Scandinavian feminists prostitutes of Islam don hijabs in Iran.

muppetsgoing

Deputy Prime Minister of Sweden’s “feminist” government Isabella Lövin  recently attacked U.S. President Donald J. Trump for having men in his top team. However, when her colleagues visited Iran they refused to take a stand against legally enforced female subjugation.

There were 11 women on the trip led by Prime Minister Stefan Lofven this weekend, according to Expressen, and they were all photographed in headscarves “almost all of the time”, apart from at events in the Swedish Embassy.

Yes, people. The “powerful” feminists from Sweden are wearing  veils  (a symbol of the oppression of women in Iran, and it is not only customary, but legislated oppression of women) by a Muslim government

It is illegal for women to go out in public without wearing headscarves in Iran, where thousands of undercover agents and “morality police” patrol the streets to check for violations. Women found to have their hair or bodies inadequately covered can be publicly admonished, fined, or even arrested.

Feminist woman lies in a feminist TV programme that she passed British special forces selection

Image result for Azi Ahmed

This is Azi Ahmed, a Muslim feminist. She first popped up on the national press (feminist TV programme Loose Women, feminist newspapers) seeking  publicity for her book and future career as a public motivational speaker.She is also trying to be a politician promoting the feminist and Islamic agenda. See below

img_2909

Why is she famous? (Ok, not not so famous)

She reported that she along with “several other women” were hand picked to attempt SAS (British special forces) selection. The SAS is the world’s finest elite force.

Her words: “I was one of the first women to learn how to fight behind enemy lines. I trained with the SAS between 1999 and 2002, at a time when the idea of women on the frontline was total fantasy.”

But there something missing in her story: THE SAS DON’T ACCEPT WOMEN.

The SAS was founded in 1941 during the II World War to fight National Socialism and Fascism using Unconventional Warfare. The unit undertakes a number of roles including covert reconnaissance, counter-terrorism, direct action and hostage rescue. From the approximately 200 candidates, most will drop out within the first few days, and by the end about 20 will remain. Sometimes less people pass the selection.

There was a rule: women were not allowed to join the SAS. Why? Because in 1941 men wanted to protect women. Some units do accepet women and some don’t accept women. They have the right to do it. Security is a serious business and should not be affected by political correctness.

As a good feminist, Azi Ahmed blamed the “sexist”society and the British Army playing the victim card.

“A week before I was due to receive my ‘sandy beret’ – the trademark of the SAS uniform – the experiment to allow women in the SAS was canned. The Army simply wasn’t ready for women.
I was angry. I’d put myself through the toughest mental, emotional and physical challenges known to man” 

That’s how feminism works and you have probably learnt it: Men protect women, men are sexist. Men don’t protect women, men are sexist. Whatever men do, men are sexist.

This is how social justice warrior and feminists think: don’t use violence but they want to do it and normally in the worst way possible (see the leftist attack against #MiloYiannopoulos  in the USA). Feminist women want to have masculine characteristics in a simple case of penis envy but also want to emasculate men. All in the name of equality.

Feminist want to change society with crazy ideas (read it here). Now they are targeting our security and the British Army.

As if it were not enough, this disgusting feminist played the good Muslim woman card and blamed society and the British Army for intolerance against Muslims. Seriously? A person who does not believe in Western values but live in the UK, a person who blames the UK but does not talk about countries in countries in The Middle East were women are second-class citizens.

This feminist is an insult to anyone who has ever served. She should be ashamed of herself

Feminists want equality but if treated equally, complain about equality. Feminists want privileges.Whatever you find a feminist complainig about something, you see destruction of good ideas and lack of commonsense.

This obsession for equality is an old left wing mantra were enough is never enough. Left wing regimes killed millions for equality. Feminism, as a left wing movement support these regimes.

So in a nut shell…..

Azi Ahmed is a Muslim feminist. She is a liar. She needs exposing on a national level. She is disrespectful human being to all those who served. Her book is a fabrication.

This is an example of how a feminist goes too far about promoting the feminist agenda. Put her on trial in a court of law and see if she tells the same story.

Who said that? Suffragists, Ku Klux Klan or feminazis?

breaking-news-miley-cyrus-denounces-donald-trump-for-his-crude-5078881

Some say 1st wave feminism was the “good feminism”. Individualist, not collectivist. Not totalitarian, not hateful. Abolitionist. It only wanted freedom, equality, dignity for all. But then, later came the so-called feminazis.

So, this is going to be the easiest quiz on the internet. 

Below there are just 7 quotes. Which of them are from a) suffragists, b) KKK members, and which are from c) modern times radical feminists/feminazis? The answers will follow.

Ready? Suffragists, KKK or feminazis? Go!

1. Alien illiterates rule our cities today; the saloon is their palace, and the toddy stick their scepter. The colored race multiplies like the locusts of Egypt.

2. Better whiskey and more of it’ is the rallying cry of great, dark-faced mobs.

3. The safety of [white] women, of childhood, of the home is menaced in a thousand localities.

4. I will cut off this right arm of mine before I will ask for the ballot for the Negro and not for the woman.

5. Mr. Douglass talks about the wrongs of the Negro; but with all the outrages that he to-day suffers, he would not exchange his sex and take the place of Elizabeth Cady Stanton.

6. We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men

7. What will we and our daughters suffer if these degraded black men are allowed to have the rights that would make them even worse than our Saxon fathers?

Ready or not, the answers are coming next.

Answers

1st, 2nd and 3rd: Suffragist Frances Elizabeth Caroline Willard, 1839 – 1898. President of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, founder of the National Council of Women.

Alien illiterates rule our cities today; the saloon is their palace, and the toddy stick their scepter. The colored race multiplies like the locusts of Egypt.

Better whiskey and more of it’ is the rallying cry of great, dark-faced mobs.

The safety of women, of childhood, of the home is menaced in a thousand localities.

 

 

4th and 5th: Suffragist Susan Brownell Anthony, 1820-1906. Member of the Anti-Slavery Society, president of the American Woman Suffrage Association.

I will cut off this right arm of mine before I will ask for the ballot for the Negro and not for the woman.

Mr. Douglass talks about the wrongs of the Negro; but with all the outrages that he today suffers, he would not exchange his sex and take the place of Elizabeth Cady Stanton.

Suffragists already used the rhetorical tactic of presenting the situation of white women as not only equivalent, but even worse than that of the black slave. That was, on its face, an absurdity. But it’s easy to exploit with rhetoric the positive sexism toward women, bringing much greater empathy towards the white woman then the black man. And Anthony was an abolitionist, but… the problem is in that “but”, right?

Speaking of the feminist’s rhetoric, should Mr. Douglass exchange his sex as any way to prove his points about “the wrongs of the negro”? And isn’t it interesting Anthony’s attempt to exclude Douglass being born in slavery with the word today? If today he is not a slave but an important national personality, what would he be so upset about, uh? Well… maybe he was concerned with the status of all black people and their future in the US?

Just a reminder of who that Mr. Douglass was, especially for non-Americans:

The Right has no sex, the Truth has no color.” (Frederick Douglass)

Certainly admirable words of a black people’s rights activist, not at all like the New Left, Post Modern, SJW’s who drive our hands to our faces today.

Frederick Douglass (1818–1895) escaped his life as a slave in Maryland after 2 failed attempts. It was then hard to believe that someone with his background could be such a brilliant orator, writer, and statesman. He became close friend of personalities such as Abraham Lincoln. He, however, died seeing black people having advanced very little in the civil equality he so passionately fought for.

This is the man who, according to fallacious pioneer feminist icon Susan B. Anthony, “would not exchange his sex” with her friend, Lady Elizabeth Cady Stanton.

Douglass was also friends with Stanton – but then, the proposal for the constitutional amend giving blacks the suffrage before white women came. That was when “suffragist” leaders showed their true colors for the historical record.

Quotes 6 and 7: Suffragist Elizabeth Cady Stanton, 1815-1902. Who was another abolitionist suffragist who nevertheless “recognized the facts” about “the beastly negro men”.

We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men.

What will we and our daughters suffer if these degraded black men are allowed to have the rights that would make them even worse than our Saxon fathers?

So, suffragists “only wanted and believed in equality”? You don’t say! With “Infinitely superior to men” and White supremacy! Bitch, please.

Don’t be mislead by my sarcastic humor. This is ugly, and it is going to get worse.

Eager to see what blend of supremacist “drops of wisdom” I’ve got under my sleeve for you to sort out in Part 2?

Well, I have a surprise: Part 2 is right below too. Why not?

Come back later, or see it all right away.

Quiz: Suffragists, Ku Klux Klan or Feminazis? Part 2

1. White supremacy will be strengthened, not weakened, by women’s suffrage.

2. The white men, reinforced by the educated white women, could ‘snow under’ the Negro vote in every State, and the white race would maintain its supremacy without corrupting or intimidating the Negroes.

3. I do not want to see a negro man walk to the polls and vote on who should handle my tax money, while I myself cannot vote at all…When there is not enough religion in the pulpit to organize a crusade against sin; nor justice in the court house to promptly punish crime; nor manhood enough in the nation to put a sheltering arm about innocence and virtue—if it needs lynching to protect woman’s dearest possession from the ravening human beasts—then I say lynch, a thousand times a week if necessary.

4.The enfranchisement of women would insure immediate and durable white supremacy, honestly attained; for, upon unquestionable authority, it is stated that “in every Southern State but one, there are more educated women than all the illiterate voters, white and black, native and foreign, combined.” As you probably know, of all the women in the South who can read and write, ten out of every eleven are white. When it comes to the proportion of property between the races, that of the white outweighs that of the black immeasurably. The South is slow to grasp the great fact that the enfranchisement of women would settle the race question in politics.

5. You have put the ballot in the hands of your black men, thus making them political superiors of white women. Never before in the history of the world have men made former slaves the political masters of their former mistresses!

6. I’d rather be a rebel than a slave.

7. Henceforth women are to be dictators. … The time has come to make this world muddle men have created and strive to turn it into an ordered, peaceful, happy abiding place for humanity.

The answers are below.

1st: Suffragist Carrie Chapman Catt, 1859-1947. Teacher, journalist, founder of the League of Women Voters.

White supremacy will be strengthened, not weakened, by women’s suffrage.

Outstanding , Mrs. Catt! Who would not be convinced by this argument for women’s suffrage?

 

2: Suffragist Laura Clay, 1849-1940. Founder and president of the first suffragists’ group in Kentucky, the Kentucky Equal Rights Association. Active member of the Democratic Party, she was an important local, state and national leadership. First woman to be indicated as a candidate to president of the United States.

The white men, reinforced by the educated white women, could ‘snow under’ the Negro vote in every State, and the white race would maintain its supremacy without corrupting or intimidating the Negroes.

 

 

 

The 3rd is from Suffragist Rebecca Ann Latimer Felton, 1835-1930. Teacher, writer, prison reformist, first woman senator in the USA. Also, white supremacist and slave owner.

“I do not want to see a negro man walk to the polls and vote on who should handle my tax money, while I myself cannot vote at all…When there is not enough religion in the pulpit to organize a crusade against sin; nor justice in the court house to promptly punish crime; nor manhood enough in the nation to put a sheltering arm about innocence and virtue—-if it needs lynching to protect woman’s dearest possession from the ravening human beasts—-then I say lynch, a thousand times a week if necessary.

Yes, she was using the “where are the true men” routine. And yes, she was implying that white men lynching blacks, as she wanted them to, was what it meant “to be a man.”

4th: Suffragist Belle Kearney, 1863-1939. Speaker, writer, member of the Temperance Movement, teacher, State Senator in Mississipi.

The enfranchisement of women would insure immediate and durable white supremacy, honestly attained; for, upon unquestionable authority, it is stated that “in every Southern State but one, there are more educated women than all the illiterate voters, white and black, native and foreign, combined.” As you probably know, of all the women in the South who can read and write, ten out of every eleven are white. When it comes to the proportion of property between the races, that of the white outweighs that of the black immeasurably. The South is slow to grasp the great fact that the enfranchisement of women would settle the race question in politics. [see full speech in multiple sources].

By the way, within all the racism in this excerpt, did you notice, the parts where she speaks about how white women were “deprived of education” (yes, that is irony) in the racist, sexist, chivalrous “Patriarchal” southern states? I did. And if you are not so feminist, you are not that surprised by how the “Patriarchy” used to work.

5th: Suffragist Anna Howard Shaw, 1847-1919. Doctor, Methodist minister, president of the National Woman Suffrage Association.

You have put the ballot in the hands of your black men, thus making them political superiors of white women. Never before in the history of the world have men made former slaves the political masters of their former mistresses!

 

6th: English Suffragists, played by Carey Mulligan, Meryl Streep, Anne Marie Duff and Romola Garai, in the movie Suffragettes2015:

The phrase, stamped in promo t-shirts above, has an actual historical origin. It’s from Emmeline Pankhurst in 1913, when she said:

I know that women, once convinced that they are doing what is right, that their rebellion is just, will go on, no matter what the difficulties, no matter what the dangers, so long as there is a woman alive to hold up the flag of rebellion. I would rather be a rebel than a slave. I would rather die than submit; and that is the spirit that animates this movement…..I mean to be a voter in the land that gave me birth or they shall kill me, and my challenge to the Government is: kill me or give me my freedom: I shall force you to make that choice.

To add some perspective adjustment here: have you ever seen a slave, kept in submission, receive special treatment when committing crimes and then demand that their Masters die and/or kill, to be maimed or to dismember others, for the slave’s sake, because that is the least their “owners can” do? Well, there you have it. She would never, possibly, “rather be a rebel then a slave”, because she was not a slave; She was a Madam.

Not without reason people speak of something called white feminism. And if you didn’t know what that is, here you have the synthesis of the arrogance, the shameless, extremely egoistic, false self-attribution of others’ true oppression, by the elitist white feminist. And you also know something else of importance: when it began. “White (racist) feminism”, just like “elitist” feminism, “man-hatred” feminism – even though there were exceptions to confirm the rule – is the original feminism, it’s core and soul.

And don’t forget, Emmeline, among other infamous facts about her, did not fight for the poorer women to have the vote (see 5th paragraph in this article and reference), and most certainly not for slaves.

7th. Suffragist Alva Belmont. Socialite, multimillionaire and president of the National Woman’s Party.

Henceforth women are to be dictators. … The time has come to make this world muddle men have created and strive to turn it into an ordered, peaceful, happy abiding place for humanity.

Belmont’s full text shows her sophistry, something like this: 1) There are dictators in the world; 2) And awful things as well; 3) Dictators, as politicial leaders in general, are almost always men; 4) Therefore, the world is this way because of men; 5) Men have always “oppressed women”; 6) Enough of men concentrating power in their hands; 7) And how will we make this world marvellous? 8) With women dictators, of course!!!

It is the same essentialist and collectivist reasoning of any racist totalitarian, only applied to all men, instead of to ethnicity. It is presented raw, not as sophisticated – deceitful, misleading, dishonest, faulty, spurious, distorted – and backed by a myriad of pseudo-scientific feminist literature as we have today – but it is the very same reasoning of so many feminists today: power “in the hands of of men” (in the hands of one, or 0,8%, is already in the hands “of men”) is oppression; the more power in the hands of women, it doesn’t matter what kind of women, or how much power that means… is equality, it’s the smashing of “The Patriarchy”, the end of oppression; it is the best for the world! Or, in that one world, it is empowerment!

Conclusions

Among other self-evidences,

  • 1st wave feminists did not want, believe or stand for, “just equality, freedom and dignity for all”.
  • The feminist leaders of the 1st wave were from socially and financially privileged backgrounds, and in more than one opportunity turned their back on people who were suffering, who they deceived posing as champions for those people. They did it for sheer self-interest and disdain for others.
  • Even abolitionist feminist leaders showed themselves to be hardcore hateful racists facing the possibility of black men coming to have the suffrage before them did.
  • As women, these “suffragists” believed in female supremacy; as white women, they believed in white supremacy; with the same hatefulness and intolerance of any hate movement. Therefore,
  • “Suffragists” does not describe what 1st wave feminist was. To call them just “suffragists” is as misleading as describing Saddam Hussein and Bashar al-Assad as merely political leaders coming from minority groups and full of love for their countries.
  • They were far from being a peaceful movement.

Those who might think all that racist and sexist hate are only cherry-picked examples don’t know, or did not really pay attention, to the history of the first world congress on “women’s rights” in Seneca Falls, organized by the feminists of the time. Furthermore, these are not only some random 1st wave feminists; they are not even only prominent feminists (presidents, founders of women’s associations, high society personalities, senators); they are the most prominent. Cornerstones of the feminist movement, symbols and promoted role models such as Susan B. Anthony, Frances E. Willard, Elizabeth Cady Stanton e Emmeline Pankhurst.

The idea of the presentation as a quiz came from this post by cafe.com.

And before someone complains: as racism and sexism are already a wide scope, eugenicist 1st wavers like Emily Murphy, Victoria Woodhull, (first woman candidate to president of the USA), Mary Stopes and the most commented, Margaret Sanger, were not included and appear in other articles (like this one).

In other articles, I intend to speak in depth how 1st wave feminism created an unprecedented form of parental alienation for fathers, their connections with suicides, mass murders (yes, I mean it) and how the now so polemic “gender ideology” – which many believe emerged with the 2nd wave, with the neomarxism (New Left/Frankfurt School/cultural marxism) and/or Simone de Beauvoir (World War 2) – was actually born in the 1st wave.

If you know what I (and others) know about feminism’s 1st wave of  (“that good feminism”?), you will never see it the same way again.

Feminist For Women’s March Is Pro Sharia Law with Ties To Hamas. Where are feminist celebrities? In silence

it-trumps-statements-prove-he-objectifies-women-and-someone-like-5231494

Feminists often say they fight for us (women’s rights). Approximately 200,000 people participated in a ‘Women’s March’ in D.C. on Saturday. Similar movements happened around the world.  Feminist celebrities loved it. They also were fighting for us in the most disgusting way (images above and below).

Why? Because Trump is  “sexist, capitalist” and all that kind of crap, in their point of view. It’s a sign of them losing power. The feminists couldn’t keep Trump out of the White House. They can continue to kick and scream until their dying breath. Feminists are also attacking Melania Trump and her children.

Was not feminism supposed to be a “peace and love” movement?

One of the organizers of the march, Linda Sarsour is a feminist Pro-Palestine Muslim activist.  Linda Sarsour is very active on Twitter. She is pro Sharia law and a couple of her tweets even have a seditious tone to them where she romanticizes Sharia law and hints at it taking over America whereby we would have interest free loans.

Image result for linda sarsour sharia law

She also advocates for Sharia Law in America and has ties to terrorist organization, Hamas.

The fact that an Islamic faction was one of the organizers of the Women’s March is laughable at best. Islam is responsible for the worst abuses of women and children not only throughout history, but at present day. Islamic supremacists who wish to impose Sharia law in America (The Sharia law in the UK unfortunately is a reality already) have infiltrated various leftist movements in order to appear as an oppressed minority.

madonna-blow-job-01-800x416

madonna-if-you-vote-for-hillary-ill-give-you-a-5472041

All these crazy feminists protesting against Trump when the Democrat Clinton wanted to bring 550000 Muslim refugees into the US. One would expect at least more sense from some Western women (free access to internet and information) when they can witness what is happening as a result of uncontrolled immigration from Muslim countries, where Muslim men have got different values and opinions regarding women (Germany’s migrant rape crisis has now spread to cities and towns ).

Perhaps someone should send them to Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Morocco, Senegal, Iran or some other hell-hole where Sharia is practiced and infidel women are treated like trash, raped women are prosecuted for infidelity and stoned to death and gays are thrown from buildings or hanged on cranes in the town square.

Where women are afraid to be out on the once-safe streets and some areas and even shopping malls are no-go zones unless you wear a Burqa, due to Sharia police.

But you don’t see feminists there? Why? Where were these feminists protesting when a million young white British girls were being groomed and raped, or when girls are being subject to female genital mutilation, or for that matter, being pimped out by “yardies” etc ? What’s about the rapes in Germany? Nowhere to be seen .Feminists are just leftists who don’t care about genuine women’s welfare. They just care about their agenda.

Linda Sarsour is also very vocal about her support for Palestine and her utter hatred for Israel. She has ties to the terrorist organization, Hamas as the Daily Caller reports:

Linda Sarsour, one of the organizers behind Saturday’s Women’s March, being held in Washington, D.C., was recently spotted at a large Muslim convention in Chicago posing for pictures with an accused financier for Hamas, the terrorist group.

Sarsour, the head of the Arab American Association of New York and an Obama White House “Champion of Change,” was speaking at last month’s 15th annual convention of the Muslim American Society and Islamic Circle of North America.

While there, she posed for a picture with Salah Sarsour, a member of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee and former Hamas operative who was jailed in Israel in the 1990s because of his alleged work for the terrorist group.

Image may contain: sky and outdoor

Furthermore, feminists and SJWs often want to save the planet marching for the environment. We  know what the Womens March was marching for. But it’s clear they weren’t marching for the environment or trees since they left their garbage strewn about the streets for sanitation workers to pick up at taxpayer expense.

It’s scary how brainwashed and disillusioned they are. Billionaire George Soros has ties to more than 50 ‘partners’ of the Women’s March on Washington. Yes, a wealthy and globalist man is commanding the feminists

 

Trump won the American elections. How the left is dealing with it? Equality, peace and justice? No, definitely not

feminism-is-a-hate-movement

We have been noticing a pattern.  It can happen in the UK, America, Australia, Brazil, Spain or Venezuela. In fact, it can happen in any part around the world.

The left is always saying that is tolerant, peaceful and respectful. Students are often  deceived by this kind of propaganda.

If you are clever, you know the answer: The left is NOT tolerant, peaceful and respectful. Feminism is a lefty movement, thus, we know how feminists, SJW and the left react: Hate , abuse and censorship.

Look around: The latest dictatorships around the world are left wing.

Trump won, whatever you like it or not, elected democratically by american people. How the left has reacted? Let’s see some of them:

1- Woman bullies child for voting Trump in class mock election.

2-Militants from black lives matter assaulting a man who voted for Trump. This is sad. What happened to freedom to vote?

3- Feminist defecating  in public after Trump victory.

4- Criminal Twitter from a lefy person. Is it peace and love? It is NOT.

5- 23-year-old Shacara McLaurin just couldn’t stop grinning in court after bashing an elderly Trump supporter’s head against the pavement during a #NotMyPresident protest.

Is the left actually peace and love? It is NOT.

It is time to expose this myth.

Furthemore, people need to understand beating up people or protesting won’t change anything regrading Trump as president.

Have you got more examples? Post below. It is time  to expose this myth about the left “tolerance”.

Unbelievable: Social Justice Warriors Go Beserk Over British Army ‘Black Face’ Which Is Actually GREEN Camouflage

amy-tweet-2-640x480

SJWs, feminists and all kind of idiots talking nonsense attacked the British Army.

Why?

A tweet, from the Army’s official Twitter account, said that being a soldier in the jungle “requires a robust sense of humour” and featured a picture of an officer with an amusing, surprised expression on his face.

Users of the social media (social justice warriors and feminists) site claimed the soldier’s camouflage face paint was an example of “black face” – a supposedly racist practice whereby white people dress up as ethnic minorities.

Unbelievable.

Let’s make it clear:

IT IS NOT RACISM.

The posted picture of a soldier with GREEN camouflage paint on his face, camouflage used to to do some soldiering in the jungle and the SJWs and feminists think it is racism?

The British Armed Forces, tasked with the defence of the our country, are loved by the British population and respected around the world.  Some units as the SBS, SAS and Royal Marine Commandos are models for several Armies around the world.

But feminists and SJW don’t understand that. They live in fantasyland and see racism and oppression everywhere.

One angry Tweeter said the reference to humour was “clearly” related to the soldier’s face paint, with one writing: “The blackface combined with the ‘sense of humour’ line, it all comes off as pretty racist.”

The Army deleted the post in minutes and issued a swift apology.  Unbelievable.

Is the UK becoming a country obsessed with feminism, cultural-moral relativism, equality and political correctness? Is it affecting our loved British Armed Forces? We hope not.

A better response from the the Army would have been: keep the Tweet.

1. There is nothing wrong with blackface.

2. This wasn’t blackface. It was GREEN.

3. Apologizing for doing your job, when there is no offence whatsoever is the mark of craven cowards.

Once the Army has apologised for this then SJWs can move on to the next level of being offended.
That’s the way they work. Bit by bit. This is now in the bag, an apology so they can tighten the screw and be offended by something a little less next.

Remember, this started off by the banning  jokes in the 1980’s.
Look how far the cancer of PC has contaminated everything, its corrosive tentacles finding and causing hate everywhere.

The incident is just the latest in a string of controversies caused by “offensive” practice of “black face”.

In one of the more unusual examples, in March, the black actress Zoe Saldana was attacked for darkening her skin in a film where she played the black singer and civil rights activist Nina Simone.

Many universities and campuses have outlawed the practice altogether, and in August, traditional British Morris dancers were banned from painting their faces at one of the UK’s biggest folk festivals after being accused of “black face”.

Feminist agenda: Feminist politician Barbro Sörman says ‘Swedish men rape by choice, migrants rape by ignorance’

 

.sweden-feminists-sorman-says-rape-migrant

Rape is a terrible crime, right?

But it is not for feminists if the rapist is someone helped by the lefty agenda. Feminism is a lefty movement, therefore, they won’t attack a rapist if this rapist is a kind of ideological “friend”. For Liberals/ feminists/ SJWs, morality is nothing to do with individual acts; it’s entirely about what group you belong to.

Feminist will use morar relativism and the craziest excuses to protect their ideological friends.

Only in Sweden (a country obsessed with feminism, cultural-moral relativism, equality and political correctness)  you can have crazy comments like Swedish Politician Barbro Sörman made, regarding the differences between Swedish rape and migrant rape…there is no difference, rape is rape…but for this neo-liberal, rape is not all equal.

Meanwhile rape is a terrible crime, in Sweden, the feminist paradise, this Swedish feminist politician thinks that when rape is committed by Swedish men it is “worse” because of cultural differences.

Here we have a simple case of a woman trying to excuse rape by simply saying, ‘they do not know any better’. This type of logic is an extremely slippery slope once implied to other crimes.

We think rape is a terrible crime. Regardless of why they rape, the effects are still the same and the rapist should be punished the same. Sweden used to be regarded as a modern and progressive international community. Sweden is now becoming known as a home of radical Islam and radical Feminism. Credibility of this once proud nation is steadilly waning.

Breitbart has more on this story…

A feminist politician in Swedish has defended migrant rapists by arguing that when rape is committed by Swedish men it is “worse” because of cultural differences.

“The Swedish men who rape do it despite the growing gender equality. They make an active choice. It’s worse…” Tweeted Barbro Sörman of the socialist and feminist Left Party.

Mrs. Sörman, who represents a district of the capital Stockholm, was responding to what she claimed was too much media focus on the fact that the majority of rapes in Sweden are committed by immigrants.

Her deflationary argument is a good example of the cultural and moral relativism that is prominent on the left, and explicitly argued for by many postmodern academics.

If the Swedish man makes an “active choice” to rape, the implication is that the migrant rapist has little choice because of the misogynistic, violent culture he is from. His crime is not “worse” as it is excused by his culture, and there is no moral equivalence with the Western rapist.

When contacted by Sweden’s Free Times, Mrs. Sörman continued to defend this line of argument:

“Take a picture of Sweden as an equal society, where all are nurtured in equality. Then you can say that if you are brought up in it, you make an active choice to not be equal, rather than if you are brought up in a society that is not equal”, she said.

When pressed later, she backed tracked. She said the Tweets were “clumsily expressed”, adding: “I’m not saying it’s worse, of course not!”

Western feminists, who are often committed to multiculturalism, are well known for failing to confront non-western oppression of women. After the mass sex attacks by migrants in Cologne, Germany were uncovered, local feminists held a demonstration in favour of mass migration and against rapes by what they called “German-born” men.

Like Germany, Sweden has experienced several instances of mass, organised sex attacks by Muslim migrants, the latest reported just last week. The country is now informally known as the rape capital of Europe and has one of the worst rape problems in the world, surpassed only by Lesotho in Southern Africa.