Sharia is closer to the US constitution than the divine right of kings Americans rejected

A Christian theocracy would be totalitarian. The Old and New Testament does not mention freedom of belief and it is not a concept known in Mosaic and Roman times. We all know Muhammad was born after the fall of Rome. Christianity is known for its forced conversions, Inquisition and heretic burning.

The Koran guarantees freedom of belief with Quran.com/2/256 and this is what the First Amendment is based on. Therefore sharia is closer to the American constitution than a Christian theocracy.

To become Muslim is the reward for Jews after they have done what they were chosen by God to do

If God created Jews for any reason at all, it was to kick-start His project of making humanity observe the Noahide laws. Once all nations of the world became Noahide, Jews would become obsolete because their mission would be complete. In order to Noahidise the world, Jews must first see to it that Israel is at least Noahide. Once Israel adopts sharia - and Secular Koranism is a New School of Sharia - Western nations and non-Western nations not already Muslim would follow suit. Once that is done, the populations inhabiting the territory of Greater Israel would in time agree to pool their sovereignty and to be under the administration of a State of Israel implementing Secular Koranism as a one party theocracy, particularly if they see such an economic and political union as conferring real benefits to them in this life.

Is Rabbi David Bar-Hayim a Zionist?

1) If God exists, surely He would expect Israel to be a theocracy?


2) How can Israel expect God's blessing if it does not follow His laws and is the mere colonial outpost of a corrupt, oppressive and declining empire?


3) What is Rabbi Bar-Hayim's view of Rabbi Kahane, the only rabbi known for advocating a Torah theocracy for Israel?


4) If Israel is to be a theocracy, should it be a Torah theocracy or sharia theocracy?


5) Would Israel being a  theocracy mollify its Muslims neighbours as well as being good for the character of Israeli Jews?


6) If Israel became a theocracy, would this not persuade Western countries to become a theocracies too?


7) If America became a theocracy, would this not be better for Americans as well as the peoples in its empire?


8) A Torah theocracy would be too difficult and harsh even for Jews so shouldn't the lower standard of sharia should be adopted for Israel?

The Arab-Israeli dialogue that would lead to peace in the Middle East

A lecture by a Mohammed Hijab to Muslims on Western philosophy

It would be interesting to have a philosophical discussion with Mohammed Hijab on Western moral philosophy with a view to challenging the efficacy of Christianity as a means of maintaining morality compared to Islam.

My view is that Christianity suffers from a corrupt priesthood and has lost its moral authority. The closest thing to a priesthood in Islam would be its judiciary.

Instead of a corrupt priesthood, Islam uses sharia to maintain morality. While it is always possible for a judiciary to be corrupted, legal decisions are subject to argument, public scrutiny and appeal. It was the corruption of the priesthood of Temple Judaism that ended up the Jews being expelled from Israel by the Romans. Jews have done better for themselves under Rabbinical Judaism in the diaspora. While a priesthood is a parasitic class, a judiciary is necessary to apply and interpret the law.

Ontology and epistemology are both important elements of the philosophy of knowledge. If they often overlap, they have clear distinction: epistemology is about the way we know things when ontology is about what things are.

AN ONTOLOGICAL QUESTION
Is the political system we live under corrupt and doomed to failure?

AN EPISTEMOLOGICAL QUESTION
How do we recognise the signs of inevitable failure and corruption?

A MORAL QUESTION
What should we do if we know for a fact that it is corrupt and doomed to failure? (Muslims have a religious obligation to enjoin good and forbid evil.)

A POLITICAL QUESTION
How do we go about replacing a failing religion and political system with one that works when the entire West is a matriarchy and its senior male politicians dare not discuss the causes of Western malaise - feminism - for fear alienating their women whom they fear?

Transcript and commentary of Germaine Greer being interviewed by Mishal Husain on the subject of career rapees #MeToo

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09vyvt2  From 2:21

http://www.howtoacademy.com/conferences/metoo-movement-gone-too-far-debate

Mishal Husain:

The Me Too Movement has gone too far - an assertion that will be debated tonight at an event in London. The writer and feminist professor Germaine Greer will be arguing for the motion.  She has previously said in relation to Harvey Weinstein: "If you spread your legs because he said 'Be nice to me and I'll give you a job in a movie' then that is tantamount to consent and it is too late to start whingeing. She's in our radio car now. Good  morning.  In what way do you think Me Too has gone too far?

Germaine Greer:

I don't actually think it's gone too far. I don't think it's got anywhere at all. We're still in the situation where you've got a storm of allegations about Weinstein, the collapse of his business and this isn't what we need. What we need is to sort out the law regarding rape and to sort out our concept of what it is, and it is pointless now to bring up all this stuff when with most of it no action will be taken because of the statute of limitations. Why wait 20 years?

Mishal Husain:

The reason why I phrased the question that way is because you will be arguing in favour of the motion that the Me Too Movement has gone too far tonight.

 

Germaine Greer:

Well, that's what the public has been told. I've pleaded with John Gordon not to do that because I don't think it's gone too far and I don't think we should be debating as if we all disagree. What's clear to me is that the law regarding rape does not work and people's concept of what is rape are very confused: some people think it's a crime of violence when violence is not necessarily involved at all.

Mishal Husain:

I want to come to your views on rape in just a moment because I know you are writing a book on that subject at the moment, but let's just stick to the Me Too Movement and what we have learned from that because there is a whole range of behaviours that is being called out under that hashtag and through that movement.  What is the problem with that? Is there any problem with people calling out behaviour that is inappropriate as well as unlawful?

Germaine Greer:

I'm the person who would call it when it happened and wouldn't have been sitting around being quiet and keep a secret which wasn't even a secret when it came to Weinstein, for example. People knew about it. A wire had been used in an interview with an actress who had been with Weinstein which was in the possession of the New York Police. It is extraordinary that the industry kept quiet.

Mishal Husain:

It doesn't mean that everyone who went to see him would have been aware of the existence of a tape like that. What I'm wondering is whether you think there has been something valuable in Me Too encouraging people to do exactly what you say you have always been able to do which is make a fuss about things like that when they happen?

Germaine Greer:

Do I think it's valuable now? I'm not sure. I thought the Golden Globe's performance where everyone wore black was amazingly stagey and contrived when you've got a real situation. The Me Too name itself comes from a movement that existed from the turn of the century in the South where I think you've got something like 700,000 agricultural workers who'd been seriously sexually assaulted and it's Tarana Burke who invented the name which she then found taken and used for showbiz. There is an aspect of the whole performance which is ballyhoo and Hollywood. The whole thing about it, the whole extraordinary exposure to so many in the case of Weinstein is 84 complainants who had opportunities to speak out some of whom have been paid six figure sums in the form of non-disclosure agreements. That's a dishonourable thing to accept, and it's not something you should boast about. It also happens to be legally binding.

Mishal Husain:

But Me Too is much broader, isn't it, than those 84 accusers of one particular man. It's about women all over the world feeling that they can say things which were previously ignored or for which there were serious repercussions and it has helped them articulate and be listened to.

Germaine Greer:

Well, I hope that's the case if indeed it is. I'm not sure because what's happened in the case of Weinstein's assistant Zelda Perkins is that she was put through absolute hell when she tried to get some sort of redress, her whole life was taken over, I mean, the amount of legal muscle that will be used to defend these people is massive, and I am concerned for damage limitation rather than maximisation, rather than wrecking people's lives, so they become career rapees, as it were. We have cases which concern rather more, I might say, of what's been happening on American campuses in the last few years and now we have had the Dear Colleague Letter that made it mandatory for universities to investigate complaints of sexual abuse that has been rescinded for the very good reason that it didn't work. None of the things we are doing actually work to protect women from abuse.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/20790/betsy-devos-correct-rescind-dear-colleague-letter-elliott-hamilton

Mishal Husain:

So what are you saying will work then, what are you advocating?

Germaine Greer:

[Sardonic laugh] That's a good question. Well, I'm actually interested in what's going on, I mean, I'm interested in the fact that Sweden, for example, has a much wider spectrum on sexual abuse than the rest of Europe, but the result is that Sweden has three times the number of rape cases of any country in Europe, of 35 countries in Europe. [Reminder: the sluttier the women, the higher the number of rape complaints. We all know how infamously promiscuous Scandinavian women are too, do we not?]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/sweden-and-denmark-have-highest-number-of-sexual-assaults-in-europe-a6800901.html

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jan/05/julian-assange-sex-crimes-anonymity

Mishal Husain:

Are you saying that's a good thing or a bad thing?

Germaine Greer:

Well, it's not over. We haven't got to a conclusion. We are going to have to examine the whole category of sexual abuse and we are going to have to understand what the relative gravity of these offences is, I mean, what they did on campuses in America was lighten the degree of proof that had to be alleged [Germaine Greer means lower the standard of proof] so it became "the preponderance of evidence by 51%". I don't think you can do that. You can't undermine civil liberties in order to get some sort of a conviction. It won't have any effect on the figures.

Mishal Husain:

When you said recently that "My feeling is that we should ditch rape altogether as a crime because it is hopeless," did you mean that?

Germaine Greer:

Well, I didn't mean we should make sexual assault legal. The actual crime of rape itself is a medieval survival and it deals with the stealing of a woman from her menfolk. Well, we don't even accept that concept now so now it turns on consent and that means you've got a narrative from the woman, a narrative from the man, and you've got to believe one or the other. Can you put someone away for seven years, or more, depending? The penalties for rape are huge when callous and indifferent treatment of women that is very damaging to their self-esteem is practically universal and certainly diurnal as it happens to all kinds of relationships.

Mishal Husain:

I'm still not sure what you are actually advocating as rape exists as a crime all over the world and there is a process of evidence that is undertaken in order to establish the principle of consent. What is wrong with that?

Germaine Greer:

What's wrong with it is that it doesn't work. We work out very few cases in England out of the total number of rape reports ...

Mishal Husain:

Convictions, you mean.

Germaine Greer:

... a tiny percentage of them. No, no, I mean they don't even get to court, but also rape doesn't occur in the context of court and prison - it's a part of every day life - and we have to understand the way that it works within heterosexual relationships.

Mishal Husain:

[Audibly sighing with relief at the end of this interview that she no longer has to unpick what Germaine Geeer is trying to say for the benefit of listeners or ask "How does rape work within heterosexual relationships?"] Germaine Greer, thank you very much.




MY PROPOSALS ON HOW TO CONDUCT RAPE TRIALS AND WHAT PUNISHMENT TO METe OUT TO WOMEN MAKE MALICIOUS AND FALSE RAPE ACCUSATIONS

Deuteronomy 17:6
On the testimony of two or three witnesses a person is to be put to death, but no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. https://t.co/fBZlC9ARVM

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) March 20, 2018

How extremes meet: what Roosh the PUA proposes resembles khalwa ie sharia law

Potential money-making scheme for slags participating in gangbangs at the expense of the UK taxpayer

The BNP, Jim Dowson, Shelley Rose and Khalwat

How to solve the problem of rape complaints

How to deal with false rape allegations

A suggested new way of conducting rape trials under feminazi DPP's new rule that accused must prove complainant consented

Men: every time you shag a neurotic drunken malicious slut who claims she can't remember why she had sex with you, you may cost the taxpayer £11,000

What to do with women convicted of making false rape accusations

Is the average juror getting stupider and stupider even as the rules that make a fair trial more likely are done away with by PC libtards and feminists?

Qanun Jinayat in Bandar Aceh

https://www.benarnews.org/english/news/indonesian/Aceh-Qanun-10222015171653.html

To: Embassy of the Republic of Indonesia in London

Sent: Friday, 26 January 2018, 13:14:19 GMT

Subject: Qanun Jinayat in Bandar Aceh

Dear Sir or Madam

I know you will find this a very unusual request, but will try to explain what I am trying to achieve as briefly and as clearly as possible.

I am a political activist campaigning against feminism. It is my belief that feminism is an ideology that is harmful to society because it causes social problems such as juvenile delinquency, a higher crime rate, lower educational standards and the decline of the West because it encourages social parasitism and causes the Western labour force to become increasingly uncompetitive as well as their politicians to become increasingly weak, cowardly and incompetent.

You may have heard of the practice of slut-shaming that is now currently forbidden under feminism. 

Slut-shaming

Slut-shaming

The purpose of feminism is to undermine the patriarchy, and patriarchy can only exist if most people in society obey the rules of marriage. The most important rule of marriage is the prohibition against extramarital including premarital sex. In Britain, most children are illegitimate, and this must mean that Britain and the West generally is already a matriarchy.

Most children of British mothers born out of wedlock

Most children of British mothers born out of wedlock By Graham Tibbetts Most children of British mothers are now being born out of wedlock, official figures suggest.

All advanced civilisations are patriarchies, and all primitive and declining societies are matriarchies. A matriarchy is a civilisation that is already extinct, or about to become extinct. Native American tribes that were matriarchal were no match for the European pioneers who had superior weapons and technology that had been made possible by an environment of promoting patriarchal moral values and respecting the institutions of marriage and the family.

What the five world religions have in common is their support of patriarchy ie marriage and the family.

Christianity has failed the West because Christianity is now synonymous with liberalism and liberalism is about promoting sexual liberation and global gay marriage. 

Because Christianity has failed and Judaism is for Jews only, the only religion left for Westerners who are now suffering from the disease of mind that is feminism is Islam, since Hinduism and Buddhism are alien to to Western traditions.

Islam is also in conformity with the Noahide laws that Judaism has prescribed.

Seven Laws of Noah

Seven Laws of Noah Accordingly, any non-Jew who adheres to these laws because they were given by Moses[4] is regarded as a righteou...

The smiling Sharia policewomen of Banda Aceh, Indonesia

The smiling Sharia policewomen of Banda Aceh, Indonesia Public canings regularly take place in Banda Aceh, in the country's Aceh province, for offences ranging from adu...

It seems to me that the corporal punishment of sex offenders under Islamic law that takes place in Bandar Aceh is administered humanely and professionally.

Because I believe that the law should support marriage in the West, I have come to the conclusion that the only way for the law to effectively support marriage and the family is to punish sex offenders as Surah An-Nur [24:2] prescribes. 

Surah An-Nur [24:2] Surat An-Nur [verse 2]

Because Westerners are overwhelmingly feminist and Islamophobic, my ideas are rejected by the Western liberal establishment. Even nationalists who hate the pro-immigration policies of the liberal establishment cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that Christianity has failed and that the West needs a new religion that will be effective in maintaining the morality of their nation.

Because Britain is a matriarchy, it will not produce enough good strong men to defend the national interest. I live in Britain and fear that if the problem of increasing illegitimacy remains unaddressed, Britain will become a failed state. 

Sadly, because the liberal establishment control the liberal media, my ideas for British national renewal and regeneration are being deliberately suppressed. 

Because the nationalists who oppose their liberal establishment are themselves also morally compromised and accustomed to an environment of widespread casual fornication and illegitimacy, they too will suppress my ideas. Because most of them are unmarriageable bachelors who are often unemployed or unemployable and unskilled, they know that their prospects of marrying a decent woman and having legitimate children with her are slim indeed. 

If these alt-right YouTubers criticise feminism and immoral women, they will not only be deprived of the opportunity to have legitimate children, they will also be unable to fornicate with women not their wife because these feminists will be angry with them for criticising feminism. This will be too great a sacrifice for these still youngish atheist men to make. British politicians are aware that proposals to punish sex offenders will be rejected by voters. This explains why no senior male politician will ever denounce feminism because all the political parties of the West chase the female vote. The only way they can only impose corporal punishment on sex offenders is if they have a one party state prepared to implement 24:2 of the Koran.

The last time a British politician warned against the threat to the "human stock" of the British was a Jew, the late Keith Joseph. He was believed to be a Prime Minister in waiting, but had to make way for Margaret Thatcher in 1974 after he was widely denounced for criticising unmarried mothers. It could be said that Britain has officially been a matriarchy since 1974.

Howard Flight echoes Keith Joseph's 1974 warning that 'our human stock is threatened'

Howard Flight echoes Keith Joseph's 1974 warning that 'our human stock i... Nicholas Watt Conservatives do not have a happy track record when they mix class and breeding

Because my ideas are frighteningly radical and British male politicians are cowardly atheists who are only interested in holding on to office, the long term British national interest will continue to be ignored and its citizens continue to marinate in a culture that is morally corrupting and degenerate, leading to each subsequent generation being more degenerate than the one before it, until Britain and the West becomes a desert of failed states.

In view of the reality of the environment in which I am campaigning to support marriage, it seems I will need to do much more than say what I have been saying for so long now about how the law must support marriage.

Because I have not myself been morally perfect, I am often accused of being a hypocrite by my liberal opponents. If I were to be lashed 100 times in public in Bandar Aceh, the point would be made that I am prepared to take my punishment to support policies of slut-shaming and in some way take this punishment on behalf of the British people - a symbolic gesture that I feel will demonstrate my concern for the British people and my preparedness to make sacrifices on their behalves that their own corrupt, cowardly, foolish and weak leaders refuse to do.

I understand Syahrizal Abbas is head of the Sharia Law Office of Aceh and the person to contact on the matter of having this punishment administered to me.  

Could you please confirm that this is the case and that the Indonesian government and its media are prepared to assist me and give this event publicity?

I anticipate that this event will attract worldwide publicity and will encourage tourism to Bandar Aceh as well as be very helpful in making the point that the law should support marriage as well as the fact that Western countries that do not forbid and punish extramarital sex fall below the minimum moral standards set by the Seven Noahide laws of Judaism. It is hoped the Indonesian government will also encourage the Jewish community of Indonesia to come to Aceh and witness this event which has the aim of remoralising the West and rescuing Western civilisation from the disease of the mind that is feminism.

I hope to hear from you as to how to take this matter further on having this punishment administered to me with maximum publicity from the international media.

Please note that I will not be seeking special treatment from the person administering the 100 lashes and intend to wear what is customarily worn by the women of Aceh when receiving the punishment. 

Regards

Claire Khaw 

THE RESPONSE I RECEIVED

Sent: Wednesday, 21 February 2018, 15:25:32 GMT
Subject: Re: Fw: Qanun Jinayat in Bandar Aceh

Dear Ms. Khaw,

Thank you for your email dated 26th of January 2018. We would like to acknowledge and appreciate your broad views on multidimensional aspects of feminism, which also touched upon the practices of beliefs, including the view of Islamic law and in particular the exercise of Qanun Jinayat in the Indonesian province of Aceh. 

At the outset, Indonesian society lives in a patriarchy manner. This philosophy is mainly supported by the general faiths that are consented by the Government in Indonesia, in particular under the Islamic belief as you have mentioned in your narrative. As you may be aware, Indonesia is the largest moslem populated country in the world. However, the general ideology of feminism is not something that is opposed of by the Indonesian society, especially when the topics have touched the issues related to fundamental human rights. You may also be aware, Gender mainstreaming today is becoming a value that is widely accepted around the world including in Indonesia, but not to be confused with its relation with matriarchy society.

In regard to your proposal, we are not in the position to facilitate such request. For your information, the laws in the Aceh Province is distinctive of the general national laws throughout Indonesia, in which it conducts the syariah laws under special autonomy region upon those who are convicted to breach the law and conducted through a transparent due process. Moreover, Qanun Jinayat or the Islamic criminal code by law only applies, or given, whereby violations are conducted within the jurisdictions of the region and it is also carried out strictly by due process of law.

If you would like to refer your campaign to the Indonesian media, we might be able to put you in contact with some of well known journalists who might be able to share your views and channel through proper course of actions.

Best Regards,

Maradona A. Runtukahu

Sent: Wednesday, 21 February 2018, 19:09:14 GMT

Subject: Qanun Jinayat in Bandar Aceh

Dear Sir

Thank you for your response of today.

Your kind offer to put me in contact with well known Indonesian journalists who will draw attention of the Ummah to my campaign is greatly appreciated.

Best regards

Claire Khaw

Sent: Saturday, 3 March 2018, 09:25:46 GMT

Subject: Fw: Qanun Jinayat in Bandar Aceh

Dear Mr Runtukahu

Thank you very much for your offer to put me in touch with well-known journalists who will draw attention of the Ummah to my campaign.

It is greatly appreciated.

Best regards

Claire Khaw

Sent: Monday, 26 March 2018, 10:05:35 GMT+1

Subject: For the attention of Mr Maradona A. Runtukahu

Dear Mr Runtukahu

Thank you very much again for your offer to put me in touch with well-known journalists who will draw the attention of the Ummah to my campaign.

It is much appreciated.

Best regards

Claire Khaw

Sent: Monday, 16 April 2018, 20:28:42 GMT+1
Dear Mr Rutunkahu

Thank you again for your offer to put me in touch will well-known journalists who will draw the attention of the Ummah to my campaign. 

It is most appreciated. 

Best regards

Claire Khaw

https://t.co/CtTxenRXgR if people want to contribute to this event.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 26 January 2018

Feminism and Western Foreign Policy pointedly *not* discussed at the Progress meeting on countering Muslim terrorism

Sadly I can't be at tonight's event on @LiamByrneMP's facinating book but I'm speaking at a branch meeting in Exeter https://t.co/mjuKCn5S9Z pic.twitter.com/DfvhEJBl9F

— (((Richard Angell))) (@RichardAngell) January 11, 2017

Preamble to tyranny is loss of facts and truth: pic.twitter.com/WECuzyrk0e

— Ed Husain (@Ed_Husain) December 27, 2016

@DuncanKenyon1 @Amina_Lone @ProgressOnline What's the point of preaching to the converted when u r  trying to address problem of terrorism?

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

.@Amina_Lone women are used as a symbol by all sides in this debate. pic.twitter.com/wI6VngtppW

— ProgressOnline (@ProgressOnline) January 11, 2017

But of course. Women become booty and sex slaves to be bought, sold, used and sometimes married. https://t.co/aUqh0LUGGe

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@dogfoxuk @ProgressOnline @Amina_Lone I thought this was gratuitously offensive to men who are the ones expected to do the fighting anyway.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

.@Amina_Lone 99% of extremist violence is conducted by men but we don't seem to acknowedge that issue.

— ProgressOnline (@ProgressOnline) January 11, 2017

It is most Western men who invade/bomb Muslim countries, but so what? It was just a feminazi making another gratuitous and anti-male point. https://t.co/FJEyPAiaIv

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

.@Amina_Lone if we are going to challenge islamophobia, hate crime and racism we have to challenge misogyny and segregation in safe spaces.

— ProgressOnline (@ProgressOnline) January 11, 2017

Looks like @Amina_Lone is using the terrorism threat to push her feminist agenda in Muslim communities. https://t.co/DOYFRvMI72

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@Amina_Lone Has it occurred to you that it is not just Muslim Radicals that don't like the feminazification of their society?

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@Amina_Lone It was in the end a disappointing discussion because you were all only interested in the *presentation* of your solutions.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@Amina_Lone u were less interested in solving problem than taking a position on the problem that u thought was different/better than Tories'

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@Amina_Lone There was really no difference between the conveyor belt theory and the anger theory. Social conservatives *are* angry.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@mcortonscott @Amina_Lone @ProgressOnline @LiamByrneMP @naushabahkhan Clash of civilisation over sexual liberation v social conservatism.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@ProgressOnline @Amina_Lone Liberalism and feminism is our state religion and there are now many dissenters. Feminism causes immigration.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@ProgressOnline @Amina_Lone Britain needs to have a dominant culture that is acceptable to all and gay marriage ain't acceptable to all.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

.@Amina_Lone we have to step up or step out.

— ProgressOnline (@ProgressOnline) January 11, 2017

Meaningless slogan. https://t.co/Wxy5HGQWu4

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

.@LiamByrneMP we need to make people confident in their self-idealism.

— ProgressOnline (@ProgressOnline) January 11, 2017

What on earth does that mean? @LiamByrneMP https://t.co/ndsAEMdSL0

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@JoshuaGarfield @MariannaMasters @ProgressOnline Muslims are not happy and neither are Islamophobes. Feminists get so  many things wrong.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@MariannaMasters @JoshuaGarfield @ProgressOnline Since Labour has more Muslims than any party, probably not a good idea to alienate them.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@JoshuaGarfield @MariannaMasters @ProgressOnline Westerners hate Muslims for immigration, social policy and foreign policy reasons.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@MariannaMasters @JoshuaGarfield @ProgressOnline @UKLabour Immigration n migrant crisis caused by foreign policy the cause of Islamophobia.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

No Islamist would be seen dead at @ProgressOnline meeting discussing Islamism except ex-Islamist @Ed_Husain

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@ProgressOnline @Ed_Husain Such platitudinous meaninglessness. Anjem Choudary surely believes in the rule of [sharia] law.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@ProgressOnline @Ed_Husain Let's face facts: democracy did not last that long in Ancient Athens, did it? Not even 100 years. Makes you think

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@ProgressOnline @Ed_Husain The majority of people are stupid, ergo the majority of voters of stupid.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@ProgressOnline @Ed_Husain No one really believes in the rule of law and democracy, not even the neocons pushing it on the rest of the world

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@ProgressOnline @Ed_Husain Are the neocons upholding the rule of law and protecting/preserving democracy? They are delegitimising Trump.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@ProgressOnline @Ed_Husain It doesn't matter that Trump won the election despite the odds, the neocons are not going to respect the result.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@ProgressOnline @Ed_Husain US democracy is really about the deep state pulling the strings of the oligarchy. Policy is always the same: WAR.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@ProgressOnline @Ed_Husain Western foreign policy provokes terrorism, but mainstream Western politicians won't be acknowledging this.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@ProgressOnline @Ed_Husain Distinction between conveyor belt theory and @LiamByrneMP's anger theory is a distinction without a difference.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@ProgressOnline @Ed_Husain Terrorists ride on conveyor belt of grievance, knowing their govt won't acknowledge validity of their grievance.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

Imagine n Islamist had attended @ProgressOnline n heard @Ed_Husain talk about theocratic fascism. He'd know ur not interested in negotiating

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@ProgressOnline @Ed_Husain Purpose of the talk: to package your position as different n better than the Tories when it's actually the same.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@ProgressOnline @Ed_Husain The @Conservatives are not planning to change their neocon foreign policy and neither is @UKLabour

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@ProgressOnline @Ed_Husain The @Conservatives are not planning to abolish gay marriage and neither is @UKLabour. Not even @UKIIP plans this.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@ProgressOnline @Ed_Husain The 5 essentials of sharia law are not being protected by PC Liberalism, are they?

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@ProgressOnline @Ed_Husain  (1) Maintenance of life. This principle is offended against by death pathways in the NHS, euthanasia n abortion.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@ProgressOnline @Ed_Husain (2) Protection of an individual's freedom of belief. Disagreeing with gay marriage puts you on the conveyor belt.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@ProgressOnline @Ed_Husain (3) Maintaining the intellect. The operation of democracy and feminism means Idiocracy. https://t.co/0xPW9h5IZ8

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@ProgressOnline @Ed_Husain (4) Preservation of honor and progeny. This clearly means patriarchy/marriage/family, which feminism undermines.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@ProgressOnline @Ed_Husain (5) Protection of property.  An Islamic rate of tax wd be a flat rate income tax of 20%. https://t.co/5iQ38VQDF0

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@ProgressOnline @Ed_Husain @Amina_Lone @LiamByrneMP @naushabahkhan How to think about Islamic State  https://t.co/ETmYG4MiDO

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@ProgressOnline @Ed_Husain @Amina_Lone @LiamByrneMP @naushabahkhan Pankaj Mishra: Don't push democracy/feminism cos it clearly doesn't work.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@ProgressOnline @Ed_Husain @Amina_Lone @LiamByrneMP @naushabahkhan Pankaj Mishra: Many Asian men already find feminism deeply upsetting.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@ProgressOnline @Ed_Husain @Amina_Lone @LiamByrneMP @naushabahkhan Pankaj Mishra: If u push feminism down Asian throats more will join ISIS.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@ProgressOnline @Ed_Husain @Amina_Lone @LiamByrneMP @naushabahkhan I do have a holistic solution to the problem of Muslim terrorism.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@ntfem Hi, what is it?

— Amina Lone (@Amina_Lone) January 12, 2017

@Amina_Lone I am almost afraid to say it because you are all going to squawk at me for being mad or an extremist, but it seems logical to me

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@Amina_Lone It's not just Muslims who have a problem with current social policy, is it? You don't have to be Muslim to loathe gay marriage.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@Amina_Lone Anyone who is a social conservative would have a problem with current social policy and feel threatened by it.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@Amina_Lone The government has already said expressing hatred of gay marriage means we are already on the conveyor belt to radicalisation.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@Amina_Lone There is absolutely no need at all for LGBTs to have gay marriage to shag and shack up with each other, is there?

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@Amina_Lone LGBTs now have gay marriage when they already have civil partnership to make their commitment to each other public.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@Amina_Lone My social policy would be to more socially conservative but I know that for you lot in Labour it is in fact UNTHINKABLE.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@Amina_Lone Labour will never have policies that actually support marriage and the family because it is just not your thing.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@Amina_Lone Even UKIP does not have policies that support marriage and the family because they are afraid of rocking the boat.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@Amina_Lone The majority of voters of this country do not favour policies that support marriage/family and MPs are afraid of alienating them

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@Amina_Lone Everything about feminism undermines marriage and the feminazis are in control of the Labour Party. You must know this.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@Amina_Lone What do the Corbyn and anti-Corbyn factions of the Labour Party have in common? They are under the thumb of the feminazis.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@Amina_Lone You must remember what happened to poor old Maurice Glasman and what the feminazis did to him when he annoyed them in 2011.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@Amina_Lone I can hear you wailing: "But we can't be social conservatives! This is Tory territory and we can't do that better than they do!"

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@Amina_Lone The Tories don't do social conservatism either. It was a Tory Prime Minister that pushed through gay marriage with Labour help.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@Amina_Lone The last time a senior Tory tried to do social conservatism was in 1974 - 43 years ago! https://t.co/92bZNx0eeZ

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@Amina_Lone It could even be said that British social policies as well as foreign policy are the twin drivers of Muslim terrorism.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@Amina_Lone You don't have to be a Muslim radical to have noticed that nothing the government does supports marriage and the family.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@Amina_Lone It is probably too radical - pun intended - for you to consider that it is government policy that provokes Muslim terrorism.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@Amina_Lone Anyone who has read Bible/Koran with any attention will know God if He exists condemns sodomy. Will govt redact these verses?

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@Amina_Lone African Christians will be killed if C of E accepts gay marriage, says Justin Welby https://t.co/pCF0bUKRL8 HMG did it anyway.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@Amina_Lone If this is not evidence of Western extremism, then what would be? https://t.co/Y3qmzU2D2E

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@Amina_Lone Islamists are just going by their book. It is the West who is always pushing the envelope. Ask again: who are the extremists?

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@Amina_Lone Yeah, so basically even if you didn't care about neocon foreign policy invading Muslim countries, you'd hate feminazification.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@Amina_Lone It's not just Muslim men who hate the feminazification of Western society, Islamophobes hate it too.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@nnnfdd I think @Amina_Lone will ignore me the way @Ed_Husain and @LiamByrneMP ignored the question I asked.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@nnnfdd @Amina_Lone Well, to be fair, the nice @ProgressOnline chap next to me pointed out that what I said wasn't really a question.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@nnnfdd @Amina_Lone Question I should have asked: What are you going to do with the fact social conservatives don't agree with ur policies?

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@nnnfdd @Amina_Lone Question I should have asked: What are you going to do with the fact Muslim terrorists don't agree with your policies?

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@nnnfdd @Amina_Lone The unspoken answer was: We don't care what Muslim terrorists think n r only interested in PRETENDING we have a solution

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@nnnfdd @Amina_Lone What would have been the reaction of the hypothetical socially conservative Muslim terrorist after @ProgressOnline talk?

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@Dora_Chance @Amina_Lone @nnnfdd @ProgressOnline We already know, don't we? He would have detonated his suicide vest.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@nnnfdd @Amina_Lone What do you do NEXT when you air your grievance then realise their validity will never ever be acknowledged? #terrorism

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@Dora_Chance @Amina_Lone The distinction between religion and politics is a distinction without a difference.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@Dora_Chance @Amina_Lone The religion of Britain is the religion of PC Liberalism which condones extramarital sex as a way of life.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@Dora_Chance @Amina_Lone It is precisely the ideology of feminism that dictates that government must condone extramarital sex.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@Dora_Chance @Amina_Lone @Ed_Husain @LiamByrneMP @nnnfdd It was because they had no answer and their "solution" was to ignore the problem.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@Dora_Chance @Amina_Lone @Ed_Husain @LiamByrneMP @nnnfdd Progressive politics is about progressing towards sexual liberation,don't you know.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@Dora_Chance @Amina_Lone Patriarchy is not a myth but a concept of society feminists hate and fear. Feminists are always talking about it.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@Dora_Chance @Amina_Lone I am surprised you have not noticed that most countries in the world base their government on liberal democracy.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@Dora_Chance @Amina_Lone Oil-rich Muslim countries in the Middle East are allowed their own government only if they do what the US says.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@Dora_Chance @Amina_Lone @Ed_Husain @LiamByrneMP @nnnfdd I'm saying sexual morality is a very live political issue many dare not discuss.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@Dora_Chance @Amina_Lone @Ed_Husain @LiamByrneMP @nnnfdd Keith Joseph tried to discuss sexual morality in 1974 and look what happened to him

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@Dora_Chance @Amina_Lone @nnnfdd @ProgressOnline You must already know that the political establishment is willfully blind, deaf and dumb.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@Dora_Chance @Amina_Lone @Ed_Husain @LiamByrneMP @nnnfdd Trump is the only politician close to common sense and social conservatism.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@Dora_Chance @Amina_Lone @nnnfdd @ProgressOnline The problem is not that I am mad, but that HMG and the media are, which is even scarier.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

Why does British democracy keep vomiting forth egregious mediocrities like @jeremycorbyn? Don't the British deserve better? https://t.co/cShMKzFhSe

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

The best question asked was by a Jewish lady, who speculated that Muslims become terrorists because they perceive something to be lacking. https://t.co/ntmRlp9ljw

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

What do Muslims who become terrorists perceive to be lacking in Western society? Policies that support 1) men 2) marriage 3) the family https://t.co/1CHxTDqggM

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

I well remember the Abu Qatada dinner I attended during Ramadan when on live video he told the diners: HMG does NOT support marriage/family. https://t.co/Zh4YpZguIH

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

There was something rather chilling about this statement: so obvious when pointed out yet so deliberately concealed and unacknowledged. https://t.co/aSVQVFMgnO

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

Even after this has been pointed out to a Labour MP as senior as @LiamByrneMP, what's the betting HMG will continue drinking the Kool Aid? https://t.co/mndbEAiA3X

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

The globalists whom @LiamByrneMP used to work for do not want any nation to enjoy rational government. Nationalism is of course rational gvt https://t.co/ly0ihyHvbe

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

When the international order breaks down, the only thing we'd be left with is enlightened nationalism which globalists currently demonise. https://t.co/rhbei5AdjQ

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

Watch https://t.co/v8lbEzGklT then compare and contrast Russia's and Austria's attitude towards nationalism as a policy. https://t.co/QVhtS30OR2

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

What is the modus operandi of globalists? They know liberal democracy keeps people and their government stupid and easily bribable. https://t.co/nAtgi7kSTb

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

How does globalism work? They just bribe key politicians in key positions ie Prime Minister, Foreign/Defence Secretary, Chancellor. Sorted. https://t.co/PcVeOARbzO

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

How do globalists keep people stupid? Demonise social conservatism and promote sexual liberation through feminism. https://t.co/0xPW9h5IZ8

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

https://t.co/WFs2j6LO5R Have you noticed how much the globalists hate Trump who dares to challenge feminists on abortion? https://t.co/0JhlKN0TLl

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

Time to remind ourselves why we support Trump and what he is trying to do.  https://t.co/NgvobpBCmj

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@DoctorEuge You would be labelled Far Right and demonised as such. Social conservatives are all Nazi Fascist racists, aren't they?

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@DoctorEuge If you disagree with gay marriage you are just one stop away from terrorism. https://t.co/cYF6dBTFmd

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@DoctorEuge https://t.co/FK9fiWvhxl The hypocrisy of the counter-extremist

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

Progressive politics is only about progressing towards sexual liberation.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

The only countries that are not liberal democracies/vassal states of the US acting in their national interest are China, Iran and Russia.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

Western man has for so long been enticed away from morality and reason that any attempt to put him right will result in anger and violence.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

What do China, Iran and Russia have in common? The desire to act in their own national interest and the ability to defy the globalists.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

Globalists who control the media don't want nations run by an alpha male acting in the national interest, so they demonise nationalism. https://t.co/l3ZVt00FXO

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

The cause of Islamophobia is a combination of immigration policy and Western foreign policy. https://t.co/X5xpor2t23

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

Does "nuanced" mean "platitudinous" in this context? #terrorism https://t.co/7x0acSoqv4

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

The biggest threat the West faces is that of its politicians continuing to drink the Kool Aid of feminism, neoliberalism and neoconservatism https://t.co/HWIMZ5cgLd

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

How can you win hearts and minds when you won't even acknowledge that terrorists are people with a grievance whose validity you deny? https://t.co/DXRdP7VXeo

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

@RichardAngell The moral validity of Western foreign policy and feminism was never discussed. https://t.co/eCIMrN1FY9 …

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

The media is controlled by white middle class feminazis who despise white men and want to invite brown migrants in. https://t.co/SFWakMRvVu

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

White middle class feminazis are women who control spineless unprincipled men who don't care about the morality of Western foreign policy. https://t.co/sjrOU9XAup

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

What is the single greatest achievement of Western media? It has succeeded in demonising marriage, family values and common sense.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

So now we know: @ProgressOnline is funded by NEOCON CORPORATE INTERESTS. SHOCK HORROR! https://t.co/SnhEJ9ZUO2

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 12, 2017

White middle class feminazis in the media who control spineless unprincipled men don't care about the morality of Western foreign policy or social policy. Those who control our media are mostly feminists, gays, atheists and the opposite of people who support marriage and family values.

Having destroyed the masculinity of men of their own race, they now wish to invite men of other races to enter their country in order to destroy their masculinity too.

Under cover of terrorism legislation, the government can easily now censor the free exchange of ideas to demonise anyone who points out an obvious truth or uses logical arguments to press his case.

When people like Anjem Choudary easily win the argument, the government simply ceases to engage with them at all and then incarcerates them.

It is not just Muslim radicals who suffer this treatment, is it? Even now as you read this, plans are afoot to impeach Donald Trump, before he has even been inaugurated.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/01/12/donald-trump-may-get-impeached-within-a-year-if-you-believe-the-betting-odds-6377488/

Corporate media still has a purpose even if the rest of us already know they are the biggest manufacturers of fake news.

This is how it works: the media spin a narrative - any narrative at all, no matter how illogical, transparently false and immoral. Our politicians pretend to believe it and vote for it.