155 MYR – casetify.com
270 MYR – ahalife.com
100 MYR – beauty.com
49 MYR – sephora.com
390 MYR – target.com
110 MYR – dotandbo.com
775 MYR – williams-sonoma.com
305 MYR – harrods.com
110 MYR – asos.com
THE NUREMBERG TRIALS, NOVEMBER 1945-OCTOBER 1946© IWM (HU 130952)
One of the most disturbing episodes in the history of Nazi Germany, was The Nuremberg Trials. It was a good act of tearing democratic values apart, just so that the Allied powers from the Second World War could finally be spotted bringing some kind of justice to all those persecuted Jewish people, by the Nazis, at the end of the war. When Germany was defeated in the Second World War, the Allied powers had no right to colour the Nazi regime’s whole history, with the trials, and I agree with the prevailing historical thought that the event seems to have been driven by lunatics, with a bitter taste for lynching.
Where were the Allied powers, when the Nazis were wrongfully targeting and killing Jewish people? Why did the Allied powers, wait until Germany was defeated in the Second World War, to show their true colours, upfront, and participate in the debauchery of democracy, to bring some justice to persecuted European Jewish people?
The Nazi Empire systematically murdered somewhere around 6 million Jews. The trials aimed to bring to spotlight the war crimes committed by numerous Nazi leaders, when they killed innocent European Jewish people. To escape humiliation, and perhaps even the trials, some Nazi leaders committed suicide, but the ones alive were either hanged or sentenced to long prison times, and given a life behind bars. Corruption, which supplies money to change global landscapes, is also another proper definition of European Jewry, it is not some brand of exoticism. But the Allied powers never bothered with bringing that thought up, and look how that is looking in today’s democratic world, which actually celebrates freedom of speech?
THE NAZI-SOVIET COOPERATION, 1939-1941© IWM (GER 276)
Cowardice was definitely at play in Nazi Germany for expecting to escape such mass murder of the European Jewish, but this level of ripping apart democratic values in Europe, for it? From 1945 to 1949, thirteen trials were carried out against perpetrators of peace for humanity: the prosecuted felt they were innocent and were completely helpless to at least properly defend themselves in a democratic continent. The trials were aiming to be fast for people connected to Nazi Germany, such as military leaders, doctors and German industrialists and even poised as a ludicrous roadmap for international justice. There is no proof whatsoever that, that particular roadmap helped much, apart from prosecuting war criminals in the genocide that happened in Rwanda (1994) and the former European state of Yugoslavia (1993), and the late trial of Nazi official, Adolf Eichmann, in the early sixties.
The trials are a vehicle of criticism too, since they happened and it is shocking to learn the Allied powers, were so bitter about Nazi Germany, they waited until the defeat to draft laws, first, to press charges against crimes committed by Nazis, in the past. Where was France, the United States, China, the Soviet Union and the United Kingdoms’s confidence during the Second World War then, that Germany was most definitely going to lose the war? Where were their sense of justice for European Jewish people then? Why did the Allied powers not draft those laws then to at least attempt to save the European Jewish people from the massacre happening right before everyone’s eyes? The Nuremberg Trials shifted from following the international legal structure, to an American legal structure, for divisions cracked open between the Allied powers, following Germany’s defeat in the Second World War. Although, the trials certainly aimed to bring justice to European Jewish people, it did very little, too late, to heal their wounds from the Second World War, I believe, by making democracy look like an absolute joke on the national stage, at Nuremberg.
I was so surprised to learn of this barrage of arguments that is happening right about now between Ian McEwan (Atonement, Amsterdam) and the transgender community. I was too busy trying to work out the relevance of Tom Brady and Gisele Bündchen, Tom Hardy and Charlotte Riley, and Alicia Vikander’s films, which are either rubbish or a film that outshines her, much like her co-star, Eddie Redmayne, does as well, as her fellow actor, in today’s society, when that serious piece of news stared at me from the front page.
Normally, those kind of gossips aren’t very interesting, to me, because I am, like, not fond of either Brady or Hardy – I think they are dull, unattractive, as perfectly less talented as the wives they chose to have and very grossly romantically primitive (I think these couples totally adore BIG secrets, about their pasts!) in Hollywood. That would be the reason why they might seem gossip-attractive to so many, but I have totally never been part of that crowd, and this could perhaps be because I have a totally different barometer for what’s hot, and an entirely separate romantic perspective, too.
I like love to be expressive about my “romantic pasts” with #amazingdudes, and I would rather waste my time learning about David and Victoria Beckham, or as I love to, pick “hotties”, or press the like button, on a whole different (and #amazing) kind of male species, examples of which would include Ryan Gosling, Nick Carter, Ryan Reynolds, Adam Levine and Leonardo DiCaprio. I really do not find it in myself, as a feminist, to understand why gender confused men should also have the same changing rooms as women, now to respect their transgender status. I think it is physically mortifying to learn that a man must be changing in tiny public spaces, such as those in department stores, along with women because it is quite an insensitive demand to be making off #females.
Feminism is about changing the national perspective on women.
I have never been a big fan of the quota system for women in education, or in particular, higher education, because I am a big believer in equality across both genders, so I do not know how to argue with all of that for the transgender community but I am not one with embracing the idea, like Ian McEwan, that a woman can also be a lady with a penis. They have the XY chromosome, and that brings their identity to the forefront of civil debate, as males. In society, I believe, the prevailing cultural perspective should be that women’s rights are meant for females, only, and with that idea it is important to embrace the thought of sensitivity for females too, for a change.