Inna Shevchenko: Naked Breasts Are Political Weapons (Part II)

by Jonas E. Alexis

Inna Shevchenko, the leader of the Femen movement, is not an obscure individual in Europe and much of the Western world. She once bragged:

“I’m proud to say we brought the idea of feminism and women’s rights to a politically ignorant part of the world like Ukraine, Russia, Belarus. And I’m proud to say I think we brought feminism back on to the streets of Europe as well.”[1]

She continued to say elsewhere:

“Our goal is to occupy the world with Femen’s tactics of modern feminism, and we appear in countries when called upon by women to come there. We set up Femen branches when women say ‘we need Femen in my country’ and where some are ready to act as sextremists.”[2]

Shevchenko joined the movement when she was only nineteen years old. “Femen has transformed into a global movement led by Shevchenko and backed by 250 activists in nine countries. It now plans to open its first outpost in the United States.”[3]

Shevchenko, now twenty-five years old, got straight to the point when she said:

“We can do everything, and so Femen are kind of feminist al-Qaida if you want. We are feminist terrorists coming and showing how it is.”[4]

Feminist Bell Hooks, who said last year that Beyonce is “a terrorist…especially in terms of impact on young girls,”[5] would probably agree with Shevchenko here. Hooks added:

“Would we be at all interested in Beyonce if she wasn’t so rich? Because I don’t think you can separate her class power and wealth, from people’s fascination with her. That here is a young, black woman who is so incredibly wealthy, and wealthy is what so many young people fantasize about, dream about, sexualize, eroticize.

“One could argue, even more than her body, it’s what that body stands for — the body of desire fulfilled, that is wealth, fame, celebrity, all the things that so many people in our culture are lusting for, wanting. If Beyonce was a homeless woman who looked the same way or a poor, down-and-out woman who looked the same way, would people be enchanted by her?”[6]

The answer is probably no. But Hooks seems to forget that she was and still is part of the feminist movement, which is to say that her trenchant critique here is fundamentally in contradiction to what feminism stands for. As we shall see, it is the same thing with Shevchenko.

Shevchenko—like Nietzsche who ended up agreeing that metaphysical truths do not exist if God is dead—goes to the political substratum of feminism and follows that premise to its “logical” conclusion. It is here that our story becomes very interesting, and it is also at that level that we are going to challenge Shevchenko.

Shevchenko said:

“We are feminism’s shock troops, a spearhead unit of militants, a modern incarnation of the word fearless. Our nakedness attacks the raw nerve of the historic conflict between women and ‘the system.’

“We are nothing less than its most visual and fitting embodiment. Our activists’ bodies represent undisguised hatred for the patriarchal order, and display the new aesthetics of a rejuvenated woman’s revolution.”[7]

But Shevchenko cannot accomplish her goal without balancing her philosophy in explicitly ideological terms. She argued:

“Once any monotheistic religion is starting, feminism is finished.”[8]

By “religion,” Shevchenko obviously does not include Rabbinic Judaism. In fact, Femen never attacked or insulted Synagogues:

“Femen has orchestrated a raft of bare-breasted protests with a range of targets: near the Vatican, in front of Russian President Vladimir Putin and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, near the Grand Mosque of Paris and in several churches outside France, including at Christmas Mass at Cologne Cathedral. There, a single topless woman [Shevchenko] with ‘I am God’ painted on her chest briefly jumped onto the altar.”[9]

Moreover, some of Femen’s slogans are “Our mission is protest, our weapons are bare breasts,” “Nudity is liberty,”[10] “Pope No More”[11] “Pope game over,”[12]  “My Boobs, My Bombs,” “My Body, My Gun,”[13] “topless jihad,” “our tits are deadlier than your stones,” “Muslim women, let’s get naked,”[14], etc.

Certainly, there is more here than just protest against injustice and unfairness. Naked breasts, Shevchenko tells us, are “political instruments. Our breasts are talking; our breasts are screaming” for “a new meaning. This is my political weapon.”[15]

“With our political breasts,” she said elsewhere, “we are shocking, irritating, frightening, inspiring.”[16] She once again postulated:

“We believe that if women are left with little more than satisfying sexual desires as a life purpose, then our sexuality must become politicized. We are not denying our potential to be treated as sex objects. On the contrary, we are taking our sexuality into our own hands, turning it against our enemy. We are transforming female sexual subordination into aggression, and thereby starting the real war.

“Make no mistake about it: we are at war. This is an ideological war, a war of traditionalism against modernity, oppression against freedom, dictatorship against the right to free expression. We are targeting the three principal manifestations of patriarchy: religion, the sex industry, and dictatorship.”[17]

Shevchenko is indirectly articulating the thesis of Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control, written by E. Michael Jones fifteen years ago. She probably has never read the book, but since truth transcends culture and space and time, Shevchenko ends up arguing the same principles which are found throughout the book, though in an intellectually incestuous or perverse way.

Sexual liberation, says Jones, is a form of political control because it takes morality out of the social, political, and natural order and replaces it with unbridled passion and lust, which darkens the mind and corrupts the very being of a person. Euripides’ The Bacchae is a classic example of this. Wilhelm Reich also understood this principle. “Sexual revolution,” says Jones,

“is contemporaneous with political revolution of the sort that began in France in 1789…sexual liberation begets almost from the moment of its inception the need for social control…

“Like laissez-faire economics, the first tentative ideas of how to exploit sex as a form of social control arose during the Enlightenment as well. If the universe was a machine whose prime force was gravity, society was a machine as well whose prime force was self-interest, and man, likewise, no longer sacred, was a machine whose engine ran on passion. From there it was not much of a stretch to understand that the man who controlled passion controlled man.”[18]

“Of all the passions,” he continues to say, “the sexual passions are the most effective when it comes to controlling man.”[19] Shevchenko, since she is an indirect descendent of the sexual revolution, understands this principle. “With our bare breasts,” she said,

“We are responding by knocking down the great oligarch and his security-service clowns, and with them, the image he has been so carefully cultivating…We are calling for a global sexual revolt against the system.

“We cannot tell you of our upcoming plans, or what the final result of our struggle will be, but we’re working on them around the clock. The only thing I can say for sure to all those against whom we are fighting is that we are not about to let you enshrine such shit as yourselves in a cult.”[20]

Shevchenko continues to shoot herself the toes by saying,

“When we talk about the freedom of expression, there will always be a point of view that says ‘yes, we are all for freedom of expression, but…’ Why do we continue adding this ‘but’? …  we need to share our ideas forcefully, without hesitation and without any ‘but.’

“We must not fall into the trap of self-censorship and create restrictions for ourselves so as to avoid ‘offending someone’s beliefs.’”[21]

Does Shevchenko mean to tell us all that it is freedom of speech to get naked in public places and even to literally crouch down and urinate on a picture of a grimacing Viktor Yanukovich (Ukrainian president) in the streets of Ukraine without getting arrested?[22]

Furthermore, Shevchenko’s sweeping assertion simply does not hold water even at a superficial level. In fact, it ends up proving the very thing that Shevchenko sought to destroy.

If we must avoid “offending someone’s beliefs” and opinions and perhaps actions, shouldn’t the authorities avoid Shevchenko’s opinions and arrest her anyway? Why should they be quiet when their conscience is screaming and saying that this self-proclaimed feminist terrorist ought to be arrested?

Furthermore, doesn’t Shevchenko’s own weltanschauung implicitly say that repression is a bad thing? Should the authorities repress their feelings or urge? Here and elsewhere we see that Shevchenko’s ideological project comes to an intellectual dead end and is beyond resuscitation.

Things got even murkier for Shevchenko when she argued that prostitution reduces women “to an instrument for sexual pleasure for the clients,” and by clients she means men. She said:

“The act of prostitution by definition joins together two forms of social power: sex and money. In both realms, men hold substantial and systematic power over women.”[23]

But that again weakens Shevchenko’s cause and much of the feminist project in America. Do prostitutes have any right to be involved in prostitution? If Shevchenko claims to empower women, do women have the power to choose prostitution or not? And who is Shevchenko to tell women what to do? Why can’t she think things through before putting them on paper to see if there is an internal contradiction?

The conclusion of the story here is that by denying other women the right to prostitute themselves for money, Shevchenko is by definition denying those women the right to be free. No doubt that sex workers in Ukraine and elsewhere began to see that Femen is undermining them. Some came up with a slogan that read: “FEMEN, get the fu$k out of our business.”[24]

Moving on to Putin and Russia, Shevchenko admits that “a majority of Russian people believe [Putin],”[25] which is an implicit way of saying that Putin was democratically elected!

You see, Shevchenko’s project, at its eventual root, seeks to destroy democracy. In fact, Femen has said repeatedly that Putin is a dictator. Members of the group painted “death to dictatorship” on their torso.[26]  Again, this is another low blow for Shevchenko.

If “feminism is about humanism,”[27] or “human rights,”[28] if the movement is calling for “equal respect for all human beings,”[29] as Shevchenko incoherently declared, where does “death to dictatorship” come from when that “dictatorship” was democratically elected? Is it part of democracy to kill a democratically elected official?

Moreover, isn’t Shevchenko historically and intellectually immature by insinuating that “communism” as an ideology “has never included any hatred”?[30] Why can’t she pick up The Black Book of Communism or Mao’s Great Famine and read them?

Doesn’t Shevchenko hate Putin? (I can understand why Putin was just smiling when five topless Femen members basically ambushed him in 2013 and shouted, “Fuck Dictator.” Shevchenko admitted that Putin gave them “a teenager’s thumbs up.”[31])

If Putin is that evil, isn’t Shevchenko indirectly saying that the vast majority of Russians who supported him are evil as well? What is it about Putin that makes him so sinister and wicked?

Shevchenko, because she cannot see metaphysical things as the way they really are, and because she is against Logos, the sustainer of all that exists, inevitably ends up demolishing the Jewish project known as “the Holocaust” by saying:

“Yes, there are limits to freedom of expression, and they are found where someone physically hurts another, or when we call on others to physically attack other individuals.

“This is where the crime begins and the celebration of freedom of speech ends. As for the rest, there should be no reason to not laugh, talk or cry about this most precious right, our freedom of expression.

“Remaining silent, failing to express this idea of freedom that you believe in — even inadvertently– automatically places those who have the courage to express themselves in danger.

“For this reason, governments must not attempt to stop or outlaw, under the pretext of security, events on freedom of expression or blasphemy, drawings, protests, books, and so on, because otherwise, we fall into the hands of the terrorists — we give up. We should instead obtain more protection and more visibility for these events.”[32]

Oh, please! One would think that Shevchenko is better than that. As I have argued in numerous articles, Ernst Zundel, Fredrick Toben, Denis Rancourt, Robert Faurisson, Bishop Williamson, David Irving, David Cole, Tony Martin, among others, have all suffered into the able hands of the Dreadful Few because they refuse to remain silent in one way or another. Why did the Holocaust establishment fire noted historian of science Nicholas Kollerstrom from the University College London?

At the time of this writing, a 71-year doctor—71 years old!—was sentenced to a year in prison because of “Holocaust denial” and because he came to the conclusion that the “Holocaust” “must be a lie made up by Zionist bankers, who are still up to their mischief in Israel and the ‘Arab Spring.”

Last month, Toben sent me a message about a German by the name of Ursula Haverbeck who was being persecuted by the powers that be. Toben said:

“Haverbeck is now facing criminal hate speech charges after debating how many Jews died in the Holocaust on national television. The debate was aired on German public television and broadcast all over Europe.

“It was the first time anyone has been allowed to question the official holocaust death toll on German television. Police stormed and ransacked her home along with the homes of three of her supporters. Prosecutors are preparing the charges. She will face five year in prison if convicted.”

Perhaps those people should all call themselves feminists or join Femen and then fight the so-called Holocaust? Perhaps my dear friend Prof. Denis Rancourt should give Shevchenko a call? Perhaps my dear friend Dr. Frederick Toben should befriend Shevchenko so that he will no longer be persecuted? Perhaps my dear friend and colleague Kevin Barrett should ask Shevchenko to storm the gates of the University of Wisconsin and demand that Barrett be reinstated?

Unlike members of Femen, who have shouted “fu$k Putin” and “fu$k the Church,”[33] those Holocaust revisionists have acted in a civil manner. For example, my good friend Frederick Toben has never acted in a way that warrants an arrest, despite the fact that the Dreadful Few did find a way to charge him and put him behind bars. Bishop Williamson is another fine gentleman who always behaves in a rational way. But talking about the “Holocaust” eventually got him into trouble in Europe.

The fundamental question is this: will Shevchenko defend those people? Last month, I sent Shevchenko a message on this very issue, which read:

“I have just finished reading your recent piece at the Huffington Post. I am an American and am very interested in the freedom of speech you articulated in that article and would like to explore it further. I have numerous friends who have been beaten, imprisoned and charged mercilessly for expressing their freedom of speech with respect to Nazi Germany.

“In fact, those people have always acted cordially and reasonably. Some of them are well-known historians, scientists, political activists, and journalists.  What is their crime? They ask for historically rigorous examination and scientifically reliable investigation of what happened in Nazi Germany, and they challenge the Zionist manipulation of the West.

“Do you think it is right that those people have been politically and socially crippled in Europe? If so, would you be interested in writing a piece defending those people? I can give you the names of many of them and where your piece will receive a wide audience. I look forward to reading your response.”

Shevchenko never responded. I certainly do not blame her. Again, In fact, Nazi Germany is a thorn in her flesh for the following reason.

For example, the Dreadful Few declare that they hate Nazi Germany, but members of the Dreadful Few such as Victoria Nuland forged an alliance with neo-Nazis in Ukraine. The Dreadful Few tell us that Nazi symbols are the most terrifying signs of our age, but Femen activists can disrupt Marine le Pen’s speech with Nazi salutes without being persecuted.

The Holocaust establishment, in one incestuous book after another, declares that Nazis must be trialed. But the Mossad recruited people like Otto Skorzeny in their covert operation. The Dreadful few tell us that Skorzeny was “one of the great heroes—if not the greatest—of Nazi Germany” who “had become a daredevil commando officer who carried out spectacular operations.”[34] Yet the same Skorzeny has become an asset of the people who keep saying that Nazi Germany was a bad thing.

Shevchenko despises Nazi Germany, but she has written a lengthy article in which she brazenly defends neo-Nazis such as Bandera,[35] “a Ukrainian nationalist who collaborated with the Nazis during World War II and with the CIA and the Bundesnachrichtendienst (Germany’s intelligence agency) under former Nazi  Reinhard Gehlen beginning in 1956.”[36]

In other words, the Dreadful Few got Shevchenko exactly where she belongs. She is one of their greatest assets. 

Shevchenko has more interesting things to say.

Interviewer: “Some people may not want to be exposed to your naked breast. There may be kids around because of your stage your protest in public places.”

Shevchenko: “This is something that proves the problem of our society. If kids have to hide their eyes watching women’s breasts, this is a big problem.”

Shevchenko took the cat out of the bag when she said:

“People say I am offending religious feelings – well, I know I am doing it! And every time I start to talk about such things I will do it, but I don’t do it for provocation, I’m simply worried about what is going on.

“Why do we have to think about a choice between religion and political ideals – what the fu$k is religion doing on the same level as a political idea? I think it is the most stupid thing society did to let religion on the same level in political discussion.”[37]

Shevchenko could not make a rational point because, as E. Michael Jones rightly put it fifteen years ago,

“sexual liberation is a system in which behavior dictates reason, and once the reason is no longer the light according to which man acts, force takes its place, and force…means the sexual exploitation of women.

“As Sade makes perfectly clear, the inner logic of sexual liberation is always might makes rights. Sexual liberation is, therefore, of its essence a form of control.”[38]

This principle is right in line with what St. Peter says:

“While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage” (2 Peter 2:19).

Shevchenko continues to undermine her own mine by saying,

“A woman’s naked body has always been the instrument of the patriarchy. They use it in the sex industry, the fashion industry, advertising, always in men’s hands. We realized the key was to give the naked body back to its rightful owner, to women, and give a new interpretation of nudity … I’m proud of the fact that today naked women are not just posing on the cover of Playboy, but can be at an auction, angry, and can irritate people.”[39]

Perhaps Shevchenko is too young or too lazy to crack-open a serious history book. Doesn’t Jewish historian Edward J. Bristow tell us that the sex industry was largely controlled by the Dreadful Few in the nineteenth century and beyond?[40] Don’t Jewish scholars like Nathan Abrams, Josh Lambert, Jay A. Gertzman, among others, tell us that pornography is a largely Jewish business?[41]

Doesn’t Shevchenko claim that she is fighting pornography?[42] If that were true, why hasn’t she mentioned the people behind the movement? Will she ever talk about Nadine Strossen, who wrote a book entitled Defending Pornography: Free Speech, Sex, and the Fight for Women’s Rights? Will she storm the gates of Jewish organizations such as the ADL and the ACLU?

More importantly, doesn’t Shevchenko know that it was the Catholics who stood against the sex industry in Hollywood in the 1920s and 30s?[43] Doesn’t she know that we are still against sex industry? Doesn’t she know that people like David Cronenberg and Eli Roth view women as sex toys in their movies?

Shevchenko is aware that Femen cannot exist without politics, and going topless and almost entirely naked in Europe will play on people’s weakness, namely, sexual weakness. She said,

“We understand that the solution to female problems needs some political will, not just shouting and drawing a wide response.”[44]

Viktor Svyatskiy, “a political strategist and one of the few men in Femen,” came to their rescue by adding: “We need to move to the political area and influence the decision-making and legislative process.”[45]

In order to rescue the Femen movement from political oblivion, Svyatskiy even cooked up fake names such as Amina Abdallah Araf, allegedly “a gay girl in Damascus.” When the story came out that it was a hoax, “people understandably get angry.”[46]

The Kiev Post admits:

“There is international precedence showing that overt sexuality has helped some women climb the political ladder. In 1987, for example, Hungarian-born Italian porn star Ilona Staller, known by her stage name ‘Cicciolina,’ was elected to the Italian parliament and become famous for her stripteases during parliamentary sessions.”[47]

And who is probably still funding Femen? You guessed it: Jewish mogul Jed Sunden, founder of the Kiev Post media. In fact, the Kiev Post tried to help Femen by giving them some of the political ideas which the Dreadful Few have used in the United States for over sixty years:

“Femen may need to adopt more conventional approaches of feminist organizations – such as workshops, publishing educational materials, providing legal assistance, etc.”[48]

The feminist ideology has tried to do the same thing in Poland:

“In Poland in 2007, some female candidates posed naked for election posters. But while gaining lots of media attention, the Polish Women’s Party (Partia Kobiet) got only 0.28 percent of the votes and no seats in the Polish Senate.”[49]

Femen should have learned that implementing subversive ideology such as naked breasts in Poland is a dead end because the Polish people, who are largely Catholic, understand subversive ideology. It was Poland that actually defeated Communism.[50] The Washington Post itself acknowledged this.[51]

What we are seeing here is that Femen, like all feminist movements, always end up demoralizing, dehumanizing, and intellectually killing its revolutionary children. People are finding this out the hard way:

“Aleksandra Shevchenko, a 22-year-old blond Femen activists who has gone topless for the majority of Femen’s protests, left her native Khmelnytsky city to study economics in Kyiv. Now her parents regret letting her go – because of Femen.

“‘I work in the city center and when walking to work each morning I have to listen to many people reprimanding me what they think of my daughter’s behavior,’ said Lyudmyla Shevchenko, Aleksandra’s mother.

“‘I can’t sleep. I can’t eat. I can’t live worrying about her all the time. I and her dad tried to persuade her not to do [take off her clothes] anymore. But when she’s in Kyiv she does not listen to us. Femen leaders brainwashed girls like her.’”[52]

Femen would have been almost a by-gone movement had it not been for Jed Sunden. Shevchenko acknowledged,

“Jed was the very first influential person who noticed us, helped us with all the resources he had, gave us some useful advice, generously donated and said we were special. Jed was the very first person who helped us in the organization’s promotion and creation of our website. We used to call him a ‘Femen Post.’”[53]

Shevchenko, like dumb Goyim John McCain and John Bolton, does not seem to know that she is being literally juiced in a subversive lab experiment. She erroneously (and I must say deliberately) asserts that feminism is “just an idea and nothing more.”[54]

That again was a dumb move. If feminism is “just an idea and nothing more,” why does the feminist terrorist have to be topless and start protesting like zombies in the streets of Europe? Why did she have to chop down across as a protest on the arrest of the Pussy Riot?

Why did one member of the Pussy Riot have to stick a frozen chicken in her vagina in a public market, a grotesque act which probably would have stunned people like Anton Lavey and Aleister Crowley? Does Shevchenko mean to tell us that she didn’t know that ideas have consequences? Where has she been living for the past twenty years?

The Dreadful Few indeed monopolize Femen and turn young and impressionable women like Shevchenko into sex toys and puppets and machines. In fact, Shevchenko has recently confessed that she has “Marxist roots”[55] in her ideology.

Another member of the Dreadful Few who has been an ardent supporter of Femen is Galia Ackerman. She has been giving the subversive movement great publicity. Ackerman writes,

“Without sharing [Femen’s] militant atheism [of course] or supporting some of their actions, their denunciation of the positions of the Orthodox Church seems justified.”[56]

According to Ackerman, Catholics and Protestants have been usurped by feminist ideology, but the Orthodox Church refuses to be infiltrated by this movement. Hence, Ackerman has to demonize both the Orthodox Church and Putin to make a point. She said:

“The Russian Orthodox Church, faithful to its Byzantine and Tsarist traditions, has become the pillar of the Putin regime. This government, which for years has crushed political opposition and the free press, and which finally lost its legitimacy in the last general election marred by massive fraud, relies more than ever on the Church which, for its start, is taking the opportunity to extend its influence, including in Ukraine.”[57]

Ackerman found herself grinding to a halt when she said,

“Should we tolerate this collusion between the Putin government and the patriarchal Church, some of whose hierarchs have emerged from the KGB? For me, the answer is no.”[58]

Let us suppose that Ackerman is true here. But let us take her assumption and put it in Russia and then America. I am pretty sure that she knows that Bolshevism in the 1920s in Russia got morphed into Neoconservatism (hence, Neo-Bolshevism) in America during the 1930s in America. If she doubts that, let us bring in Francis Fukuyama of Stanford (formerly of Johns Hopkins) and one of the flaming neoconservatives in last decades.

Fukuyama compares the neoconservative movement to Leninism. Neoconservatism, according to him, is the reincarnation to some extent of both Leninism and Bolshevism.[59] Fukuyama’s observation makes sense when even Irving Kristol, one of the founders of Neoconservatism, proudly admitted that the

“honor I most prized was the fact that I was a member in good standing of the [Trotskyist] Young People’s Socialist League (Fourth International).”[60]

Kristol was not just a former Trotskyist, but a former neo-Marxist, neo-socialist, and neo-liberal.[61]

And this Neoconservative/Neo-Bolshevik movement, as Jewish writer Sidney Blumenthal has shown, found its political and intellectual ideology “in the disputatious heritage of the Talmud.”[62]

Even after the birth of the Neoconservative/Neo-Bolshevik movement, many of its members such as Stephen Schwartz of the Weekly Standard had a burning thurst for Lev Davidovich Bronstein, known as Leon Trotsky.[63]

So, should we tolerate the Bolshevik movement, which progressively got morphed into Neoconservatism? We all know that this Neo-Bolshevik ideology has brought us nothing but misery and degradation and complete chaos both in the Middle East and much of the West. Should we support this madness?

For me, the answer is no.

What we are saying here is that Ackerman and her brethren do not live in a world of reason, order, and docility. They live in a world of shadow, darkness, ultimate darkness, and intellectual and spiritual blindness. They do not live in a world that plays by the moral law and order.

The evidence for this can be found in Ackerman’s own book. She argues that Femen, “who advocate resolutely European values, are a symbol of hope for our old continent, even if we do not always agree with their ideas or methods.”[64]

Ackerman is certainly postulating crazy things here. How can Femen be “a symbol of hope for our old continent” when members of Femen paint “Fuck Euro” on their breasts? Does she mean to say that when Europe is “fu$ked,” then it will be a “symbol of hope for our old continent”?

We certainly can never play Shevchenko’s or Ackerman’s game, and our job is to annunciate the truth in the dark world that the Dreadful Few have created. People who are of the truth will align themselves with the light. As Alexander Solzhenitsyn cogently put it,

“Our way must be: never knowingly support lies! Having understood where the lies begin—step back from that gangrenous edge! Let us not glue back the flaking scale of the Ideology, not gather back its crumbling bones, nor patch together its decomposing garb, and we will be amazed how swiftly and helplessly the lies will fall away, and that which is destined to be naked will be exposed as such to the world.”[65]

What Solzhenitsyn is articulating here is that the best way to destroy a shadow is to shine the line. In the end, the light, or Logos, which to us got its complete and metaphysical incarnation in the person of Christ, will eventually win. Our hope is that decent men and people of reason will ally with the truth.

[1] Quoted in Decca Aitkenhead, “Femen leader Inna Shevchenko: ‘I’m for any form of feminism,’” Guardian, November 8, 2013.

[2] Lizzie Crocker, “Femen’s Topless Sextremists Invade the US,” Daily Beast, February 23, 2014.

[3]Ibid.

[4] Quoted in Decca Aitkenhead, “Femen leader Inna Shevchenko: ‘I’m for any form of feminism,’” Guardian, November 8, 2013.

[5] Quoted in Cavan Sieczkowski, “Feminist Activist Says Beyonce Is Partly ‘Anti-Feminist’ And ‘Terrorist,’” Huffington Post, May 12, 2014.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Inna Shevchenko, “We Are Femen, the Naked Shock Troops of Feminism,” Guardian, April 10, 2013.

[8] Aitkenhead, “Femen leader Inna Shevchenko: ‘I’m for any form of feminism,’” Guardian, November 8, 2013.

[9] Elaine Ganley, “Radical Femen Leader Plans US Feminist Outpost,” Seattle Times, February 20, 2014.

[10] Bim Adewunmi, “If Femen was set up by a man, where does that leave its topless protests?,” Guardian, September 4, 2013.

[11] Kira Cochrane, “Rise of the Naked Female Warriors,” Guardian, March 20, 2013.

[12] Jeffrey Tayler, “The Women Behind Femen’s Topless Protest Movement,” Atlantic, March 13, 2013.

[13] Elaine Ganley, “Radical Femen Leader Plans US Feminist Outpost,” Seattle Times, February 20, 2014.

[14] Anna Lekas Miller, “Femen’s ‘Topless Jihad,’” The Nation, July 1, 2013.

[15] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZLv1BBcS_o.

[16] Quoted in Claire Suddath, “Inna Shevchenko’s Femen: Shock, Irritate, Frighten, Inspire,” Bloomberg, April 24, 2014.

[17] Inna Shevchenko, “We Are Femen, the Naked Shock Troops of Feminism,” Guardian, April 10, 2013.

[18] E. Michael Jones, Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control (South Bend: St. Augustine’s Press, 2000), 2.

[19] Ibid., 3-4.

[20] Shevchenko, “We Are Femen, the Naked Shock Troops of Feminism,” Guardian, April 10, 2013.

[21] Inna Shevchenko, “Not Defending Our Ideals of Freedom Today Would Be a Crime,” Huffington Post, February 20, 2015.

[22] I did a thorough search on this very topic, and none of the major Zionist news—most specifically the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc.—covered that part of the story. None.  They were much more interested in reporting ad nauseam how “white” cops hate “blacks” and that those cops just want those people dead because they are “black.” They are still doing this (see for example Jaeah Lee, “White Police Officer Is South Carolina’s Third Charged in Past Year for Killing an Unarmed Black Man,” Mother Jones, April 8, 2015; Charles M. Blow, “In South Carolina, Shot in the Back as He Ran,” NY Times, April 8, 2015; Kelly Riddell, “George Soros Funds Ferguson Protests, Hopes to Spur Civil Actions,” Washington Times, January 14, 2015). The only outlets I found that actually reported the event was International Business Times, the Huffington Post, and the Atlantic; but as it turned out, they only did it to promote Inna Shevchenko’s feminist cause. Umberto Bacchi, “Ukraine: Topless Femen Activists’ Dirty Protest against President Yanukovich,” International Business Times, December 2, 2013.

[23] Inna Shevchenko, “Dominique Strauss-Kahn: My car-jumping Femen sisters struck a crucial blow for sex workers,” International Business Times, February 12, 2015.

[24] Anna Lekas Miller, “Femen’s Topless Jihad,’” The Nation, July 1, 2013.

[25] Inna Shevchenko, “Russian ruble: Putin is a callous Soviet dinosaur but no one will join my topless crusade to oust him,” International Business Times, December 19, 2014.

[26] Umberto Bacchi, “Ukraine: Topless Femen Activists’ Dirty Protest against President Yanukovich,” International Business Times, December 2, 2013.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Inna Shevchenko, “‘Are you normal, or a lesbian’: How Moroccan morons attempted to silence our gay rights protest,” International Business Times, June 9, 2015.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Inna Shevchenko, “Ukraine’s Communism ban will fuel Nazi propaganda and far-right support,” International Business Times, April 8, 2015.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Inna Shevchenko, “Not Defending Our Ideals of Freedom Today Would Be a Crime,” Huffington Post, February 20, 2015.

[33] Claire Suddath, “Inna Shevchenko’s Femen: Shock, Irritate, Frighten, Inspire,” Bloomberg, April 24, 2014.

[34] See Michael Bar-Zohar and Nissim Mishal, Mossad: The Greatest Missions of the Israeli Secret Service (New York: HarperCollins, 2012), chapter 8.

[35] Inna Shevchenko, “Why Vladimir Putin and his racist Ukrainian stooges tried to turn me into a Nazi,” International Business Times, January 5, 2015.

[36] E. Michael Jones, “Crimea River: The Hypocrisy of U.S. Foreign Policy,” Culture Wars, April 2014.

[37] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZLv1BBcS_o.

[38] Jones, Libido Dominandi, 20.

[39] Quoted in Kira Cochrane, “Rise of the Naked Female Warriors,” Guardian, March 20, 2013.

[40] Edward J. Bristow, Prostitution and Prejudice: The Jewish Fight Against White Slavery, 1870-1939 (New York: Schocken, 1983).

[41] Nathan Abrams, The New Jew in Film: Exploring Jewishness and Judaism in Contemporary Cinema (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2012); Josh Lambert, Unclean Lips: Obscenity, Jews, and American Culture (New York: New York University Press, 2014); Jay A. Gertzman, Bookleggers and Smuthounds, The Trade in Erotica, 1920-1940 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002).

[42] Lizzie Crocker, “Femen’s Topless Sextremists Invade the US,” Daily Beast, February 23, 2014.

[43] For a cultural history on similar issues, see for example Gregory D. Black, Hollywood Censored: Morality Codes, Catholics, and the Movies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996); Thomas Doherty, Pre-Code Hollywood: Sex, Immorality, and Insurrection in American Cinema, 1930-1934 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999); Hollywood’s Censor: Joseph I. Breen and the Production Code Administration (New York: Columbia University Press, 2009); Frank Walsh, Sin and Censorship: The Catholic Church and the Motion Picture Industry (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996). Jon Lewis, Hollywood v. Hard Core: How the Struggle Over Censorship Created the Modern Film Industry (New York: New York University Press, 2002). Robert Sklar, Movie-Made America: A Cultural History of American Movies (New York: Vintage Books, 1975 and 1994), 173, 292-293. It must be emphasized that many of these authors do not agree with the Catholic position on film and in fact some were even against it. But they all agree that Catholics were the frontal enemies of the Dreadful Few in Hollywood in the 1920s.

[44] “Femen wants to move from public exposure to political power,” Kiev Post, April 29, 2010.

[45] Ibid.

[46] Bim Adewunmi, “If Femen was set up by a man, where does that leave its topless protests?,” Guardian, September 4, 2013.

[47] “Femen wants to move from public exposure to political power,” Kiev Post, April 29, 2010.

[48] Ibid.

[49] Ibid.

[50] See for example Jan Kubik, The Power of Symbols Against the Symbols of Power: The Rise of Solidarity and the Fall of State Socialism in Poland (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1994); Timothy Garton Ash,The Polish Revolution: Solidarity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002); Andrzej Paczkowski and Malcolm Byrne, ed., From Solidarity to Martial Law: The Polish Crisis of 1980-1981—A Documented History (Budapest and New York: Central European University Press, 2007).

[51] Anne Applebaum, “How the Pope ‘Defeated Communism,’” Washington Post, April 6, 2005.

[52] “Femen wants to move from public exposure to political power,” Kiev Post, April 29, 2010.

[53] Ibid.

[54] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31VYDVGuYhA.

[55] Inna Shevchenko, “Ukraine’s Communism ban will fuel Nazi propaganda and far-right support,” International Business Times, April 8, 2015.

[56] Galia Ackerman, Femen (New York: Polity, 2014), xxi.

[57] Ibid.

[58] Ibid.

[59] Francis Fukuyama, “After Neoconservatism,” NY Times, February 19, 2006.

[60] Stephen Halper and Jonathan Clarke, America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 43.

[61] Meir Soloveichik, “Irving Kristol, Edmund Burke, and the Rabbis,” Jewish Review of Books, Number 6, Summer 2011.

[62] Sidney Blumenthal, The Rise of the Counter-Establishment: From Conservative Ideology to Political Power (New York: HarperCollins, 1998), 124.

[63] Craig Unger, The Fall of the House of Bush (New York: Scribner, 2007), 40-43.

[64] Ackerman, Femen, xxi.

[65] Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Solzhenitsyn Reader (Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2006), 558.

Jonas E. Alexis, Assistant Editor

Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the new book Zionism vs. the West: How Talmudic Ideology is Undermining Western Culture. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.

• Read Jonas Alexis’s latest posts here >>>