Islam (represented in UN by Saudi based and steered OIC and its sharia called “islamic human rights”) is against Human Rights!
Sweden’s Supreme Court has found a man guilty of rape for having sex without explicit consent from a teenage woman who had been passive and gave no clear expression that she wanted to participate in the sexual acts. Lack of a partner’s spoken agreement or any other clear approval can hence be considered rape. However, islamic sharia gives a muslim man the "right" to have sex with wives and and concubines his "right hand possesses" (e.g. "infidel" girls/women). The neo-islamist rational (original openly supremacist islam didn't need one) is that "it satisfies the sexual desire of the female". Peter Klevius wonders if Swedish Courts will accept this reasoning - perhaps only for muslims?!
Peter Klevius also wonders whether BBS's leading presenter, the alcohol drinking and not Ramadan fasting, Pakistan rooted and Saudi raised muslim, Mishal Husain, approves of sharia?
In UK both Tories and Labour are against "islampohobia" - so apparently also against Human Rights? And if not, then they are "islamophobic" after all. So how do you vote for someone critical of islam's Human Rights violations if parties don't allow "islamophobia"? Is it democracy?
What do BBC and Jeremy Hunt have in common? Both support the islamofascist murderer and war criminal Mohammad bin Salman.
Peter Klevius: Girls' emancipation needs more football and less cricket, netball etc.
BBC's cricket propaganda is a slap in the face of young girls who need equally much moving around and spatial skills as young boys. However, there's a huge sex segregation in females motivation and access to football - not only the world's by far most popular physical sport, but also the only one that doesn't use tools or hands to handle the ball, and which makes all participants moving most of the time even without the ball. Moreover, the very nature of the sport forces participants to a never ending series of spatial and strategic challenges - with or without the ball and even while playing alone. So why is BBC so hostile to the Queen of sports (the "beautiful game") that is perfect for the physical and spatial development of girls - and in the face of the football loving majority who has to pay compulsory fees (and paying extra for football channels) to this faking regime propaganda media that uses stiff and lifeless colonial cricket for neo-colonial purpose?! England banned football for girls/women already 1921 and suggested cricket, land hockey and netball instead - almost like today except it's not called a ban. And what about the laughable notion of a "world cup" in cricket?! When is the "world cup" in caber tossing between Gotland and Scotland?
The murderous war criminal, Saudi muslim "custodian of islam" (and OIC) "prince" MBS is OK but Human Rights defender Peter Klevius isn't. Why?! Because the former isn't an "islamophobe", dude!
BBC thinks the militaristic Saudiphil Jeremy Hunt "is a safer option" as UK PM. What about you?
Racist Sinophobia disguised as "security" while muslim terror spreading Saudi murderous dictator and war criminal is "an important security ally"!?
Nothing in Primate/Haplorhini evolution came out of Africa - not even Africa (it was disconnected due to tectonics).
A “definition” of “islamophobia” ought to be balanced with a definition of muslim Human Rightsphobia.
"Diversity" without basic (negative) Human Rights is like having a car without steering - dangerous.
In its senseless and continuous "islamophobia" ranting BBC says to be 'muslim' is the same as to be 'English'. Klevius thinks not. A 'muslim' is one who wittingly or unwittingly adheres to what historical records show being the most evil enslaving ideology ever around (from a Human Rights perspective). And Klevius doesn't count as real muslims those who call themselves "cultural muslims" for the purpose of benefiting from a certain "ethnicity", or those who against their will are trapped in muslimhood because of the evil apostasy tenet in islam. And islamic "modesty" attires is a protected way of calling other women "whores".
The most serious threat to our Human Rights is the hate campaign against "islamophobia" which really is directed against Human Rights.
As long as most muslims in the world are ruled by a sharia (e.g. Saudi based and steered OIC) that gravely violates the most basic of Human Rights, and as long as the most devout muslims do the same by simply following original evil (according to Human Rights) islam, you can't legislate against criticism of islam without simultaneously legislating against Human Rights. Why do you want to hinder muslims from apostating? It's a Human Right! Islam should not be allowed to traumatize apostates. Authentic original (e.g. Wahhabi/Salafi) islam doesn't fit in the boots of "Euro-islam" and Human Rights.
Klevius suggests the UK baby should be named Muhammad. After all, according to BBC, the Queen is related to him and all politicians love islam. And several hadiths describe him as white (one even proposing the killing of anyone who says he was black). Only problem being that he then may be described as a white supremacist. Luckily the baby, according to BBC, is “mix-race”.
Klevius to EU voters: If you respect Human Rights - don’t vote for anyone who supports the islamofascist Saudi dictator family who spreads Human Rightsphobia via the Saudi based and steered OIC’s world sharia!
No true muslim can be fully human.
Why? Because islam's dividing the world in muslims and (not fully human) "infidels" makes it impossible. Only by fully accepting the basic (s.c. 'negative') Universal Human Rights equality - which islam can't accept (see e.g. Saudi based and steered all muslims world Ummah sharia organization OIC) without committing ideological suicide - can we meet every human as basically equal, in the same way as we can give every road-user a basic equality in traffic, i.e. we have traffic sense. So Klevius asks muslims whether they have "traffic sense"? And for all the rest of you - to be 'human' in a global sense can only be achieved by giving every human you meet basic equality - no matter how alien that human might feel to you. Because every human has the right to be "alien" and there can't even be any alternative to this as long as we don't accept brainwashed totalitarianism (see e.g. Klevius 1996 paper Angels of Antichrist). This is the only way to meaningfully talk about 'humankind'. And to alien hunters Klevius says you probably meet them every day already.
So when BBC and other fake media talk about xenophobia against muslims, they actually contribute to spread xenophobia themselves.
A "good muslim" is one who suppresses and distorts original islam so to fit Human Rights. However, some just pretend to do so - and some just continue hating the "infidel".
Peter Klevius to Greta Thunberg: Saudi salafist oil funded supremacist islam or Chinese Taoist (kindness) high tech - which one do you think is the real threat to the people and environmment in EU and the world?
Ultimate bigotry and hypocrisy – militant spying and war mongering 5 Eyes instead of true 5G?
Saudi hate spreading antennas (Salafi/Wahhabi mosques etc.) or Chinese world leading 5G tech? No one knows the amount of street etc. victims of Saudi hate because when the haters are muslims their attacks are not recorded as hate crimes. If a Chinese would attack shouting 'Tao' it would most certainly be classified as a hate crime. However, chances are slim that it ever occurs compared to hate attacks made by muslims.
Arabic (not "white" etc.) islam has been the by far biggest enslaver throughout 1,400 years. Islamic language imperialism via the Koran. And all races have been complicit in the muslim Koranic slave trade. So how do you distinguish between descendants of slaves or slave traders? Will Cambridge check today's "Caribbeans", "Africans" etc. about it? Klevius warns there might be unwelcomed surprises, e.g. that many of those who come to Europe are actually descendants of slave trading black Africans on whose wealth lineage top they are better privileged than those from slave lineages. And what about "whites" like Klevius who were cut off from any lineages? Should the skin color Klevius was born with be used against him because of the privileges of others with the same skin color? Same question may be asked about sexism. Klevius doesn’t see it fair to blame him for male sexism just because he happens tp be male, do you!
The real threat is the US led Saudi supporting spy organization 5 Eyes, which 1) tries to block superior tech, and 2) uses China as a scapegoat for US/UK privacy breaches. It's not China but US that wants to control you! So "securing 5G from Chinese influence" actually means giving US/UK a technical space for spying/influencing etc. In short, trying to hinder US/UK customers from accessing the best technology while spying on them.
Muslim terrorists get legal aid to stay in UK - EU nationals don't!
BBC collected a UKIP hating mob to shout "islamophobia" against islam criticism.
However, the very same BBC also willfully misleads people about islam so that most people in UK are completely unaware of that Saudi based and steered OIC and its extreme Human Rightsphobia is a world guide for (sharia) muslims. Moreover, BBC's top presenter (Mishal Husain) who seems to be muslim in name only (drinking alcohol, not fasting on Ramadan, no muslim attire, no Haji, no sharia, etc) so to dupe the public about islam.
The 1948 Human Rights declaration was created to protect against fascism. Accepting islam without a clear border against sharia that violates the most basic Human Rights, allows space for islamofascism (i.e. original supremacist islam).
However, the new fascist mob is shouting "islamophobia" because islam can't comply with it (compare Saudi based and steered OIC's sharia declaration against Human Rights). This smear is then "enhanced" by connecting it to murderers, Nazis, right wing extremists etc. Islam's sharia sexism and racist supremacism is the problem - so why is addressing it "bad"?!
BBC is also keen on silencing the only truly free media, i.e. bloggers etc. social media.
The crystal clear connection between the surge in knife, rape etc. attacks and islam - and its custodian, the islamofascist Saudi dictator family - is desperately silenced by BBC and politicians (BBC now tries to cover this up by airing long programs about "conventional" knife crimes instead). This means they are directly complicit, doesn't it. Klevius suggests boycotting BBC and Saudi bribed politicians. They constitute the worst security threat.
Peter Klevius evolution formula
Stop security cooperation with UK whose close connection to the the suspected murderer, war criminal and islamic terror spreading islamofascist Saudi custodian of islam, Mohammad bin Salman, constitutes the by far worst threat against the security of people in EU! Moreover, sharia islam (the only real islam for real muslims) which is a racist and sexist supremacist ideology that violates Human Rights, is supported by UK.
Don't let haters and Human Rightsphobes get away with it by calling themselves 'believers'!
Either religion is (grades of) supremacist hate and sexism and you better become an Atheist (and therefore universal human) - or you keep your "beliefs" for yourself. In traffic you can think what you want about other people, but you can't drive over them!
- and take responsibility for your own supremacist sharia, represented by Saudi based and steered all muslims world organization OIC, which violates the most basic Human Rights! And do note the difference between universal impositions and universal freedom! Full respect of the other rests on accepting her/his freedom. This is the only way of being universally human.
Islam is an evil* supremacist and divisive ideology - why isn’t this told by BBC, schools etc.?
* weighed against the anti-fascist, anti-supremacist, anti-racist and anti-sexist Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948 that all civilized people are supposed to build on. Islam doesn't fit these goals, so OIC (the legal world Umma steered from and by the Saudi dictator family) decided to replace them with medieval racist, sexist and supremacist sharia.
Article 24 of the Saudi based and steered OIC's sharia declaration (CDHRI) states: "All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia." Article 19 says: "There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Sharia." CDHRI also fails to guarantee freedom of religion, in particular the right of each and every individual to abandon their religion, as a "fundamental and non-derogable right".
Article 10 of the Declaration states: "Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion or to Atheism." Since in Islamic society all reasons for conversion away from Islam are considered to be essentially either compulsion or ignorance, this effectively forbids conversion away from Islam.
CDHRI denies women equality with men by imposing "own rights" and "duties to perform".
A global world is only possible under the guidance of (negative – i.e. individual freedom from racist/sexist impositions) Human Rights - as outlined in the original anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948. It excludes any religious or other supremacist tenets or impositions on the individual.
Due to the above and due to the West (politicians and media) having locked itself in with the islamofascist Saudi dictator family (the custodians of islam) we now have a deficit of (negative) Human Rights education – but massively more religious propaganda (e.g. Saudi spread “islamophobia” smear) against these rights. Against this background it's utmost hypocrisy to point against wealth spreading China while supporting islamic hate, terror and war crimes spreading hegemonic Saudi dictator family.
Saudi and BBC hate propaganda against Iran and Shia muslims behind attacks on Corbyn's "anti-Semitism"? BBC's inflammatory and offensive hate mongering use of the oxymoron "anti-Semitic" (reinforced by "islamophobia") protects Semitic (Arab/Sunni/Saudi) muslims from criticism while excluding non-Semitic Shia muslims (e.g. Iran). BBC also use "Asians" when they mean non-Semitic former British Asian muslims, i.e. again not incl. Iranian Shia muslims. Why? Because BBC's poster boy Mohammad Salman hates Shia. England also got a massive problem with "Asian" (sic - read 'mostly Sunni muslim') sex offenders. But no one dares to ask if islam's hate teaching of taking "infidel" sex slaves - and "muslim sensitivity" policies - may encourage it?
Don't let BBC's or islam's glossy surface (i.e. normal news/info and non-sharia muslims respectively) lure you to not see the evil core. Klevius is the opposite. WYSIWYG. No hidden evil core, just defense of your (whoever you are) basic Human Rights that islam wants to deny you.
Theresa May & Co defend sharia by saying "it's just a a contract". This is utter lie because any meaningful islam demands sharia and stepping out of the "contract" is the worst sin you can commit as a muslim (s.c. apostasy). Theresa May's and others deception is built on the mass of secular muslims, i.e. not true muslims. And these "secular muslims" get away with it as long as there's not enough true muslims to demand sharia all over the pitch - as yet. Moreover, Saudi led sharia finance demands sharia compliance - as does Saudi based and steered OIC, all muslims world organization.
Klevius supports "secular muslims" - Theresa May supports sharia muslims.
Is BBC's Pakistan rooted and Saudi raised muslim(?) presenter Mishal Husain an "islamophobe" against evil* islam, or an apostate supporting toothless** "islam"? She doesn't fast during Ramadan but rather drinks some alcohol, and doesn't veil herself and says she doesn't feel any threats to her way of life (Klevius: thanks to Human Rights - not sharia islam), well knowing how muslim and non-muslim women suffer in muslim sharia countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia without Human Rights. What would she say to a muslim terrorist asking her if she's a muslim? Isn't it about time to stop this bigoted and hypocritical indirect support of islamofascism that this Saudi/OIC initiated "islamophobia" smear camopaign against Human Rights*** is all about?
* Human Rights equality violating sharia islam
** in line with the anti-fascist, anti-racist and anti-sexist U.N.'s 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration.
*** Socialists have an ideological problem with individual Human Rights, and are therefore vulnerable for islamism (see Klevius 1994).
Is UK turning into a militaristic unconstitutional islamofascist rogue state?
Negative Human Rights for a Positive Human Future
Everything Peter Klevius writes (or has written) is guided by the anti-sexist. anti-racist, and anti-fascist Universal* Human Rights declaration of 1948. In other words, what is declared immoral and evil is so done as measured against the most basic of Human Rights (the so called "negative" rights - i.e. the rights of the individual not to be unnecessarily targeted with restrictions and impositions). Unlike the 1948 Universal Human Rights (UHR) declaration, islam denies Human Rights equality to women and non-muslims. And violation of such basic Human Rights can't be tolerated just by referring to "freedom of religion".
* This means accepting everyone - without exception due to e.g. sex, religion, lack of religion, "security" etc. - as equal in Human Rights. The individual is protected by negative Human Rights, but of course not against substantiated legal accusations - as long as these are not produced as a means that violates the basic Human Rights (compare "not necessary in a free, democratic country"). The legislator may not produce laws that seek to undermine some individuals rights. This also includes e.g. "freedom of religion", i.e. that this freedom doesn't give the right to unfree others, or cause others to be in an inferior rights position. If by islam you mean something that fully adheres to basic Human Rights equality, then you aren't targeted by Peter Klevius islam criticism. However, if you mean islam accepts violations of the most basic of Human Rights, then you may also call Peter Klevius an "islamophobe" - and he will be proud of it. And when it comes to "security" it can't mean "offending" opponents to basic Human Rights.
This is why any effort to twist or accuse the writings of Peter Klevius as "islamophobia" etc. can only be made from a standpoint against these basic Human Rights. As a consequence, no body of authority can therefore accuse, hinder etc. Peter Klevius without simultaneously revealing its own disrespect for these Human Rights. Conversely, Peter Klevius can not accuse anyone who agrees on these rights - i.e. this leaves e.g. "islamophobia" etc. accusations against Peter Klevius without merit.
Every effort against these basic Human Rights is treason against a country calling itself free and democratic.
Most people today are A(mono)theists, i.e. not "believing" in an impossible "one god"*. Such a "collective god" would mean equally many personal "gods" as there are believers/interpretors. "Monotheisms" are for racist/sexist movements - not for individuals. Human Rights are for individuals living among individuals with same rights.
Religion always means a total or partial reduction of some people's (e.g. women''s) Human Rights equality.
Being against A(mono)theism must be categorized as contempt of basic Human Rights equality because "monotheists" have doctrines which can't comply with basic Human Rights equality.
Klevius moral formula is a bedrock you can't beat:
1 There's no absolute and fixed moral in a dynamic society.
2 Therefor we have to repeatedly agree on a minimum moral and equality for all.
3 In doing so we are logically forced to approve of negative Human Rights, i.e. not to impose restrictions other than necessary in a democracy based on as much freedom as possible for all individuals - no matter of sex, race etc. And, for the truly dumb ones, do note that this definition excludes the freedom to restrict freedom.
* Though some people keep calling their own racist/sexist "interpretation" as "god's/allah's will").
Klevius "islamophobia" CV
Some basic facts to consider about Klevius* (except that he is both "extremely normal" and extremely intelligent - which fact, of course, would not put you off if you're really interested in these questions):
* Mentored by G. H. von Wright, Wittgenstein's successor at Cambridge.
1 Klevius' analysis of consciousness is the only one that fits what we know - after having eliminated our "pride" bias of being humans (which non-human would we impress, anyway?). Its starting point is described and exemplified in a commentary to Jurgen Habermas in Klevius book Demand for Resources (1992:30-33, ISBN 9173288411, based on an article by Klevius from 1981), and is further explained in a commentary to Francis Crick's book The Astonishing Hypothesis under the title The Even More Astonishing Hypothesis (EMAH), which can be found in Stalk's archive and which has been on line since 2003 for anyone to access/assess.
2 Klevius out of island/mainland fluctuating Southeast Asia Denisovans up to big skulled Siberians as the birth of much more intelligent modern humans who then spread all over the world, is the only analysis that fits both genetic reality as well as tool and art sophistication seen in e.g. the Denisova cave (no dude, Blombos etc. don’t come even close).
3 Klevius criticism of Human Rights violating sharia islamofascism (e.g. OIC) which is called "islamophobia" by islamofascists and their supporters who don't care about the most basic of Human Rights (e.g. re. women). Klevius' "islamophobia" has two roots: 1) UN's 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration, which, contrary to any form of muslim sharia, doesn't, for example, allow sex to be an excuse for robbing females of their full Human Rights equality, and 2) the history of the origin of islam ( e.g. Hugh Kennedy, Robert G. Hoyland, K. S. Lal etc.) which reveals a murderous, pillaging, robbing, enslaving and raping racist/sexist supremacist ideology that exactly follows precisely those basic islamic tenets which are now called "unislamic" but still survive today (as sharia approved sex slavery, sharia approved "liberation” jihad, academic jihad etc.) behind the sharia cover which is made even more impenetrable via the spread of islamic finance, mainly steered from the islamofascist Saudi dictator family.
4 Klevius analysis of sex segregation/apartheid (now deceptively called “gender segregation”) and heterosexual attraction - see e.g. Demand for Resources (1981/1992), Daughters of the Social State (1993), Angels of Antichrist (1996), Pathological Symbiosis (2003), or Klevius PhD research on heterosexual attraction/sex segregation and opposition to female footballers (published in book form soon).
Klevius can no longer distinguish between the techniques of BBC and Nazi propaganda - can you!
Racist Theresa May is robbing EU citizens of their Human Rights
Support Klevius' Atheist anti-fascism against islamofascism
Klevius to dumb (or just evil) alt-left "antifa" people who support the worst of Human Rights violating evil:
True anti-fascism in its purest form is laid down in the Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948. Islam (OIC) has in UN decided to abandon the most basic of these rights (the so called negative Human Rights).
Fascism is, according to Google's top hit, "a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation*, and forcible suppression of opposition." 23 Aug 2017
So let's face islam with this definition.
A political philosophy, movement, or regime (islam) that exalts nation (Umma) and often race (muslims) above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government (Koran text/Mohammad's example) headed by a dictatorial leader (the caliph - e.g. the Saudi based OIC's Saudi leader), severe economic and social regimentation* (sharia), and forcible suppression of opposition (apostasy ban against muslims wanting to leave islam, and demonizing defenders of Human Rights by calling them "islamophobes").
And islamofascism gets away with it by calling itself a religion and thereby being protected by those very Human Rights it opposes.
* According to Cambridge dictionary, "extreme organization and control of people".
Human Rights is diversity - sharia is the opposite
The evil of Sharia islam is what makes it incompatible with Negative Human Rights (i.e. why islamic OIC violates Human Rights by replacing them with Sharia, hence excluding women and non-muslims from equality). The evil of islam and its origin may be easier to grasp with historical examples, e.g. the Origin of Vikings.
It's racism and sexism even if proposed by a "god"! Klevius altruistic virtual volunteering for the world community in defense of Universal Human Rights . Yes, I know, it's unfair. Klevius vs islam, i.e. Universal Human Rights vs Sharia (OIC) racism/sexism! Of course Klevius will win. The question is just how long we should allow the dying beast to make people suffer. (Negative) Human Rights is not a ”Western” invention! It’s where you end up when you abandon racism and sexism, idiot! After you have abandoned islam! Your confused islamophilia and ignorance about Human Rights make YOU an accomplice to islam's crimes! Whereas Human Rights work as egalitarian and universal traffic rules (no matter who you are or what you drive you have the same rights as everyone else) islam/Sharia differs between muslim men and the rest (women and "infidels")!
Have you noticed that when the history of slavery is (PC) debated islam is always excluded/excused? Atlantic slave trade and Roman slaves are eagerly mentioned while the world's by far worst, longest and most extensive one is blinked, as is the fact that islam not only sanctions slavery but is itself built on slavery and sex slavery (rapetivism)! The core idea of islam is the most thoroughly elaborated parasitism ever, i.e. what in 1400 yrs has made it the by far worst crime ever. But thanks to islamic teachings muslims are kept extremely ignorant about the evil origin of islam (institutionalized parasitism based on slave finance, rapetivism and pillage). Ohlig: The first two "islamic" centuries lie in the shadows of history. Klevius: There was no islam or islamic Mohammad (that's why the Saudis have levelled Mohammad's "grave" etc), only the evil murdering, pillaging and raping Aramaic-Arabic Jewish("Christian") led illiterate Arab thugs chasing for booty and sex. The "success" of this formula became later institutionalized and codified as a one way (Koran/Sharia) moral excuse (Allah) for further racist/sexist genocides. The bedrock and currency of this system was racist slavery. However, with Enlightenment the new idea of individual (negative) Human Rights emerged (incl. abolishing of slavery) and were, much later (1948), written down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights according to which everyone is equal no matter of sex, beliefs etc. Just like in traffic! But unlike traffic rules no one really seems to care about guarding our most precious asset as human beings. Instead racist sexist islamofascism (OIC and the Cairo Sharia declaration) is protected by Human Rights while they strive to undermine and eventually destroy these Human Rights! And most people don't seem to get it. Always remember, there is no islam without Human Rights violating racist/sexist Sharia. So a "vote" for Sharia-islam is AGAINST democracy and the freedom part of Human Rights!
Sayeeda Warsi (UK's non-elected OIC/Sharia politician) in essence doesn't differ from those muslim Saudi women who approve of sex slavery etc, other than that she is either ignorant or a traitor (against democracy and Human Rights) of the worst kind.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Mark Twain: Mosques are plenty, graveyards are plenty, but morals and whiskey are scarce. The Koran does not permit Mohammedans to drink. Their natural instincts do not permit them to be moral. - When I, a thoughtful and unblessed Presbyterian, examine the Koran, I know that beyond any question every Mohammedan is insane, not in all things, but in religious matters. I cannot prove to him that he is insane, because you never can prove anything to a lunatic — for that is a part of his insanity and the evidence of it.
Klevius comment: When will India, Pakistan, Iran etc. eventually realize the full width of the slavery/genocide humiliation their ancestors have suffered under Arabic islam, beginning >1300 years ago?!
Who wants/dare to support/publish A Roots Guide, the key to freedom from islam?
Friday, November 21, 2008
Los Angeles Times editorial: When Malcolm X referred to house Negroes, he mocked Martin Luther King Jr.'s insistence on nonviolent protest. His unyielding eloquence (read violent hate mongering) electrified audiences from mosques in Harlem to Oxford University. America could grant blacks equality and get a carrot, he warned, or he would be the stick, ready to strike (pure Al-Qaeda rhetoric, isn't it). And for years, even after both men had been killed, that's how it was: Malcolm or Martin, anger or faith. A new era has begun - that's "White House Negro."
Klevius comment: Listen to this terror propagandist from LAT! Would you believe it?! But the truth is, of course, that B. Hussein Obama's skin nuance has importance only for racists & crypto-racisists, e.g. as signalled through the LAT editorial above. But what is really at stake isn't Obama's (or anyone else) skin color but his open & deliberate betrayal of the US constitution, & the vulnerable concept of freedom (negative human rights) it protects & what is now under threat from Obama & his tight connection to the extremist Nation of Islam (and behind it pure Saudi wahhabist islamofascism). Would this braindead LAT editorial have been equally positive to an Indian blowing up the block where he sits & wastes energy on useless writings?
The Arabic house negro
Klevius islam lesson for braindead LAT & other editorial writers: It was pure institutionalized (i.e. very "structural") Arabic racism/sexism that made islam the by far worst crime ever against humanity, i.e.boosted it through 1400 years of parasitic slavery & rapetvism. Although most African male slaves died as a consequence of castration, transportation, hard plantation work (e.g. on the Sauds' date palm plantations at Riyadh!), as enforced child slave soldiers etc., the African genetic tan was affecting the white Arab masters through the raped African slave girls (the genetic impact of the disproportionate lack of African male DNA & abundance of African female DNA in Arab populations clearly tells this grim story through modern tech!). This is also perhaps a main reason to why white slave girls from East Europe became so extremely valuable that it even created such otherwise unexplainable phenomenons as e.g. the Vikings (see Klevius analysis of the Origin of Vikings). However, what is really sad is that the Arabic house negro still fights as a terrorist for his islamofascist Arab master!
Btw, I'm not a regular reader of LAT, so has there been a lot of writings lately on islamic terror propaganda as a likely cause to most of the LA blazes?!
However, what really lies behind these pro-islamofascist attitudes is rapetivist sex segregation, i.e. what this pathetic crypto-racist/crypto-terrorist editorial writer at LAT most probably share with the taliban & Al-Qaeda lunatics! Have you considered conversion to islamofascism as did Michael "Wacko Jacko" Jackson (also in LA & just before he's due to appear at London’s High Court where he is being sued by an Arab sheik)?! Or maybe you're already a licensed islamofascist. That would explain a lot...
Friday, November 07, 2008
When it comes to the majority of "black" Americans, who are constantly given an extremely non-proportional affirmative part of political etc power on the behalf of other groups, the "civil rights" road they themselves march is usually lacking any shade of color, not to say all colors, i.e. white.
According to recent polls American "blacks" were in an embarrasingly clear majority among those opposing civil rights for those who want to be able to marry regardless of how they look in their pants. In fact, some polls indicate that the "blacks'" civil rights resistance almost equals the percentage of "blacks" that are muslims or, like the Obamas, belong to racist crypto-islamofascist racist separatist "churches"!
Most of you "blacks" out there who don't fit in the above may well be kin to those "blacks" I call my friends. A telling difference might be revealed through scrutiny of the ideologies of some black extremes. You "liberal"/democrat etc who voted for Obama, do you have anything in common with, e.g., the DC snipers who applauded 9/11, harbored anti-American passions and were black muslims. Moreover, one of them, the teenage Malvo, testified that his mentor, Obama-aged Muhammad, was driven by hatred of America because of its “slavery, hypocrisy and foreign policy” and his belief that “the white man is the devil”. As a logical consequence of this political insight he planned to kill six whites a day for 30 days!
With whom do you feel more close? Martin "Uncle Tom" Luther King or DC snipers Muhammad & Malvo?! I think I'd rather live with King, no matter what my own skin nuance would be.
Klevius marriage lesson for you who have trouble with logic.
The "defense" for hetero marriage, i.e. in fact the opposition to other forms of marriage, is logically one of the easiest to dismiss! And why so eager to "defend" heterosexual marriage while not bothering abt sexist polygamy (for you morons who think you have "natural" reasons see From Klevius without love & What's sex segregation)?!
Marriage as an institution is already undermined by the very fact that biological ("natural") reproduction is no longer a legal necessity nor even a social assumption. And, on the other hand, if a married couple does not procreate or adopt children at all, no one would suggest them to separate because of this, even if they had married at young age. And what about old persons who want to marry? They can hardly have an intention of raising a family, can they? Two options remain. read more!
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Racist/sexist youth in Somalia & the US defending islam, the worst crime ever against humanity, while "moderate muslims" support them simply by being "muslims"!
When a Somali islamic al-Shabab ("the youth" terror group against "enemies of Islam" connected to the Islamic Courts Union which was strongly suppored by Western media & politicians) rebel administration in Kismayo, with the help of 50 boys/men & a lorry full of stones, stoned 13-year-old rape victim Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow to death in front of some 1,000 "moderate" muslims, this event in principle hardly differs from the case of 13-year-old Linda (not to be confused with 18-year-old Linda) in Sweden which I, in vain, have tried to get some more info & light on. Linda was repeatedly gang raped in an ordinary Swedish school without the knowing teachers (out of political correctness) doing nothing, & eventually committed suicide. At least some of the "moderate" Somali islam-supporters reportedly tried to protest.
Islamic imams (islamofascists) preach that islam is the solution against adultery etc "Western" "decadency" & say islam doesn't produce "illegitimate children". Indeed, 13-year-old Aisha* certainly won't do it!
* It's a deep & tragic irony that Aisha ("mother of the Believers") got her name from Mohammed's child bride (abused in the first mosque -see Origin of mosque) & most of the stoners their names from her abuser! It also reflects, in a flash from a tiny single individual fate, the historical whole of the worst crime ever against humanity! Oh thou who believe, why don't thou believe in reality?!
Islam is long since theoretically dead & cannot be reformed because it's "stuck with the Koran" (as the Pope said) and the Koran is simply an after construction of a successful system of slave parasitism built on a loose framework of Jewish & Christian scriptures.
By necessity life itself is made up of challenges & it's therefore an illusion that it could be totally controlled (islam rules "every aspect of life"). However, whereas islam tries to cover up or plainly neglect/deny the suffering it causes (compare "the forgotten suffering" on the title page of Klevius 1992 book Demand for Resources) Klevius has a better solution. It's called a negative human rights approach that, instead of some totalitarian religious fascist Sharia etc, should strive for the deliberate & enhanced defense of "a bubble of freedom" for every individual in accordance with the original human rights declaration from 1948, and in sharp contrast to B. Hussein Obama's preaching of intervenistic positive "rights" (i.e. what has also been called "Stalin rights"). The power of negative human rights lies in its theoretical implications for the production of laws & their enforcement.
For an informed, non-religious & advanced discussion abt "illegitimate children" see the most important sociological paper (Angels of Antichrist) from the last century!
For more on sex segregation, the underlying cause so far seriously addressed only by Klevius see What is sex segregation? & Human rights from Klevius without love!
Also see the origin of Vikings & their connection with the origin of islam!
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Saudi islamofascist "king" Abdullah & one of the many victims for his & his associates hate crime mongering
The one candidate the media forgot
Abdelbari Atwan (3 Nov 2008, in Al Quds Al Arabi): If Obama wins and “if these resources (oil) are properly harnessed, we could impose our point of view (on the world) and serve our cause…” Klevius comment: This "view" btw, is historically proven to be, by far, the worst crime ever against humanity. And everyone supporting it contributes to the prolonging of its death struggle!
Blacks get humiliated once again by their islamic masters in Arabia!
Islam enslaved Africa (although not only Africa) for 1400 years with human suffering at a scale that is, together with similar islamic atrocities in Asia & Europe) beyond anything on the planet Earth! This inescapable historical fact together with the fact that islam just not "happened" to be the "faith" of the criminals but was the very source racist/sexist ideology that made it possible until today! However, the historical slavery economy that we now call islam was seldom seen in its entirity by occasional travellers precisely because what they saw was only the basement of this evil ideology (also see Origin of mosque). Why is it that so many blacks rather segregate than open up? And why do so many blacks prefer their slave masters instead of their liberators? Is it the same (il)logic which makes so many blacks prefer "whiteys" BMW instead of superior non-"white" Japanese tech? A strange form of inferiority complex indeed?!
A one-party future USA that is submitting itself under Saudi (oil)funded totalitarian islamofascism
Shawn Hannity: “2008 is the year that journalism died.”
Klevius comment: Ignorance abt islam is the main reason why US voters didn’t take warnings seriously – together with the fact that most Americans want to defend “freedom of religion”. However, when the “religion” that demands “protection” is a disguise for a deliberate effort to oppose that very freedom, this is hardly in line with the aims of the U.S. constitution.
A crypto-muslim president - & Sharia next?
"…and Allah is the greatest of all deceivers". (Sura 3:54)
"…Take not the Christians and Jews for friends…" (Sura 5:51)
According to islam Koran is the Constitution, Allah is the author of law and the State is its enforcements (Sura 4:105 and 12:40).
Resisting Islam means punishment by death, crucifixion, or the cutting of the hands and feet (Sura 5:33).
The "better" muslim you are the less are you in accordance with the US constitution. Endorsing islam equals abandoning the US constitution. No, a muslim who fully adhere to islam can’t be a politician but rather a traitor under the present U.S. constitution. As a racist constitutional lawyer B. Hussein Obama is certainly keen to alter it towards islamic Sharia.
Klevius comment: Americans and others clearly need to be educated abt true islam. In the best interest of themselves, and certainly not by imams. Try e.g. Origin of islam!
Because of political correctness & for the purpose of not offending the most offending "religion" ever the word islam can't even be uttered in negtive contexts. John P. Avlon: How is the next leader of the free world going to solve a problem he can't even name?
Eli Lake proposes "islamic supremacists" to describe eager muslims.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali: "The presidential candidates are focused on military and intelligence positions, but I patiently wait for them to define the ideology they are going up against - because it's also a war of ideas. . . The collectivist Islamist system is not just wrong, but opposed to the American way of life."
At first women abandoned Hillary and now Sarah
Lainie Dowell on “silly white women” & race: "...wishful thinking on the part of those silly white women and all the rest of the supporters of Obama from every sector of society who would choose a black man who not only is not qualified but he is also not qualifiable over a well-qualified white woman, Gov. Palin, to be in a better position to lead this nation. So much for women’s lib and feminist banter! And ff anybody really believes that Race is not an issue in this 2008 election, then they are grossly deceived, because that denial is being used as a shield to deflect criticism from the Obamaniacs when they spew out their accusations of racism against whites and anybody else who won’t go along with their predominantly black agendas, which many have yet to understand their agendas have been in place for decades. And they have made no secret that those plans are in place to the exclusion of everybody else except the blacks and all those whom they now call “people of color.” But, is that what the majority of Americans want for America? At the height of the civil rights era, the symbols of the black movement for black manhood at that time were a mile-high afro, a “piece” at the ready somewhere on their person, a loud in-your-face style of intimidation, and a white woman on both arms while the “sisters” stood silently nearby and watched all of them as the “brothers” turned around and terrorized them and took out their abusive and abrasive hits against their black womanhood whenever they felt like it. Somewhere in the mix, on one end was Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. with both his detractors and supporters following behind, and on the other end were Min. Louis Farrakhan, Malcolm X, and the Nation of Islam. In between were the Black Panthers, the Black Nationalists, and the Black Muslims."
B. Hussein Obama & islamic law
Eidelberg: "There has been much confusion and misinformation in the American press about this. The facts are that Obama is a Muslim under Islamic law because his father was a Muslim, for descent in Islam is patrilineal and he was also enrolled in elementary school as a Muslim. While Obama may think that he converted to Christianity that is not the way Islamic law sees things. And even if his conversion were to be acknowledged by Islamic law, he would be in serious trouble because Islamic law dictates that those who leave the faith and convert to another religion are to be considered a "murtadd" or apostate and be subject to the death penalty."
Klevius comment: Yes,Obama could be even a double muslim according to islamofascist law. But this notwithstanding a more fundamental issue is his ties to islamists. A U.S. president who, as a politician, has been breastfed with Saudi/wahhabi funds & who openly opposes the U.S. constitution, is certinly to be seen as a “change” of USA.
Eidelberg: "By lineage and school registration, Barack Obama was clearly a Muslim young man. If he renounced that and converted to Christianity as a young man he is an apostate and in trouble with the Muslim world. If he never renounced his Muslim upbringing he will likely be in trouble with American voters whom he has been telling that he is a Christian. Barack Obama is America's quintessential media candidate, an image candidate - like Jimmy Carter, a billboard candidate, all surface and no depth.
Klevius comment: Moreover, islam is a totalitarian ideology that is based on parasitism (slavery/rapetivism) & the social imprisonment (sex apartheid) of girls/women. Not to address this main component dismisses every such analysis of islam.
Saudi wahhabi islamofascism taking over the political scene in the US
When Republican Alan Fine “decried” Ellison’s ((Nation of Islam activist & first islamofascist in US congress) past associations with the Nation of Islam, it is described as “a claim chiefly based on Ellison's role in organizing a local coalition to attend the Million Man march in Washington DC in 1995” (sic). So obviously Fine would have had a point if Ellison had been associated with NOI!? And in fact, & contrary to this, Ellison was previously deeply involved with NOI! This same type of rhetoric, however, when been used by the opponent camp has been strongly condemned.
Keith Ellison: “The people who want to perpetuate fear don't really comprehend how freedom to practice religious faith is ingrained in American culture”
Klevius comment: The people who want to perpetuate islam don't really comprehend how unfreedom is ingrained in islam. When islamofascist Ellison at his inauguration chose to be sworn in on the Quran he, in fact, committed treason against his homeland. A gesture more obscene than anything else againt the constitution! Even more so than the fact that he tried to lie abt the background of the Koran that Jefferson (the author of the Declaration of Independence) had used, not for religious study, but for the purpose of knowing his islamist enemies!
From this perspective one shouldn’t be surprised when Ellison asks: "A lot of us are waiting for Obama to say that there's nothing wrong with being a Muslim,"
R.I.P. USA until someone digs you up again!