Corbyn accuses President Trump for denying women their rights. However,"locker room talks"* about some women is something very different from sharia against all women.
* When Klevius as a schoolboy heard the usual "locker room talks" it was usually in the form of Sigmund Freud's "women need a normal Penis several times to keep hysteria at bay" (of course in an early teenage vocabulary). However, Klevius never really understood it. Although having been in close contact with girls during much of his upbringing, in the early teens Klevius developed a horror mask of facial acne and combined it with no attention whatsoever to fashion etc. resulting in a stealthy non-appearance on girls' radars until a couple of years later the mask disappeared, hair grew out, and some attention was restored to a more fashionable outlook. And everything suddenly changed. But the guy behind the forehead was still exactly the same. And that very same guy didn't pay any attention whatsoever to girls' make up, hair style, clothes etc. Only their bodies differed from Klevius' male pals - not their brains. That's when Klevius stumbled over the problem with sex segregation - and how extremely infested the whole society is with this completely unnecessary social disease (for more on this read Klevius many 'sex tutorials'). However, Klevius also realized the problem of women internalizing their own suppression (and incompetency that's not related to their sex or brain but to historical sex segregation) by calling it "femininity" - hence becoming "feminists" who accuse only the male sex. And as a result of feminists' denial of women's own role in upholding unnecessary sex segregation, a serious "gender" researcher has to be a non-feminist. It's a disappointing fact that many (incl. many who call themselves 'feminists') don't know that the most basic theoretical assumption of feminism/s is that women should be excluded from the analysis of guilt/cause. So when Klevius wrote a PhD thesis about sex segregation, he was "advised" to use feminist theory. However, that would have excluded interviews in depth with those very women that could really contribute to understanding the problem. Feminists brag about using "women's own experience" but they carefully avoid women who don't fit their formula. So Klevius used faminist theory very thoroughly for the purpose of showing why it didn't work.Islam was born out of anti-semitism, racism and sexism
As an ideology rooted in Judaism but identifying Judaism as the "wrong" belief system, muslims consider islam as the only "right" religion.
so no wonder most anti-semitic attackers are muslims although there are many silent non-muslim accomplices as well. And due to the extraordinary "protection" of muslim "diversity" most hate crimes performed by muslims are not reported as that. Moreover, because of "multicultural (read muslim) sensitivities", muslim hate attackers are feeling quite safe in their business.
Hate crimes against Jews have rocketed by more than a third since last year in UK, and the party that has the most problem with its own anti-semitism is the same party that is the loudest in it's hate attacks on "islamophobes", i.e. against people defending the most basic of Human Rights equality against islamofascist racism and sexism.
UK's socialist leader Jeremy Corbyn, yesterday (among many other stupid accusations) accused President Trump for being against women's rights.
However, Klevius has never heard or read anything that could confirm that President Trump would like to limit women's rights. It seems to be fake information and utter lie. Corbyn must have confused President Trump with those islamofascists he likes to befriend.
In Klevius series disgusting Human Rights desecrating hypocritical politicians.
Jeremy Corbyn acts "offended" for being called racist. Yet he's both openly and covertly racist against Human Rights defenders (i.e. most ordinary Brits) almost every day!
Here Jeremy Corbyn sits together with an islamofascist called Dyab Abou Jahjah whom he afterwards said to BBC he had never heard about.
Samuel Westrop: In 2012, Corbyn agreed to speak at a Ramadan celebration with Abdur Raheem Green, a Salafist preacher who has spoken of a "Yehudi [Jewish] ... stench." Green urges Muslims to "push them [Jews] to the side." In addition, Green encourages men to hit their wives to "bring them to goodness," and has called for the killing of homosexuals and adulterers.
In 2014, Corbyn spoke at an event organized by representatives of the Iranian regime, to commemorate the Iranian revolution of 1979. Corbyn's fellow speakers included Hassan al-Sadr, who represents the UK office of Iraqi terrorist Moqtada al-Sadr; and Abdolhossein Moezi, the personal representative of Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Also in 2014, Corbyn hosted an event in parliament that featured the "neo-Nazi" speaker James Thring, who has appeared in a revisionist pro-Nazi documentary and has said that, "the Jewish lobby has so much power."
In the wake of Britain's general election, candidates with ties to anti-Semitic extremists and terror groups are standing for important political positions.
Socialism and islam are both dangerous harbors for Utopian fanatism against the individual and her/his Human Rights equality.
Klevius wrote in Angels of Antichrist 1996 (no, dude, Klevius isn't religious, he a proud "islamophobic" Atheist):
The main characteristic of a Utopia is the absence of individual rights. The combination of reformist eagerness and total ignorance of individual rights can make a social democratic party the most dangerous force in the modern social world, not least because so many women give their votes to it. The situation resembles that of the German National Socialistic Party in the 1930s except for the fact that now the evil comes through democracy, while nationalism is blamed.
People labeled "unworthy of living" in Nazi Germany were, in fact, to a large extent identified and picked up by female social workers. At the same time and in the following decades, Sweden ran an "eugenic institution" and interest focused on sterilizing people who were not considered fit to be members in "the people's home of Sweden." Many women died as a consequence of this "hygienic" treatment (Broberg & Tyden, 1991).
Claudia Koonz (1988) describes the goal of Nazi Germany in Mothers in FatherLand as " ... a society where men and women live in different worlds and the citizens' bodies first of all belong to the state." Koonz also points out that the Nazi women expected increased influence in ''women's areas'' such as social welfare, education, and reproduction. It was quite shocking for them when they finally understood that the family had no importance except for the nation and the purity of the race.
The rule appears to be that the stronger the social state, the weaker are families. In the women's congress in Peking, one of the few results was a statement regarding strengthened rights for children against their parents. This was initiated by Swedish socialists.
Most people believe, in sharp contrast to the reality, that Nordic child protection is concerned about cases involving badly abused and mistreated children. But, according to a large research project recently carried out in Finland, proportionally few badly abused and mistreated children are in biological families; most are living away from their families (Sariola, 1990).
Pippi Longstocking, the world famous fighter against the child protector "Pruseluskan," was originally published by her creator, the Swedish writer Astrid Lindgren, in 1945, the same year Karl Popper's The Free Society and its Enemies became available. Both books defend freedom. In the case of Pippi, freedom is upheld against the social state as well as against a limited "girls' world." It is worth mentioning that Astrid Lindgren, the pride of Sweden, had to escape from her country in 1926 because she was a single, poor, pregnant woman and then gave birth to her first child in Denmark. The first general child protection law had actually been ratified in Sweden in 1924. This historical law, three years after women's suffrage in Sweden, was a creation of the same group of mostly socialistic women who had set up the "Save the Children" organization a few years earlier.
The Democratic National Committee is kicking a candidate out of the chairmanship race after he told The Hill that Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) should not be the party’s next leader because he is a Muslim.
In a Jan. 5 email to The Hill, Vincent Tolliver, a former House candidate in Arkansas, said that Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, should not be chairman because of Islamic positions on homosexuality.
“His being a Muslim is precisely why DNC voters should not vote for him,” Tolliver wrote. “Muslims discriminate against gays. Islamic law is clear on the subject, and being gay is a direct violation of it. In some Muslim countries, being gay is a crime punishable by death.”
“Clearly, Mr. Ellison is not the person to lead the DNC or any other organization committed to not discriminating based on gender identity or sexual orientation,” Tolliver continued. “I’m shocked [the Human Rights Campaign] has been silent on the issue. A vote for Representative Ellison by any member of the DNC would be divisive and unconscionable, not to mention counterproductive to the immediate and necessary steps of rebuilding the Democratic Party.”
A spokesperson for Tolliver said he stands by the statement.
The Hill did not report on the remarks in early January because it was unclear whether Tolliver would be an active candidate for chair.
However, on Saturday, Tolliver participated in the DNC-sanctioned candidates forum in Houston.
The DNC announced on Tuesday that Tolliver would also be one of 11 candidates participating in the next forum in Detroit on Feb. 4.
But Tolliver is no longer invited to participate in the event.
Klevius comment: Vincent Tolliver isn't sharia compliant. Which fact alone makes him a hero in Klevius list of people who dare to stand up against islamofascism.
“The Democratic Party welcomes all Americans from all backgrounds. What we do not welcome is people discriminating against others based on who they are or how they worship,” interim Chairwoman Donna Brazile said in a statement to The Hill.
“We expect candidates for Chair of the Party to conduct a respectful campaign based on issues. To assure that, we ask all our Chair candidates to pledge ‘to uphold the interests, welfare and success of the Democratic Party of the United States,’ and to participate in the process ‘in good faith.’ Mr. Tolliver’s disgusting comments attacking the religion of a fellow candidate fall far short of that standard. Accordingly, Mr. Tolliver is no longer a candidate for DNC Chair.”
Ellison’s spokesman, Brett Morrow, responded to Tolliver’s remarks in an email to The Hill:
“A few days after Donald Trump instituted a racist and unconstitutional Muslim ban, it’s disappointing that a fellow DNC candidate would fan the flames of intolerance,” Morrow said, although Tolliver made his statement weeks before President Trump signed his Friday executive order temporarily banning refugees and citizens of seven predominately Muslim countries from entering the United States.
“Keith has shown first-hand his commitment to our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, organizing tirelessly against the Minnesota anti-marriage equality amendment in 2012, which led to a resounding win for love at the ballot box. Trump is taking away health care for millions of people, separating families, and alienating our allies. Keith will continue to focus on uniting the Democratic party to fight back against division and hate, and to fight for the core Democratic values of tolerance and inclusion.”…
Charles Wessler: Can a good Muslim be a good American or a good Canadian? This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years. The following is his reply:
Theologically - no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of Arabia.
Religiously - no. Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except Islam. (Quran 2:256)
Scripturally - no. Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.
Geographically - no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.
Socially - no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.
Politically - no. Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan.
Domestically- no. Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him. (Quran 4:34)
Intellectually - no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Philosophically - no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Spiritually - no. Because when we declare 'one nation under God,' The Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in the Quran's 99 excellent names.
Therefore, after much study and deliberation ... perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously cannot be both 'good' Muslims and 'good' Americans. Call it what you wish it's still the truth. You had better believe it. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future.
The religious war is bigger than we know or understand!
*Footnote:*
The Muslims have said they will destroy us from within,
Klevius comment: No, we don't need to be "suspicious" against muslims. What we need to do is simply to point to face muslims with the 1948 Universal Human Rights Declaration. Only if they don't agree on this basic and logically unchallengeable basic equality but rather stick to Human Rights violating racist/sexist sharia, only then should we be suspicious.
No comments:
Post a Comment