Translate

Showing posts with label RT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label RT. Show all posts

Monday, 19 November 2018

The Duran/Crosstalk/RT have discussed nationalism, but will they discuss feminism and how it affects Western government policy?


CK:

When are you going to discuss feminism and how it affects men and male politicians?

Harry C Smith:

Wouldn't that be a very tricky thing 2do properly - & fairly - without at least one woman in the mix? I can't see the Duran boyz wanting to touch that with a 20-ft pole! Not least of all 2b taken into account is how just the term 'Feminism' itself not only means different things to people depending on their age, class, sex, political affiliation, nationality, sexuality &, last but by no means least, their educational background & depth of understanding of what Feminism IS, what it means & the importance of its contribution to society!

As a well-educated, middle-class poststructuralist mid-30s polyglot agnostic gay socialist Anglophone man, raised in three countries & a citizen of two, by a single mother of nurse-midwife-journalist background, & a Labour-voting Australian solicitor atheist father, I'm happily aware of my own particular subjective bias; and I'm better schooled than most in the history, function & role of Feminism in 'Western' society. Yet I would never consider myself a classical  'Feminist', whose central purpose & thesis I would summarise as 'A woman is equally capable & valuable in any act or contribution as a man.'

I call myself instead a Post-Feminist: the above argument of classical post-War feminism is, for me & my ilk, so obvious & foregone a conclusion as to never need debating or any further proof again! Rather, to the Post-Feminist, the terms of discourse have long since shifted beyond holding the Man as the standard of comparison against which Woman must still be compared. And how even this may have affected Men is, to my mind, of such little consequence as to be almost comical - IF that is to be the only question for consideration! I don't see much difference between asking this & asking how racial de-segregation & integration has affected the poor dear old white people!

The Feminist project, & its successor movements, have unquestionably changed the world in vital & long overdue ways; but although the concept & the discursive mode in which we integrate its integral principles have moved beyond the male-female binary decades ago, the notion of some men talking about feminism (even if extremely well informed, which, regrettably, very few are - & I do include women here too), would be, at best, on very shaky grounds, academically, & at worst, less than half a debate, easily liable to become diatribal & highly likely of becoming offensive all-round, & performing a great disservice to everyone involved... however well-informed & sincerely well-intentioned all involved may have been!

CK:

ON WHO SHOULD DISCUSS FEMINISM Obviously, since I had asked a similar question before and have a known viewpoint on the subject briefly explained at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2017/10/youtubers-complain-about-claire-khaw.html, I should be on the panel. As you can see from https://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2017/12/will-crosstalk-discuss-feminism-and.html, the Duran Boys know they have to tread carefully since RT is being run by a woman and have many female colleagues.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margarita_Simonyan

As a gay man, you would be a supporter of the Western matriarchy. A patriarchy would criminalise gay men as sex offenders, but a matriarchy would indulge you. Feminism operates by bribing men with extramarital sex until they are too stupefied or morally compromised to notice or care what feminism is doing to their society, nation and civilisation.

There is no need to divide feminism into waves or whatever. All those who refuse to condemn and criminalise extramarital sex are by default feminists, even if they are men complaining about feminism. The moment you treat fornicatresses as sex offenders is the day you cut off the legs of feminism.  http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.com/2012/11/claire-khaws-aphorisms-on-feminism-and.html

I am basically saying at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlWEZgrMFVE that without patriarchy,  not enough good strong men will be produced to defend the national interest. NO PATRIARCHY, NO NATIONALISM (of any kind civic or ethno).

I think the best way of getting round the problem of displeasing RT Editrix in Chief is just to make a direct approach and run the idea of having me on the panel past her. My message is after all global and universal.











at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, 15 December 2017

How feminism and free love affects voter attitudes towards Western government policy





Is the moral corruption of the West in the formulation of its foreign, domestic, social and economic policy caused by feminism?


Peter Lavelle:
Let's go to our next question - probably our most controversial. I am a little curious how you are going to react considering you are all men. Is the moral corruption of the West in the formulation of its foreign, domestic, social and economic policy caused by feminism?


 Dmitry Babich:


I think it is caused by a primitive understanding of feminism. I think this year will be remembered only because of Pax Americana but also it will be remembered in Russia for example by media attacks women who oppose the global dominance. Look at Natalia [... ska]. There was a whole campaign against her this year by the Russian and foreign media.  Nadia [... ka] the Ukrainian's release was demanded by all the world's media.  [   Sterpa] a woman mayor of an East Ukrainian town is sitting in jail since 2014 simply because she participated in the referendum on the Ukraine.


 Peter Lavelle:


I would say in 2017 in the West there is a war on men.


 Victor Olevich:


Today, we are talking about the war on men. It is not just feminism, it is radfem, radical feminism from the 60s and 70s that doesn't just oppose patriarchy but wants matriarchy. But the real anti-Utopian sentiment is going to come in a few years. We are actually talking about roboticisation and a new industrial revolution and that brings a spectre of a world where gender differences are not going to matter that much at all. Robots do not need sex and that is the danger in the next decade.


Mark Sleboda:


There is moral corruption in the West but it doesn't come from feminism, or even from a few radical feminists in the later years who have gone off the ranch.  This show is made by women. Without feminism, this show wouldn't be made. I've got no problem with classical feminism. Actually, the problem comes from Classical Liberalism, the cult of the individual and the rarefication of neoliberalism, the economic system of the unfettered, unregulated free market over everything, the marketisation, the commodification of all human relations - that's where the real moral decay of the West comes from.



I am afraid I found the answers rather disappointing. Too bad Paul Craig Roberts was not invited to answer the question.

The Feminist Threat To Women And Men

My answer to the question is yes, but you were probably expecting that.

Indiscriminate universal suffrage in the West means all political parties pander to the female voter by offering her more laws to protect her and more public spending to appease her. This means Western governments are bribing usually irresponsible and unmarried mothers with the taxes of male taxpayers and offering her more laws to raise her status in relation to married fathers.

Patriarchy is a society that prioritises the preferences of married fathers eg lower taxes, condign punishment of criminals and immoral women, fault-based divorce, low immigration, masculine and paternal authority, fewer laws, free speech, proof beyond reasonable doubt required of men accused of a historic sexual offence etc.

Matriarchy is a society that prioritises the preferences of unmarried mothers eg higher public spending, the deification of immoral women, excuses for their badly parented illegitimate offspring, no fault divorce, gay marriage, high immigration, more laws, hate speech, the loss of masculine and paternal authority, men accused of a historic sexual offence considered guilty until proven innocent etc.

The average age of the UK is 40. There are more unmarried mothers than there are married mothers.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2285670/Most-children-of-British-mothers-born-out-of-wedlock.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10172627/Most-children-will-be-born-out-of-wedlock-by-2016.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/half-of-all-babies-born-out-of-wedlock-8703059.html

The average voter of the West is a 40 year old single mother who doesn't care about foreign policy who has probably never heard of  RT and will never watch Crosstalk with pleasure or understanding.

Immoral, ignorant and irresponsible women cannot be expected to care about foreign policy. Political parties know this, which his why foreign policy is never a factor in elections.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_median_age

Our age and sex is relevant to the choices we make. The West is basically a society of old women whose men are in fear of them. It is probably impossible to reason with women, especially old women suffering from dementia.

Old men become like old women, but since old men die before old women, the preponderance is that of old women, and so we have a society full of mini-dowager empresses who cannot be offended.

If the average age of the West were say 20, we would have had a coup d'état now. No way would men of fighting age put up with what neoliberalism has in store for us. Old women and old men put up with it because they already know they are not going to be around when the shit finally hits the fan.  



"FEMALE SEXUAL WITHHOLDING

Because sex is more highly valued by men and their access depends on the willingness of women to supply it, it can be seen as a valued good where women act as sellers and men as buyers, By withholding sex, women increase its value and render it a scarce resource, scarcity ratchets up the price men are willing to pay for it and this means pressure is put by women on other women not to undercut them, because if other women give sex away too cheaply, it reduces what women can ask from men. Monogamy is socially encouraged and enforced. A man is encouraged to stay with a woman because he is less likely to have opportunities to reproduce elsewhere. You will only get sex if you hang around and commit to that woman and, because all women are behaving like that, you are not going to have many opportunities for mating outside your mate.

Female sexual withholding is therefore key to paternal investment.  Paternal investment facilitates reproductive success."
at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Monday, 6 March 2017

The Culture War has begun and it is total war, thank God.



31st minute:

Alex Jones to Trump: "They're going to destroy your family if you don't win this one."

Took the words right out of my mouth.

"This is total war. They're going for Baron, Eric and Donald Junior, even after you're gone. You must go on the offence."

I have been saying that for the past week to anyone who would listen, and feel easier now that Trump must have heard from Alex Jones himself and appears to be acting on it. No more being a sitting duck.


"Bannon is behind Trump going on the offensive."

 "Not only will Trump have to go on the offensive, he will have to appeal to everyone in the world of good will."

Knives are out. A silent coup is underway…








 http://www.rooshv.com/how-to-save-western-civilization

Remove a woman’s right to vote and within just one national election, every single leftist party would be crushed. Within two elections, politicians would speak directly to men and their innate interest for patriarchy, economic success, stable families, and an equitable distribution of females among society. More than half of the candidates running for office would already be more conservative than Donald Trump, who is still liberal on social issues like equality and gay marriage.













http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/ann-coulter-women-should-not-have-the-right-to-vote-but-they-can-still-write-books/
at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Wednesday, 15 February 2017

Steve Bannon discussed on RT by Peter Lavelle and his guests



































http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/questions-on-white-nationalism.html

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/on-white-supremacists.html
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Saturday, 14 January 2017

What sort of person isn't grateful for the existence of RT?


1.  A person who doesn't like acknowledging the possibility that he, his government and its leaders have been wrong for a very very long time.

2.  A person who finds the challenge of understanding Western foreign policy too difficult, time-consuming, boring and overwhelming.

3.  A person who prefers to hang on to his views whatever the facts, logic and morality of the situation.

4.  A person who enjoys the idea that white people can just bomb the shit out of any country they like without suffering any consequences and that bombing the shit out of brown people is part of their white racial identity of which they are very very proud.

5.  A person who doesn't want to admit that he has been duped by mainstream media for a very very long time.

6.  A person who prefers mainstream media because it is all so predictable and familiar.

7.  A person who does not like admitting mistakes out of pride, stubbornness and chauvinism.
That would be most people.

Most people do not care to be guided by the truth, logic or morality and believe that their confused thoughts and inconsistent positions are better than anyone else's logic and truth just because their confused thoughts and inconsistent positions are theirs.

Do such people - who only care about the price of beer and cigarettes, more or less - even deserve the vote?

What is the very best thing about RT? For me it is Peter Lavelle's Crosstalk.

And probably the best documentaries I have come across.

RT should be make T-shirts, hoodies and badges for us to wear.

Even if I don't get a job from RT this year, this post will still be staying up.  

at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, 14 December 2016

BBC agenda to confuse and bore everyone about Aleppo so we will support toppling Assad to not hear his name ever again

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b085nsyk

0234

The situation in Aleppo is moving fast and the question now is how the UK government can proceed. Crispin Blunt is chair of the foreign affairs select committee and Alison McGovern is co-chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Syria.

Mishal Husain:

Aleppo was just a few years ago a flourishing city of two million people, Syria's economic capital built on a heritage of ancient settlements. Today, entire neighbourhoods are nothing but rubble. Many residents are living in appalling conditions. If our MPs could have foreseen that, how would it have affected the decisions of those who voted against intervention in Syria in 2013 in the wake of President Assad's use of chemical weapons. We will be speaking to two MPs who voted against taking military action against the regime in a moment, but first our Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen. When we look back on this time on the fate of Aleppo, Jeremy, will Aleppo make a mockery of the idea of international community if a city is allowed to suffer in this way for so long?

Jeremy Bowen:

I think the concept of an international community in which everybody tries to do the best for everybody else is frankly a nonsense anyway. I think that the West has stepped aside from the mess that's in Syria I think for all kinds of reasons a major one was the feeling that after the lesson taken in the intervention in Iraq in 2013 was that intervention was not going to work and what that has meant for the Western point of view is that there hasn't been any real traction there because the way to get influence in Syria over the last few years is to use force and the West has chosen not to. The Russians, the Iranians, Hezbollah from Lebanon have chosen to do, so they have shaped the environment, if you like. 

Mishal Husain:

Stepped aside, yet as the UN's Staffan de Mistura told us the other day, there are twelve countries involved one way or another and obviously the fight against IS is happening in Syria. 

Jeremy Bowen:

Yes, including Western countries, including Britain, including the United States but they have done it in a rather ill-thought out way. If you compare the Western policies involved in Iraq in the last year or so it's a bit more thought out. It is not thought out in a particularly efficient way in Syria and you know the thing the phrase I keep using about the Syrian war is that it is a mini-World War because so many outside powers are involved including really powerful nations, and that's what makes it so hard to try to deal with because all those countries have their own agendas and they don't all involve Syria. 

Mishal Husain:

Let me turn then to the two MPs who are with us in the studio: Crispin Blunt, Conservative Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and Labour's Alison McGovern Co-Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Syria. If you had known in 2013 today Aleppo would look as the newspaper pictures and television show us, Alison McGovern, would you have voted differently?

Alison McGovern:

There just isn't a yes/no answer to this because I know that it's extraordinarily doubtful that my vote by itself could have made a profound difference to this situation. Nonetheless, every day I regret perhaps not raising it more and not bringing the Prime Minister back to the House of Commons, not applying more pressure and of course given what's happened you constantly go over and over in your mind what the opportunities were ...

Mishal Husain:

But more pressure to do what? You were given the opportunity to intervene in Syria and you decided against it.

Alison McGovern:

I think if we constantly focus on 2013 important though that it is and I wouldn't dream for a minute of docking any accountability for that but if we constantly focus on that then we're not focusing on Syria now and that's precisely why Andrew Mitchell and I brought the emergency debate to the Commons yesterday. I'm afraid the Foreign Secretary came with very little to say but we could have said was "Here is a strategy to protect civilians", "Here is how we will work with others to get people out, to get aid in however we can and wherever we can and to get accountability and monitoring of some kind, preferably by the UN, but with British monitoring if necessary so that Assad and others know that there will be accountability.

Mishal Husain:

Before we go to talk about what next for Syria, Crispin Blunt, I want to ask you the same question that if you'd been able to see what Aleppo would look like today whether you would have voted differently. 

Crispin Blunt:

No, I think even with the benefit of hindsight I would have voted the same way because the question we were asked was really about disarming the Assad regime of its chemical weapons. The means by which we were going to do that wasn't going to work and in the end it was the Russians that disarmed its ally of chemical weapons because they weren't prepared to have their ally breaching international law ...

Mishal Husain:

Even if chemical weapons were the issue of the moment, it could have brought the regime down but it certainly would have controlled the regime it was able to do .... [sic]

Crispin Blunt:

And then if your mission was then going to take the regime down, then you need to follow through all the following steps and had we evem been prepared to follow all the steps it might now be us in the position of the Russians with the last vestiges of Alawite resistance in the areas they were resisting supporting a Free Syrian Army and finding ourselves precisely in the same position ... [sic]



Mishal Husain:

So it was Iraq that haunted you? Not to end up in a similar position?

Crispin Blunt:

It's the lessons of our intervention over the last two decades that if you're not prepared to will the means all the way through to the end around the consequences you're likely to get what happens after you intervene [sic] then you might be better off not starting in the first place, and if you can't get the international community into the same place around the same strategy then one or two actors in the international community then taking on a strategy on their own is very likely.

Mishal Husain:

Alison McGovern, you were talking about a strategy you want the government to put forward for protecting civilians. On the ground in Aleppo today even the UN can't really be part of monitoring this ceasefire it seems even they are unable to give assurances about the immediate protection of civilians.

Alison McGovern:

Well, quite, and it is a very worrying development that we are seeing this morning where what was last night apparently an evacuation now looks delayed and it's incredibly worrying and we need to put pressure on our government to be asking questions about that but it doesn't end in Aleppo. This won't end in Aleppo. There are besieged people elsewhere in Syria and what makes anyone think Assad will finish this in Aleppo? Where will we be next and what will we do? Will we stand by and watch in exactly the same way as it is done elsewhere [sic] and quite honestly if we allow the international humanitarian law to be shredded in this way, you know, this certainly won't end in Aleppo and which country will be next? I know that people despair of the UN and the international system, don't we all? We're all realists, but what do we stand for if we don't stand for people's right for somebody to care and stand up for them when they're having their basic right to life absolutely obliterated in front of our eyes, then what do we stand for?

Mishal Husain:

Crispin Blunt, what position or what strategy would you like to see the government take on Syria now?

Crispin Blunt:

There was a vestige of hope a year ago when the International Syria Support Group got twenty nations round the table who agreed a plan for Syria that included Russia and America, it included Iran and Saudi Arabia and there was hope because the whole international community of players was signed up to the same strategy. We need to get back to that place ...

Mishal Husain:

Isn't that moment now past?

Crispin Blunt:

That moment has passed and Russia has taken responsibility for her actions and must be held accountable for her actions ... 

Alison McGovern:

That moment hasn't passed. Only recently the Prime Minister agreed with the European Council tha sanctions would be applied to Russia if the situation in Aleppo got worse. The situation in Aleppo got worse and what do we hear from the European Council? Our government didn't even raise sanctions. Well, you know what, there's another European Council at the end of this week so they can raise sanctions then.

Mishal Husain:

Just very briefly, Jeremy Bowen, do you think Russia will stay the course in Syria in terms of the reconstruction or once Assad is in control of the whole country will that be it for them?

Jeremy Bowen:

I think Russia's agenda is about its influence there. Their main thing is to have the top man in Syria on their side and they've got that and they will do what's necessary, I think, to sustain it. On that vote in 2013 the main consequence of that was its effect on the US decision to intervene which while that would not have ended the war it might have made it worse. It changed the war and perhaps dealt a mortal blow to the regime.

This is all a meaningless word salad. What made the most sense was Mishal Husain's questions but the responses were all nonsense.

In 2013 both Alison McGovern and Crispin Blunt voted against military action in Syria.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783

In 2015 both of them voted for military action. http://www.cityam.com/230150/syria-airstrike-vote-heres-how-your-mp-voted 

The most obvious question Mishal Husain did not ask was what happened between 2013 and 2015 to change their minds. 

Do you suspect that the agenda of the BBC is only to appear to explain Syria to us while in fact conspiring to confuse and bore us and refusing to ask obvious questions or make a respectable attempt to elicit coherent answers from MPs?

If you want Western foreign policy explained to you, go directly to  https://www.rt.com/on-air. Do not pass go and do not collect £200.

POINTS TO NOTE ABOUT THE SYRIAN WAR

  1. Being a vassal state of the US, the UK does exactly what the US tells it to do.
  2. The US neocons want Assad toppled to show Russia what's what ie a uni-polar world under the full spectrum domination of the US and who's top dog nation of the world ie the US. 
  3. ISIS are US-paid mercenaries paid to attack whichever country the US pays it to attack.
  4. US and Saudi Arabia are in cahoots together.
  5. Saudi Arabia being Sunni hate Shiite Muslims. 
  6. Assad is Shiite.
  7. ISIS is Sunni-indoctrinated by Saudi Arabia and funded by the US.
  8. The US cannot completely control ISIS but as long as ISIS is attacking Assad, the US is happy.  
  9. ISIS is also attacking Iraq and this the US is not so happy about because Iraq already has a Western puppet in place. 
  10. The Peshmerga are being funded by the US to fight ISIS in Iraq.
  11. The US are now paying two separate groups of mercenaries ie ISIS and the Peshmerga to fight each other. Crazy, isn't it?
  12. Neocon foreign policy is funded by the defence industry in the NATO member states. By bribing key politicians (or hiring them as consultants) in key groups such the Defence Select Committee and Foreign Affairs Select Committee, they control Western foreign policy.
  13. The defence industry is only interested in arms deals which explains why it is so attached to warmongering neocon foreign policy and why the political establishment hate Trump and want to destroy him, because he doesn't want any more stupid wars that result in the death of American soldiers in wars whose purpose no politician can explain properly. 
  14. Crispin Blunt was against military action against Syria in 2013.
  15. Crispin Blunt was for military action against Syria in 2013.
  16. Alison McGovern did the same thing too, but then she's a capricious, incoherent and emotional woman, so there's no point asking her because she probably can't remember anything through the mists of her bleeding heart do-gooding and wearing her heart on her sleeve to show off to her constituents. 
  17. In 9 June 2015 Crispin Blunt because the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.  
  18. In December 2015 Crispin Blunt voted for military action against Syria. 
  19. What does the Foreign Affairs Select Committee do? http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/foreign-affairs-committee/inquiries1/parliament-2015/the-fco-and-uk-arms-exports-inquiry-16-17/ It scrutinises arms exports. 
  20. If you were in the defence industry or are an arms manufacturer, it would be very useful to hire Crispin Blunt as a consultant, wouldn't it?
  21. Would you say that this adequately explains Blunt's change of mind from being a peacenik to being a warmonger?
  22. It is for these reasons that people are dying.
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, 1 March 2016

Democracies are *not* inherently more peace-loving than dictatorships



26th minute

Peter Lavelle:

"The democracy deficit in the European Union is just astounding to me."

Gilbert Doctorow:

"There is nothing particularly surprising in the failure of democracy to control foreign policy or democratic governments, and this is one of the fatal flaws in the whole neocon ideology: the notion that democratic countries are by their structure peace-loving. The voice of the people has no bearing on the conduct of foreign policy and it is carried out by the executive with its own privileges without answerability in many cases to legislature. The notion of democratic countries being peace-loving is shot through. You are confirming the bigger truth which has unfortunately been driving events for the last 20 years."

Dimitry Babich:

"In the late Roman Empire there was no foreign policy. All was internal policy because the whole world was the Empire, and the Empire had no opponents, only aggressors. It had no insurgents, only terrorists. So if we look at the modern United States and the late Roman Empire, we can see some similarities."

Peter Lavelle:

"When the Empire comes to an end, it is the American people who will find out about it last."

Those of you who know what happened to Athens, who exhausted itself through warfare, is that the Athenians kept voting again and again for war ....

It is truly laughable that Britain, who involved itself in two world wars that were really none of its business and lost its world empire as a result, did so because a Liberal Prime Minister thought fighting a short successful war in 1914 would make it more likely for the Liberal Party to win the 1915 General Election. What happened when the war it participated in turned really nasty? Why, the election was cancelled, of course.

It has been said that WW2 was a continuation of WW1. What, then, was WW1 all about? Britain declared war against Germany because of the Belgian neutrality German troops would violate on their way to France. This was the Belgian neutrality guaranteed in the Treaty of London in 1839.  Did Britain lift a finger to help France during the siege of Paris in 1870? Nope. http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/poppy-mania-day-prevents-any-rational.html

There is nothing peaceable about democracies at all. Voters in democracies don't give a damn whom their politicians murder and whose countries they destroy as long as their taxes are low and public spending high. Many apparently educated Britons are quite convinced that Russia is the more militarily aggressive country even as they themselves are aware that their governments have invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, bombed Libya and Syria. This is what Orwell would have called doublethink.

Do voters in democracies feel well-governed?

The answer can be discerned in how well the anti-establishment Trump is doing in the Presidential primaries and how prepared voters are to believe in conspiracy theories. A significant number of people in the West believe that their governments would actually bomb them and then pretend it was Muslim terrorists who did it, and use that as an excuse to bomb and invade more Muslim countries as well as depriving Western citizens of their liberty and privacy.

Soon, a Caliphate will seem like a sensible replacement for the mess we're in now.


at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

God behaving badly

1:03:00  CLAIRE  KHAW joins to say God in the Koran is more reasonable than God in the Old Testament, but there is only one Abrahamic God.  ...