Feeds:
Posts
Comments

STOCKHOLM SYNDROME

Rape and violence has exploded across Sweden due it’s immigration policies. Watch to see what Sweden has done to itself.

 

https://www.japantoday.com/category/politics/view/political-parties-divided-over-emperor-abdication-legislation

TOKYO —

Japan’s political parties showed differing positions Monday over possible legislation to enable Emperor Akihito to abdicate in separate hearings with the heads of both chambers of parliament, participants said.

Although the sessions were held as part of the parliamentary leaders’ efforts to iron out differing opinions among ruling and opposition parties, the results suggest more discussions are needed before a bill is submitted for legislation.

Representatives from Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s Liberal Democratic Party said the party supports a one-off legal mechanism enabling the 83-year-old emperor to abdicate and make way for Crown Prince Naruhito, 56.

The LDP’s junior coalition partner Komeito party, along with two other conservative parties, said during their hearings that they hold a similar view.

Abe’s government is seeking to materialize the aging emperor’s wish to abdicate, which was hinted at in a video message released last August, by means of enacting one-off legislation.

In contrast, the main opposition Democratic Party has advocated a permanent system through a revision to the Imperial House Law, which lacks an abdication provision.

Yoshihiko Noda, the party’s secretary general, said he called for the parliament heads to create an opportunity for all the parties to discuss the issue, instead of separate hearings.

In response, House of Representatives Speaker Tadamori Oshima indicated a willingness to do so after taking part in sessions with a total of 10 parties and groups.

The Japanese Communist Party, together with two other small parties and two groups, also demanded that the imperial law be amended.

Some legal experts and the Democratic Party argue that the planned LDP-led special legislation may violate the Constitution as the supreme law stipulates the imperial throne shall be “succeeded to in accordance with the Imperial House Law.”

In light of that, Masahiko Komura, vice president of the LDP, said after the party’s hearing he believes it is necessary to take measures to clarify the relationship between the envisioned special law and the imperial law.

Komeito deputy chief Kazuo Kitagawa said Oshima asked the party about the idea of adding a supplementary clause to the imperial law and putting the special law’s legal base in it. The ruling coalition has been studying the idea to bridge the gap with opposition parties as it could pave the way for future emperors to step down.

Kitagawa told reporters that he replied, “There is room to study.”

The Diet heads are hoping for early enactment of legislation and are making a rare attempt to reconcile parties’ opinions before the bill’s formulation, lawmakers said.

Taking into consideration each party’s opinion, Oshima and others will compile the Diet’s opinion possibly by mid-March.

Oshima said at a press conference that the Diet heads will meet later this week to discuss how to proceed with debate in the Diet afterward.

In January, a government advisory panel studying the abdication issue released an interim report emphasizing the merits of legislation applying only to Emperor Akihito but not to future emperors.

Considering the Diet’s view and the upcoming advisory council’s final proposal, the government plans to submit the bill to the Diet sometime between late April and early May, political sources said.

© KYODO

MONTREAL (JTA) — Montreal police are investigating a three-year-old video that shows an imam at a local mosque calling on Allah to “destroy the accursed Jews” and to kill them “one by one.”

The video, which went viral after being released Feb. 8 onto social media, appeared less than three weeks after six Muslim worshippers were gunned down in a Quebec City mosque and Jews across Canada rallied behind Muslims in a gesture of support and solidarity.

“We condemn these explicit calls for the death of Jews in the strongest possible terms,” Rabbi Reuben Poupko, co-chair of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, told The Canadian Jewish News.

“We believe these declarations may be a violation of the criminal code,” he said.

The mosque that hosted the imam was the Al-Andalous Islamic Centre in the Montreal borough of St. Laurent, according to reports.

A spokesman for the center said the person speaking in the video was a “volunteer” imam.

The center also issued a “clarification” that the imam’s comments were made during Israel’s 2014 military incursion into Gaza.

But, if anything, “the attack on the Quebec City mosque should serve as a reminder to all that there can be no ‘context’ in our democracy that legitimizes calls for violence against any identifiable community,” Poupko said.

http://www.jta.org/2017/02/19/news-opinion/world/montreal-imam-calls-to-destroy-the-accursed-jews-in-viral-video

 

Many who have tried to bring the truth to light about PizzaGate have either lost their jobs, their reputations, gone dark, disappeared or died. David Zublick breaks down the horrible truth in this special report!
Related Story: http://yournewswire.com/journalist-th…

 

 

 

“We must recognize that heterosexuality is also part of the structure of the oppression of women. Sexual repression is one of the ways in which women are oppressed and one of the ways in which patriarchy is maintained.”
Jane Flax, “Women Do Theory,” 1979, in Feminist Frameworks: Alternative Theoretical Accounts of the Relations Between Women and Men, edited by Alison M. Jaggar and Paula S. Rothenberg (Third Edition, 1993)

“It is a curious fact that feminists who live heterosexual lifestyles — who are happily married to, living with or having sex with men — often find it difficult or impossible to accept the identity ‘heterosexual.’ . . .
“For some heterosexual feminists . . . the contradictions between political ideology and lived experience are acute and painful, and involve constant compromise. . . . No wonder, then, that the identity ‘heterosexual’ is hard to sustain.”
Celia Kitzinger and Sue Wilkinson, “The Precariousness of Heterosexual Feminist Identities,” in Making Connections: Women’s Studies, Women’s Movements, Women’s Lives, edited by Mary Kennedy, Cathy Lubelska and Val Walsh (1993)

Oppression, repression, patriarchy — guys, if you ever encounter a woman who talks like this, just walk away. She’s deranged, and nothing you say to her is likely to cure her paranoid anti-male delusions.

Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It, and the only way anyone can hope to escape this destruction is to avoid being anywhere in the vicinity of a feminist. Why do feminists hate men so much? Perhaps because the only men with whom feminists ever interact are men too stupid to avoid hanging around feminists. Or even worse, they get mixed up with a “male feminist”:

I thought dating someone who called himself a feminist — who considered himself a “social justice warrior,” who was accepted in these communities, who was introduced to me at a feminist event by a trusted friend, and was sensitive — would be the safest choice I could make for a boyfriend. Instead, he was emotionally and psychologically abusive and manipulative. . . .
He bemoaned how predatory men can be. He was “concerned for me” — not jealous. . . .
He cried when I described my past rape. He hurt for me. He told me about how he hurts for all the women he knows who have been assaulted. I slowly found out that the women he has recently pursued are all assault survivors. . . .

You can read the rest of that, but you get the drift: Left-wing guys are sexual scavengers, always looking for easy prey, and their ostentatious concern for “social justice” issues is a three-card monte hustle that could only deceive a complete fool. However, complete fools are a dime a dozen in the kind of “communities” where feminists gather like wildebeests grazing on the Katanga Plateau, stalked by packs of “male feminists.”

 

Here’s a clue: Social justice is a mirage, as the Nobel Prize-winning economist Friedrich Hayek said. Anyone foolish enough to pursue the progressive fantasy of an egalitarian utopia is a chump, and getting involved with a political movement of chumps is always a bad idea, because bad causes attract bad people, and the worst get on top:

From the collectivist standpoint intolerance and brutal suppression of dissent, deception and spying, the complete disregard of the life and happiness of the individual are essential and unavoidable consequences . . .
To be a useful assistant in the running of a totalitarian state it is not enough that a man should be prepared to accept specious justification of vile deeds, he must himself be prepared actively to break every moral rule he has ever known if this seems necessary to achieve the end set for him. . . .
Yet while there is little that is likely to induce men who are good by our standards to aspire to leading positions in the totalitarian machine, and much to deter them, there will be special opportunities for the ruthless and unscrupulous.

The anarchist mobs of thugs who engage in vandalism and violence to protest the election results and to silence dissent on university campuses are symptomatic of this problem, and what kind of woman would get involved in such a movement? A fool or a feminist, but I repeat myself.

A woman who denounces heterosexuality as “the structure of the oppression of women,” to quote the Women’s Studies textbook, is free to avoid this oppression. If the feminist is not a lesbian, however, she must wonder if her politics can be reconciled with heterosexuality. In this, I agree with radical feminists, including Professor Kitzinger, who declare that feminism and heterosexuality are ultimately incompatible.

What does a normal woman want? The American Dream — a nice house in the suburbs, two or three kids running around in the backyard on a Sunday afternoon while her husband grills some burgers. Getting to that American Dream scenario in the 21st century may require different domestic arrangements than it did during the Eisenhower era, but a woman won’t get there through “social justice,” unless her husband happens to be a Democrat politician or a bigwig in some tax-exempt “progressive” foundation. No, ma’am, the way to the American Dream is capitalism. Smashing windows at Starbucks or marching around in pink “pussy hats” waving signs denouncing patriarchy isn’t likely to get you that nice house in suburbia. Reality does not conform to feminist theory.

http://theothermccain.com/2017/02/18/social-justice-vs-heterosexuality-and-the-problem-with-male-feminists/