played for a sucker.

The handsome American
soldier, Pat Tillman, who was killed in Afghanistan and
lamented by his brother (picture left), died like a sucker
for an Afghani woman who never asked his help. He was not alone:
many Americans,
Brits and thousands of Afghanis were killed in order to free
The Afghan Woman from her hijab, or chador, or burka, or bra.
Forget 9/11: without the sustained campaign to “liberate Afghani
woman”, thousands of Afghani women wouldn’t be widows today. It
is easy to blame the Afghani war on oil companies, on Pat
Robertson and his Evangelists, on Richard
Pearle and his Zionists. But let us give some well deserved
credit to liberal feminists and PC-enforcers. The
right-wing-Republicans may push for war as much as they want --
the troops will only march when the left-wing-Democrats
acquiesce. While the former take their orders from bankers and
businessmen, the latter are ruled by liberal feminists.
The first American bombs
hit Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, but
ten days earlier, on September 28, 2001, the nice
columnist Polly Toynbee of the nice British newspaper the
Guardian,
wrote:
“Something horrible flits across the background in scenes from
Afghanistan, scuttling out of sight. There it is, a brief blue
or black flash, a grotesque Scream 1, 2 and 3 personified - a
woman. The top-to-toe burka, with its sinister, airless little
grille, is more than an instrument of persecution, it is a
public tarring and feathering of female sexuality. It transforms
any woman into an object of defilement too untouchably
disgusting to be seen. It is a garment of lurid sexual
suggestiveness: what rampant desire and desirability lurks and
leers beneath its dark mysteries? In its objectifying of women,
it turns them into cowering creatures demanding and expecting
violence and victimisation. Forget cultural sensibilities.”
Exactly. Forget cultural
sensibilities – just bomb ’em. Whenever you see an Afghani
prisoner in the Guantanamo cage, whenever you see an Afghani
widow or orphan, picture a sign reading “Courtesy of Defenders
of Muslim Women’s Sexual Freedom: Polly Toynbee, Hilary
Clinton, et al.”. It was not their first victory; our friend
Ken Freeland wrote that “During the NATO war against Yugoslavia,
the feminists were concerned much more about whether women were
to be allowed in combat roles, then about the injustice of the
war.” I doubt the invasion of Afghanistan and its Iraqi
follow-up would have happened if these liberal feminists who
hold the high moral ground in the US, and their henpecked
American and British men, had not unleashed the dogs of war. (I
also believe that the honest ones among them came to regret
their unawareness of being manipulated.)
Why would I remind you now
of this great feminist exploit? Because now the priestesses are
off again after new victims. They are about to turn you into
suckers and Iranian and Israeli women into widows by making use
of the sordid affair of the Israeli president Moshe Katzav. The
full might of their propaganda machine works around the clock
berating the Russian President Putin for allegedly envying
Katzav who “raped 10 women”. Putin’s real crime was his
staunch refusal to support the Israeli-American plan of
sanctions and nuclear strikes on Iran; Israeli PM Ehud
Olmert went to Moscow to plead and came back without a single
encouraging word.
The Russian president is
under heavy pressure from the West. They want him to give
American and British companies the oil wells of Sakhalin, to
vote for sanctions in the Security Council, to blockade Iran and
North Korea. If he sticks to his guns and refuses, his name will
be besmirched. Recall the previous warning Putin received on his
birthday: Anna Politkovskaya, an anti-Putin and pro-Western
journalist, was assassinated in Moscow. Her influence in Russia
was as strong as mine in Israel -- that is, next to zero. Still,
Putin was framed and smeared as the killer.
John Laughland found that “all [mainstream] papers implied
that Mrs. Politkovskaya had been killed by allies of the Russian
President for reporting the truth about the war in Chechnya.”.
The Financial Times wrote: “In a broad sense, Mr. Putin
bears responsibility for creating, through the Kremlin's
long-standing assault on the independent media, an atmosphere in
which such killings can happen.” While The Washington Post
asserted that “it is quite possible, without performing any
detective work, to say what is ultimately responsible for these
deaths: It is the climate of brutality that has flourished under
Mr. Putin.”. Laughland correctly states that the leftist
Guardian joined forces with the rightist Daily Telegraph
to attack Putin over this assassination and he concludes:
“Politkovskaya's murder spells unambiguous benefits for the
West.”
This warning did not come as a bolt from the
blue. Earlier, Putin had been pushed by the provocative
behaviour of Georgia’s president Saakashvili to deport a few
hundred illegal Georgian immigrants – a few hundred out of the
half a million of Georgians residing in central Russia. This was
a far cry from the mass deportations of Mexicans or Haitians by
the US, but pro-Western media in Russia portrayed it as “racist
cleansing”.

"I am
a Georgian" kippa
A prominent Muscovite, an
Israeli/Russian citizen and a devout Zionist, Anton Nosik (his
company Sup.ru recently purchased the internet resource
LiveJournal, Russia’s largest at 600,000 users) even appeared in
a kippa embroidered with words “I am a Georgian” (he is not) and
described the deportation as Putin’s “Kristallnacht”.
Provocative art dealer Marat Guelman (whose gallery displayed
desecrated icons and a “photo collage” of Putin and Bin Laden)
claimed he was beaten because he exhibited Georgian art. His
cause was soon taken up by the
New York Times. In the November 4th, a rally of
nationalist forces is planned in Russia. There are persistent
reports that Western and Zionist agents are paying troublemakers
to create havoc.
This is the background to
the new attacks on Putin, now by the liberal feminists.
According to
their version, Putin said: “What
a mighty man [Katzav] turns out to be! He raped 10 women
- I would never have expected this from him. He surprised us all
- we all envy him!” This was supposedly overheard by a
Kommersant newspaper reporter.
(That paper is owned by the violently anti-Putin oligarch
Berezovsky.) Anna Shulik, a correspondent of Israeli Channel 9,
actually recorded and broadcasted a somewhat different version
of Putin's statement: “Regards to your president. He surprised
us all. We all envy him.” The key word rape, which turns
bonhomie into vulgarity, is just absent on the tape.
And this is not by
chance. There is no doubt,
neither in Mr Putin’s, nor in my mind, that Israeli President
Moshe Katzav, whatever the police are saying about him, raped
nobody in the plain meaning of the word. Indeed, Katzav
received the support of a strict Supreme Court judge and of
leading Rabbis, and (outside of the Israeli-Arab context) these
men are trustworthy. The Israeli president probably had one
affair too many with a willing Monica. While the American affair
almost caused the impeachment of Clinton, her Israeli sister
went for the jugular, after her demand of blackmail (“$200,000
is peanuts for you, sweetie…”) was rejected by the thrifty
Katzav.
Israeli law, like American
law, allows a woman to sue a man for rape even years later. This
is a far cry from the Biblical definition: a woman is raped if
she screamed her head off, and immediately rushed to report the
assault. If she went home and decided to complain in a few days,
or weeks, it is not rape. No scream, no immediate report, - no
rape, no indecent proposals, no sexual harassment, no nothing.
The Bible is right: without
this condition, every man without exception is hostage to a rape
accusation. Post-coital non-consent is not a joke, as another
Sephardi who came close to pinnacle of power, General Itzik
Mordechai, has learned. First, he was accused of rape; after he
debunked his accuser, the police found another woman supposedly
raped by the General five years previously, and his bid for PM
post was derailed.
“She fought him off
vigorously, scratched, cried that she will die before she
submits, but the chevalier paid no attention to her words and
took her. Afterwards, she smiled coyly and told him: “Do not
think, dear chevalier, that you won me against my will. Better
thank our good preacher who reminded me that we are mortal, and
a pleasure missed today is missed forever. Now we can proceed,
for I missed too many pleasures while being too prudent for my
own good”. This politically-incorrect fable by Anatole France
(Nobel prize, 1921) should be re-read by liberal feminists: do
not take from women their right to resist (and acquiesce) as
their modesty demands.
I am not amazed that the
attack on “Putin the rapist-admirer” was taken up by the
mainstream media. But even the extremely alternative
PrisonPlanet.com, as anti-zionist and anti-war as they come,
joined in on the free-for-all. They do not understand yet
what has been understood by antiwar.com and others: if you want
to avoid the war, Russia and China are our best bet. They are
neither populated nor led by angels, but they can stop Israel
and the US from nuking Iran.
Go easy on them, otherwise multitudes of
Iranians and Israelis will die like suckers – partly because
a little female secretary codenamed “A” changed her mind,
partly because two men spoke their minds, partly because of
the feminist domination in media, and after all, mostly
because of the Masters of Discourse and their marvellous
ability to achieve what they want by playing on our fears
and wishes.
However, the implications of Katzav
affair are extending much further than the career of an
Israeli politician. I do not give a fig who keeps the
glorious but impotent post of President. It is important to
heal the rift between men and women; because our physical
union is a wonderful thing and it parallels the
Annunciation, for it creates spirit and flesh. Kabbala
teachers insisted on union with one’s wife on Sabbath Eve,
as by this sympathetic magic the male and female aspects of
God can be induced to couple. The Sitra Ahra, the Evil One,
tries to interfere with the celestial mating by interfering
with the spiritual aspect of the man-woman relation, and the
easiest way is by sowing discord between man and woman. So
many of the measures promoted by liberal feminists bring
forth this discord.
After some well-publicised court cases of
“rape” and “sexual harassment” so many men – and especially
successful men - grew wary of women. Nowadays women have
competition provided by the homosexual community, and this
competition is winning ground. Young species are naturally
vague about their gender as tadpoles. Promotion of gay
equality in school may change their orientation. Moreover,
this search for equality brought forth a new bias: while no
landlord dares to refuse a gay tenant -- fearing opprobrium
and a lawsuit -- they easily do refuse families with
children. Gays have more disposable income, and less
responsibility.
I am not worried that human
multiplication will cease; but the Evil One should be
mightily pleased with the results: men and women have
drifted apart. In order to reverse this trend, it is
necessary to change the laws and eliminate the Damocles
sword of ‘rape’ and ‘harassment’. The very words should mean
what they meant to our grandparents, an offence so severe
that an offended woman will make it clear to the offender
and to the whole world right away. Ordinary women and men
are ripe for revolt against their feminist priestesses.
Recommended reading:
Who killed Anna
Politkovskaya?
By John Laughland
Oct/11/2006
In C. S. Lewis' science
fiction dystopia, That Hideous Strength, the secretive
organization which controls the state has its agents writing in
newspapers on all sides of the political spectrum, in order to
disguise its power with the appearance of plurality. In today's
West, by contrast, even the appearance of plurality seems to
have been discarded.
The murder on 7th October
of the Russian journalist, Anna Politkovskaya, was greeted with
the monolithic unanimity which has now become the hallmark of
the so-called free press in the West. The right-wing Daily
Telegraph devoted a leader to her murder on 9th October, the
first sentence of which was:
'People sometimes pay with
their lives for saying out loud what they think,' Anna
Politkovskaya said last year of Vladimir Putin's Russia.
The same day, the left-wing
Guardian also published a leader about her murder. Its first
sentence read:
'People sometimes pay with
their lives for saying out loud what they think,' Anna
Politkovskaya told a conference on press freedom last December.
The whole of the British,
American and West European press extolled Politkovskaya as 'one
of Russia's bravest and most brilliant journalists' (The
Guardian), 'one of the few voices that dared contradict the
party line' (The Daily Telegraph), 'a firebrand for freedom'
(The Independent), 'the most famous investigative journalist in
Russia' (The Times), 'one of the bravest journalists in Russia'
(The New York Times); 'a victim of rare courage' (The Washington
Post). All these quotes are from the leader articles which each
paper thought worth devoting to her death. In reality,
Politkovskaya was virtually unknown in Russia. The reaction of a
wealthy Russian businessman dining in Brussels on the night of
her murder was typical:
'Politkovskaya? Never heard
of her.'
Politkovskaya in this
respect resembles another murdered Russian-speaking journalist
with connections in the Caucasus, Georgiy Gongadze, the
Ukrainian citizen with a Georgian surname whose murder in 2000
was instrumentalized by the United States in an attempt to
implicate the then Ukrainian president, Leonid Kuchma.
Politkvskaya was not quite as obscure as Gongadze: he ran a mere
web site (although this meant that when he traveled to
Washington DC he was received by the Secretary of State,
Madeleine Albright) while the newspaper where she worked, Novaya
Gazeta, had a circulation of 250,000. Still, that is not much in
a country of nearly 150 million inhabitants and certainly not
enough to merit the exaggerated praise heaped posthumously upon
her.
The media in Britain and
America also competed with one another to lay the blame for the
murder squarely at President Putin's door. The Financial Times
announced that,
'In a broad sense, Mr.
Putin bears responsibility for creating, through the Kremlin's
long-standing assault on the independent media, an atmosphere in
which such killings can happen.'
The Washington Post
asserted pompously that,
'It is quite possible,
without performing any detective work, to say what is ultimately
responsible for these deaths: It is the climate of brutality
that has flourished under Mr. Putin.'
All papers implied that
Mrs. Politkovskaya had been killed by allies of the Russian
President for reporting the truth about the war in Chechnya.
According to them, Russia is a quasi-dictatorship in which the
government brooks no dissent, and they illustrated this by
referring back - albeit in strangely vague terms - to the number
of other journalists who have been victims of similar contract
killings.
It is here that we can put
our fingers firmly on the page and shout, 'Liars!' Some of these
articles contained glancing references to the last journalist to
have been killed in Moscow, the American editor of Forbes
magazine, Paul Klebnikov, but none of them bothered to add the
key rider that no one has ever suggested that the Russian
government had Klebnikov murdered. On the contrary:
whereas Politkovskaya was
an anti-Putin militant, Klebnikov was an anti-oligarch militant.
He wrote a brilliant book about Boris Berezovsky - one of the
most informative books about Russia's 'transition' in the 1990s,
in which he accused Berezovsky of murder and of being hand in
glove with Chechen drug lords and gangsters - and he published a
series of interviews with one of the Chechen separatist leaders,
which he undiplomatically entitled 'Conversations with a
barbarian'. He was rewarded for his efforts with a bullet in the
head. When he died, there were no paeans of praise for his
bravery or courage in the Western press, even though he was an
American, for Klebnikov had devoted his life to arguing that the
West's policy in Russia is based on an alliance with very
serious criminals, and that the 'businessmen' whom the West
champions as freedom fighters - Berezovsky has political asylum
in Britain - are in fact a bunch of ruthless murderers.
In contrast to both
Klebnikov and Politkovskaya, the one murdered Russian journalist
whom all Russians had heard of when he died - and whose name is
virtually unknown in the West - was Vlad Listyev.
When he fell under the
assassin's bullets on the night of 1st March 1995, Listyev was
Russia's most popular talk show host and one of the most trusted
people in the country - a genuine TV superstar. He had just
become director of Russia's main TV channel, ORT (now First
Channel). In spite of Listyev's immense fame, the Western media
never cited his murder as an example of the lawlessness or
intolerance of the then president, Boris Yeltsin, in the way
that they now attack Putin. This is doubtless because - to use
the charming euphemisms of Wikipedia - 'When Listyev put the
middlemen advertising agencies out of business, he deprived many
corrupt businessmen of a source for enormous profits.' In plain
English, this means that most Russians believe that Listyev was
murdered either by Boris Berezovsky - who took control of ORT
immediately after Listyev's murder, and in large measure because
of it - or by Vladimir Guzinski, a rival TV magnate who, like
Berezovsky, is a Yeltsin-era oligarch now in exile. The only
journalist from the West who did discuss openly whether the
contract to kill Listyev had come from Berezovsky, Guzinsky or
Berezovsky's ally, the advertising mogul, Sergei Lisovsky, was,
oddly enough, Paul Klebnikov.
Politkovskaya's colleagues
on Novaya Gazeta include notorious pro-American commentators
like the 'independent Moscow-based defense analyst,' Pavel
Felgenhauer, whose also works as a columnist for the Jamestown
Foundation: the Director of that body, Glen Howard, is Executive
Director of the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya, a
neo-con outfit which campaigns for a 'political settlement' with
the terrorists in that North Caucasus province of the Russian
federation. This may explain why you can find only one opinion
about Politkovskaya in the Western media. At the same time, by
contrast, there is a huge variety of opinions about her murder
in supposedly dictatorial Russia itself. The theories now
circulating in Moscow about Politkovskaya's murder include
(apart from the claim that the Russian government or the Chechen
authorities were responsible):
revenge by corrupt police
who found themselves wanted or in prison as a result of her
sensationalist journalism; a conspiracy by opponents of the
Russian president and the Chechen Prime Minister, Ramzan Kadyrov,
to discredit them; revenge by former Chechen militants; a murder
carried out by Russian nationalist opponents of Putin (her name
was on the death-lists of various neo-Nazi groups); a political
provocation designed to discredit the Chechen authorities or
trigger some movement in that troublesome province; or a
conspiracy by opponents of Russia from the former Soviet
Republic of Georgia with which Moscow is currently engaged in a
fierce diplomatic row. Take your pick - but the sheer variety of
points of view gives the lie to the claim that Politkovskaya was
fighting a monolithic media machine controlled by the
government.
Among the many points of
view expressed, few were pithier than this one from a
commentator for Lentacom.ru,
Politkovskaya's murder
spells unambiguous benefits for the West. The past month saw
massive unofficial clampdown on Russia. Take the attempts to
pull Ukraine into NATO. Take the alliance's "intensive dialogue"
with Georgia. Take Saakashvili's behavior the President of
Georgia, very humiliating for Russia, which has been certainly
agreed with the West. Theoretically, Politkovskaya's murder
diverts attention from Georgia and builds up western pressures
on Russia, something today's Georgia can only benefit from. Yet,
I believe that those who had ordered the crime are more global.
There is no immediate evidence somebody in the West issued
direct instructions. It is beyond doubt, though, that the West
is a direct beneficiary.
One does not have to
believe this conspiracy theory, or any of the others. But at
least if one is Russian, the consumer of news has a large number
of different points of view to consider, all of which are easily
accessible to the ordinary Russian by buying the newspaper or
looking at the Internet. In the West, by contrast, even the most
assiduous conspiracy theorist will have great difficulty finding
anything other than the party line that Mr. Putin did it. Now,
what does that tell you about the state of political and media
pluralism in the West?
|