People in UK-land (especially women) will loose their Human Rights after Brexit - while sharia prevails in UK, and UK citizens in EU are protected by the European Court of Human Rights.
Saudi war crimes investgated by the Saudis
If China today became a full democracy (and even accepting full Human Rights) - nothing would change, because it's not the rulers but the high tech industry in China that outperforms the West. And unlike islam, China doesn't have tenets against Human Rights. However, islam is tied to its supremacist and sexist sharia tenets (OIC) which deny women full Human Rights - just the opposite to what is said in the anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration from 1948. If islam would accept full Human Rights it would not be islam anymore. China's economic expansion has been a non-aggressive big contributor to wealth around the world, but when China reached out its Belt and Road hand, then the West bit it and supported extremist muslim terrorists. Islam induced hate crimes and terror are based on a shared evil ideology (a global muslim collective rather than as nationals, which inspire and hail each other) - but because most are committed by lonely or gang muslims, and because police and media are told muslim "ethnicity" ought not to be revealed, then the public are kept unaware of most muslim hate crimes. How come that evilness is protected? The answer is in the question. To hide its original evilness. And how come that BBC and UK politicians dare to support islamofascism in Kashmir? Freedom from sharia for women in Kashmir!
* UK PM Theresa May opposed Human Rights.
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 BBC'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, February 27, 2009
Unconstitutional muslim born Obama & his pals: Street level infidel racist mob & top level islamofascists
Can you tell who is a moderate muslim eager to broadcast a positive picture of islam's peacefulness, & who recently stabbed his divorcing wife at least 9 times & then chopped her head off while she was still alive? OK, I agree, they all look capable of it. Correct answer is the guy to the left who's rewarded by top islamofascists from the muslim terror organization CAIR (The Council on American Islamic Relations - these guys are right now busy accusing FBI for offending muslims because FBI has monitored a California mosque that hosts islamic terrorists planning blow up jobs in California). Btw, the British lord Ahmed (who threatened Britain with 10000 street jihadists if Wilders was allowed entrance to Britain) to the right is also accused of murder & causing death (this dangerous islamofascist recently got away with only 3 months in jail because the biased British court thought he had just stopped his 20 minute constant SMS session, while driving, just seconds before he killed a person!?
also read Are women humans? According to islam they are not!
Klevius comment: And while all of this is going on heroic freedom fighters & truth sayers such as Geert Wilders & Ayaan Hirsi Ali are muted, ridiculed or plainly disgusted in mainstream media! In the meantime a widespread global street jihad (racist muslim mobs & individuals attacking "infidels", as they have been incited to by their families & Koran/islam) pollutes our social environment & adds to already high youth crime stats. No one knows the exact amount of victims, mainly because mainstream media & the police are taught to cover them up as random crimes instead of hate crimes. On top of this the extremely racist & sexist islamic Sharia law is progressing. The largest muslim nations Indonesia & Pakistan have already given in for Sharia islamofascism pushed forward by the very same threatening street mob tactics used by lord Ahmed above. And in the US Barry Barack Hussein Soetoro Obama's (or whatever) friend, the Wahhabi islamist & leader of American muslims Ingrid Mattson, paves the way for American Sharia by the help of Saudi king Abdullah & Co's support for global islamofascist jihad.
The Muslim population in Britain is growing ten times as fast as the rest of society
For you morons (e.g. the British Communities Secretary Hazel Blears?!) who don't seem to understand (deliberately?!) the extremely (sorry) crucial difference between extremism & its absolute opposite negatative human rights, pls educate yourself!
Winston Churchill: “Mein Kampf is the new Koran”.
also read Geert Wilders' speech in Washington
Monday, February 23, 2009
Is islam, with a confused Mohammed & without "Allah's" Koran & infidel hatred/contempt & sexist Sharia rapetivism, still islam?!
While Koran/islam's real disgusting nature is rapidly unfolding in the face of ignorant (or deliberately evil) islam supporters, others are busy "reinterpreting" islam in accordance with what was fashionable in the 19th C critical reading of religious texts, i.e. to simply get rid of/talk away "sacred texts" that weren't possible to logically adopt/adapt. However, in the case of islam it also incl. "Allah" himself, precisely because the status of Koran is higher than "Allah" in islam, simply because "Allah" is hermetically excluded so to give free access for the imamofascists, starting with Mohammed himself. This is the opposite to the Christian view (no, I'm not a Christian, stupid).
DISGUSTING ARABIC-FASCIST SHARIA ISLAM
The ignorant "moderate" muslim
Kamran Pasha is a male islamist Hollywood screenwriter (female screenwriters of any creed or non-creed, are extremely rare, so it's really no surprise that there are already more muslims than women!) who has apparently misunderstood (my interpretation - the alternative being really evil) abt everything in his own creed:
Kamran Pasha: "One of the first Arab practices Mohammed outlawed was female infanticide." Klevius help to poor Kamran: Well da, of course he did! The backbone of Mohammed's ideology for conquest was rapetivism, i.e. to squeeze out the most of the female reproductive potential, both biological & cultural!
Kamran Pasha: "The Prophet also established women's right to inherit and own property".
Klevius help to poor ignorant Kamran Pasha: The truth is that islam has the world's most sexist & unequal inheritance laws! Moreover, there's no escape because they stem directly from Koran! Islam's stuck in its Koran, as the Pope used to say!
A moderate beheading of an disobedient (to "Allah" and her husband) wife by a highly respected & supported moderate U.S. muslim TV-producer (the moderate "Bridges" channel aimed for "improving the picture of islam") in N.Y.
(extract from an interview with an ex-muslim)
Kasem: To my mind, this horrible slaughter is a case of honor killing. The killer, Muzammil Hassan, is certainly well-versed in Islamic theology and jurisprudence. He is the CEO of Bridges, the Islamic Television Station which he started to propagate the “true” image of Islam to the Western World. It is hard to believe that such an impeccably qualified person would not have been aware of what he was doing. Most likely, Muzammil Hasan had planned this all very well, and he did it according to Islamic fashion, i.e. slaughtering by beheading.
FP: Can you tell us about the legitimacy that Muslims find for honor killing in their religious theology?
Kasem: Well, you don’t need to go further than the Qur’an, which is the basis of honor killing in Islam. Let us read 4:15:
YUSUFALI: If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way.
This verse clearly tells that a disgraced woman is condemned to a solitary confinement till death. The alternative is the judgement of Allah. The Qur’an is not clear what that judgement of Allah could be. There are various interpretations on this. Therefore, it is a fish market: anyone (man) may do to his woman whatever he wishes, including ending her life.
FP: So what is your reading of what happened in this case of beheading in Buffalo?
Kasem: According to Islam, if a woman disobeys her husband she is disgraced. Therefore, when Aasiya Zubair, the wife of Hassan, resorted to the Western justice system to seek protection from her menacing husband, she had certainly broken the Islamic tenet of complete surrender to the wishes of her husband. Thus, she had dishonoured her husband, his reputation and, most importantly, the Islamic code of conduct for an obedient wife. Therefore, it is not surprising that the killer had to end her life Islamically, to restore his pride, honor and religious conviction.
Let us read verse 4:34:
YUSUFALI: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).
Please note that in verse 4:34 Allah permits a husband to punish his disobedient wife. It is worthy to observe that this verse says if the husband suspects or fears disobedience and rebellion; that the actual acts might not have taken place. This verse also says that the men are the protectors of women. Thus, Islamically, Aasiya was foolish enough to seek the protection of Canadian law. It was a clear violation of Qur’anic injunction of verse 4:34, a challenge to Islam. And, as per the Islamic law, if anyone violates the Qur’anic command the only punishment is death by beheading. Thus, we may conclude that Hassan has acted in the manner that Qur’an commands him.
FP: So in Islam, a woman is nothing more than her husband’s property.
Kasem: Absolutely. There are a number of ahadith that say that a Muslim woman’s status to her husband is no more than a slave.
Koran represents erroneously Abraham as the founder of the islamic Mecca. So e.g., is Ishmael only mentioned in the later suras although Isaac and Jacob are clearly presented as the sons of Abraham at an early stage. This & a pile of anachronisms & faulty names seem, according to research on the topic, to be the products of Mohammed's own confusion. When adding this to the established fact (& among e.g. muslim "scholars") that there is no "original" Koran but only a bunch of human interpretations, what do we have left? Klevius answer: We have a majority of ignorant muslims, informed muslims (i.e. the "islamists"), plus emotional &/or sexist Western supporters.
The treacherous "pluralist" muslim
According to Salim Mansur, a “moderate” muslim ass. professor who is, according to himself, a pluralist-muslim, what divides islamists from "moderate" muslims is Sharia. Salim Mansur also thinks muslims should not be “programmed by the sacred text, the Qur'an”.
Klevius comment: "Sacred" means here that although Korans are full of flaws they are still based on some "Allah's" mysterious thoughts, forever (& quite comfortably) excluded from these very same humans (this is what I use to call islam's "godlessness"). This "original" Koran is hence completely meaningless because not even Muhammed got a hold on it!
Both of the views above ultimately rest on the root of the evil, i.e. the Arabic text in Koran. So let's take a look at what we do know abt
Muslim women can’t marry unbelievers under any circumstances.
Muslim women need a male guardian simply because they aren't fully human.
A Muslim man is allowed to have four wives at one time & an unlimited number of non-muslim women (i.e. non-muslim sex slaves).
A law against polygamy is against the Qur’an.
Adoption is not allowed in Sharia.
Circumcision is obligatory for both men and women (foreskin for men, part of clitoris for women).
When making love, no talking.
Unlawful for a man to look at a woman who is not his wife or one of his unmarriageable kin.
Husband and wife cannot look at each others genitals.
Unlawful for a woman to show any parts of her body to an adolescent boy or a non-Muslim woman.
Whatever is unlawful to look is also unlawful to touch.
A woman must not conduct her own marriage; she requires a male guardian.
A non-Muslim man cannot be the guardian of a Muslim woman.
A male guardian of a virgin woman may force her to marry a man of his choice.
Arab women cannot marry non-Arab men because "Allah" has chosen the Arabs above others.
When the husband settles the dower (bride money) or defers it, a wife must immediately submit her private parts to her husband’s demand for sex, unless she has legitimate ground of not doing so; if she requests to wait the maximum waiting time is three days.
A husband has the full right to enjoy his wife’s person, from the top of her head to the bottom of her feet.
A Muslim man is allowed to beat his wife or wives.
If wife refuses sex, the husband is not obliged to support her until she surrenders her person to the husband. Klevius comment: I repeat it again & agtain: Islam is all about rapetivism!
A divorced wife gets maintenance only for maximum three months.
Husband divorces wife instantly even under torture, compulsion, alcohol, narcotics and jokes; then he can marry a new set of four wives and continue the cycle.
The only way for a wife to get divorce is to convince the sharia court and also to pay money to her husband.
Making sarcasm is leaving Islam.
Islam orders the killing of the apostates.
No indemnity required for killing an apostate.
No expiation is required for killing an apostate of islam.
Jihad means to war against non-muslims (lesser jihad).
Jihad is warfare to establish islam (greater Jihad).
Basis for Jihad:
(1) fighting is prescribed (2:216).
(2) slay them wherever you find them (4:89).
(3) fight the idolatry utterly ( 9:36 ).
Jihad is a communal obligation.
Jihad is obligatory for every muslim who is able to perform it, male or female.
Caliph makes war upon the Jews, the Christians, the Zoroastrians…..by first inviting them to enter islam, if no success then pay jizya, if no jizya then kill them.
Women and children captured in a jihad operation become the slaves of muslims; the women’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.
In a jihad operation Muslims can kill old men (40+) and monks.
Male captives’ fate is decided by the Caliph; this includes gratuitous killing of male captives.
Truces are permitted but not obligatory. When uppermost—no truce until some interest is served---‘so do not be fainthearted and call for peace when it is you who are the uppermost.
If weak then make truce for 10 years.
The Dhimmis’ public behaviour and dress must be Islamic.
Stone the adulterer/adulteress even in severe cold or illness.
Sodomy and lesbianism considered as adultery; same punishment; kill both for sodomy.
To get united with the previous husband a divorced wife must marry another person, have complete sex with him and get divorced by him voluntarily
West, Wilders & islam
(extract from interview)
Abul Kasem: The westerners trying to defend Islamic barbarism are simply ignorant about the true nature of Islam. For too long they have been fed with the idea that Islam is a religion, just like any other religion, such as Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. Their logic is this: the Old Testament, the Vedas also has murderous verses and barbaric provisions, so why blame Islam only? These westerners simply forget that, except for Islam, all other religions’ potency has expired. There is no country ruled by the biblical laws. Ditto for Hinduism. But Islam is forever. There are 57 Islamic countries who form the OIC (Organisation of Islamic Conference), and who dearly believe and strive to subject the entire world to Islamic rule.
Thus the western politicians are caught in a quagmire. They dare not criticise Islam, lest they offend these 57 Islamic countries (OIC), and because the un-Islamic world, the western world, does not denounce Islam, the Islamic world feels encouraged to propagate Islam vigorously. The UN has fallen into this trap and it therefore not only has just a lackadaisical attitude towards Islam, but a loving relationship with Islam.
FP: What role does oil play?
Kasem: Oil money is definitely another important element in this game of hide-and-seek with Islam. Many western countries sell modern arms to the Arabic/Islamic world in exchange for oil money. Thus, it will be inappropriate to criticise Islam if these western countries want to secure the lucrative arms deals. To these political leaders trade/money is more important to the western world than the damaging effect Islam.
FP: I mentioned FGM earlier. Your thoughts?
Kasem: On the FGM issue, it is simply astonishing that the UN, the Women’s Rights organisation, the Human rights Organisation just do lip service to eradicate this savage procedure. These organisations often consider FGM as a cultural issue rather than religious. But they are wrong. We have irrefutable proof that Islamic law, Sharia supports male and female circumcision. Why is it so difficult to admit this truth and blame Islam? Further, even if it is culture, why must the civilised world tolerate such inhuman, barbaric cultural practice? In many cultures there was/is also the practice of human sacrifice. Should a civilised world accept such a custom, just because it is cultural? I only wished the UN and the Women’s rights organisation provide good answers for their silence on FGM.
Abul Kasem: I think Fitna is done very cleverly. It lays the full blame of Islamic atrocities to the fount of Islam, the Koran. Anyone viewing this short movie will have no doubt that the Islamist terrorism is the result of the Koran in action. Geert Wilders has demonstrated very precisely what has plagued the world for many years and why the Jihadists are doing what they are doing.
FP: Analyze for us the format that Wilders uses.Kasem: Wilders uses only five verses of the Koran to demonstrate the potential danger of Islam to a civilised world. These verses are (note the comments by eminent Koran scholars):
8:60 The Muslims should muster all their power and might, including steeds of war (tanks, planes, missiles…) to strike terror in the hearts of the unbelievers (by killing them—ibn Abbas).
47:4 When the believers meet the unbelievers they should smite at unbelievers’ necks (when you fight against them, cut them down totally with your swords—ibn Kathir).
8:39 Fight until there are no more unbelievers (non-Muslims) and tumult (this verse overrides all other verses on fighting the infidels, including the Jews and the Christians); if they accept Islam then leave them alone.
4:56 Unbelievers will be cast in fire, their skins roasted often, skins changed often for more roasting (the skin will be roasted seventy thousand time every day; the new skin will be as white as paper—ibn Kathir).
4:89 Seize and slay the renegades (i.e., apostates of Islam) wherever you find them. (Maududi 4/118: This is the verdict on those hypocritical confessors of faith who belong to a belligerent, non-Muslim nation and actually participate in acts of hostility against the Islamic state).
It is clear Greet Wilders did not present anything original. He merely re-stated the contents of the Koran, forcefully depicting, with true pictures, those verses in action.
FP: So if this is what the Qur’an says, then why would Muslims or anyone else be upset about the movie’s message?
Kasem: The Islamic Ummah is now furious why an infidel would portray the true color of Islam. In this chorus of peaceful Islam, Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary General of the United Nations, has also joined in. Predictably, the peaceful Islam promptly issued the threat of murder of Geert Wilders and the employees of Live Leak, the website that hosted the premiere. It temporarily off-loaded Fitna to protect the lives of its employees. These are just mundane jobs of Islam—the standard practices, the world is now so used to these peaceful acts of Islam that they [these threats] do not at all surprise anyone.
Despite the threats, this short movie by Geert Wilders is spreading like wild-fire. I knew this truth when my wife was so eager to watch this film. She watched it at Google and was stunned at what she read and saw. When an ordinary house-wife becomes so enthusiastic about the ‘true’, ‘peaceful’ Islam then it must be an unusual event.
So, why the world’s political leaders (including Ban Ki-moon) could not find what a simple-minded, average, unsophisticated, uninformed (in Islam) housewife could so easily trace?
Amazingly, when every word, every picture in Fitna was corroborated with verses from the Koran, these world-leaders never mention the word Koran, instead, they blame the producer of the movie for inciting hate. How strange: the Koran preaches the hate, murder, genocide, but when the un-Islamic world quotes those verses, it is not the Koran that preaches the annihilation of the non-Islamic world; it is the fault of the un-Islamic world—why must they quote those verses?
This defies logic. These same world-leaders will keep their mouths shut when jihadists use many similar verses to justify the complete annihilation of the un-Islamic world.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
UK bans Human Rights defender while Human Rights Council rewards islamic terrorists who want to eradicate Human Rights
Klevius comment: So now the same home secretary, Jacqui Smith, who thought the peaceful and heroic Dutch politician Geert Wilders a threat to UK, has to let 11 violent islamofascist terror fanatics representing the true & original Koran/islam, stay!
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
It's Koran, not culture, when "moderate" UK islamofascist "lord" Ahmed & US wife behading muslim TV producer Hassan commit islamic terror!
THE TRUE PIC OF INTERFAITH BETWEEN ISLAM & WOMEN
Just face it! There's no way you can be a true muslim & a true American at the same time!
So show some courage Barry Barack Hussein Soetoro Obama (or whatever) & put yourself first in line for apostasy!
When the founder of Bridges TV (a "moderate" islamofascist TV channel aimed for the spreading of hatred against "infidels") Muzzammil Hassan allegedly chopped the head off his wife Aasiya, because she didn't follow Koranic/islamic law, he just personifies islam's core values. The other tragedy in this is that muslim (& other) women don't seem to realize this basic tenet in islam but continue fanatically to dig their own grave of inequality, i.e. extreme sex segregation.
Koran/islam is perverted abuse of racism & sexism, period! However, because of the effectiveness of this evil formula it's also, by far, the worst crime against humanity. History records through 1400 years leave no doubt abt this!
Terrorist Lord Ahmed hinders free speech through islamist mobs & street terror. Thank you, Tony Blair!
Ahmed sits on top of UK's Sharia finance which is now the shield behind which more Koranic/islamic atrocities will be made possible. As if the Brits would really need more of it! Moreover, Ahmed also rules who may visit UK & who will be allowed to speak.
In line with this development the racist Durham II conference arranged by islamofascist countries will now, not surprisingly, be applauded by muslim born Barry Barack Hussein Soetoro Obama (or whatever).
Klevius comment: Although, from my well informed perspective, it's extremely easy to see the real nature of what we call islam based on Koran (& what makes its initial appearance understandable), many, especially girls & women, don't. Perhaps because menfolk are so eager to brainwash them & perhaps because it's always difficult to abandon something you thought you could be proud of. But now, when the West gives muslim women a door out of their sex apartheid hell, many hesitate to take the step out in freedom. A freedom that contains many of the evils you find in islamic societies as well, but now, at least, on an equal basis & without a written text that sanctions such evilness. Or would you prefer to continue being the strange & not fully human being who is in need of "support" (read rapetivism) from patriarchal Koran/islam?
Because of reluctans to face isdlam's inborn evilness many, both muslims & Westerners, allow its atrocities to contiunue while pathetically trying to "reinterpret" (i.e. covering up) the evil parts of Koran, like e.g. Iranian-American Laleh Bakhtiar, who in the new English version of Koran translates the Arab word "idrib" in verse 34 which means "beat", to "to go away" from women! A handy way of lying for the ignorant masses *like school children etc., isn't it. But one of the other evils of islam is that Koran should be read in Arabic. And I doubt the Arabs have changed their original Koran!
And, as I've always said, if the 57 islamofascist OIC countries who abuse UN for the purpose of criminalizing criticism of Koran/islam, change their Koran so it doesn't contain any evil anymore, then I will stop my criticism immediately! Then we don't have any real islam anymore.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
From his Egyptian minaret islamofascist sexist & misogynist UK archbishop continues to propose inequality for muslim girls/women!
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
If the "original"* Koranic ideology, that has fueled some 1400 years of islamic slavery, genocides & rapetivism (& the hundreds of Millions who suffered & died as a "side-effect") is considered not being islam, historians may miss the crucial (but clearly evil) attraction that paved the way for its success, back then as now (the original "extremist" islam is extremely (sorry) popular among nutters twits, such as e.g. violent criminals & other loosers. As a consequence we would end up with a twisted terminology that, if logically applied, would have made islam in any form historically impossible! Is it therefore that we now have begun hear voices proclaiming that we shouldn't take history so seriously anymore, but rather, as it appears, superstition (belief) as our new standard for coping with each other. Tell that to a technician, & don't complain when his/her apparatus doesn't function!
* There was no original Koran, & the version that is now popularized came into being long after Mohammed's death. Moreover, Mohammed didn't even exist in any known writings before Malik "invented" him. Koran was an effort to morally "justify" the tremendous looting, destroying & murdering campaigns!
ONLY PURE IGNORANCE OR DELIBERATE HYPOCRISY CAN ALTER THE FACT THAT CLASSIC ISLAM THROUGH 1400 YEARS IS THE, BY FAR, WORST CRIME EVER AGAINST HUMANITY! READ HISTORY (as long as it's still possible) & START COUNTING VICTIMS! Communists, Nazis (i.e. Nationalsocialists), Pol Pot, etc, don't come even close! Islam is based on enslaving & raping, followed by apostasy ban. According to islam a muslim man may do as many children he likes with non-muslim girls/women & they all become muslims, whereas a Jewish man is limited to Jewish women. Result: Less than 10 Million Jews but more than one Billion muslims! However, although islam has been very reproductive it has never been very productive.
Why is history declared "offensive" when it forces you to re-evaluate your own worldview?!? Look at all those Western leftists who have been spitting for decades against their own history!
But of course, if you "believe" in an ideology that forbids you from seeing anything bad or evil in it, then you will inevitably bang your head in the wall of freedom based on negative human rights & true democracy (not a Hamas "democracy" based on totalitarianism, apostasy ban, sexism, racism etc). And yes, you might even feel offended as well.
Kathy Shaidle: "Don't shrug off Islam as "just another religion". Muslim sharia law deems women to be inferior to men, and allows husbands to "lightly" beat their wives. Polygamy and child bride marriage are condoned and encouraged, due to the example of Mohammed himself, whose many wives included a nine year old. Anti-Semitism and slavery are enshrined in the Koran, as is exploitation of and even violence against all "unbelievers"
"For example, the "Islamification" of the educational system is now underway. Textbooks whitewash Islam's bloody history. Public school children forbidden to pray or recite the Pledge of Allegiance are, however, obliged to play "Muslim for a Day." Meanwhile, universities eagerly introduce footbaths, Muslim prayer rooms and hallal cafeteria food.
Increasingly, Muslim employees are suing companies for the "right" to refuse to handle "unclean" pork or alcohol, or the "right" to wear headscarves. It is no coincidence that these companies include household names like UPS, Wal-Mart and McDonalds's - radical Muslims are sending a message to smaller firms who won't have the means to fight similar suits in the future.
These demands for accommodation extend even behind prison walls, where Muslim prisoners (indoctrinated by Muslim chaplains trained by foreign extremists) insist on getting special treatment as well.
"Lawfare" is on the rise, too. Muslim groups now file expensive, time-consuming lawsuits against critics of Islam, and while these suits are currently confined mostly to Canada and Europe, they have a "chilling" effect on American publishers, writers, journalists and filmmakers. Last year, it only took a couple of threatening emails to persuade a major U.S. publisher to cancel an upcoming novel about Mohammed.
Few Americans realize that their neighborhood mosque was probably built and financed by well-heeled terrorist sympathizers abroad. In fact, 80% of American mosques are Saudi-supported, and serve as safe gathering places for radical imams and dubious "charities" with anti-American agendas.
Islamic terrorism has also found a home on the internet, where (according to one UK think tank) a "virtual caliphate" (or Muslim supremacist empire) thrives, beyond the reach of authorities. The web has become an invaluable arena for radical Muslim recruiting, training, communication and organizing.
Americans looking to the government to protect them from these threats don't realize that federal agencies in the thrall of political correctness actually undermine the war of terrorism. Few Muslims currently hold public office in the United States, but this may change if Democrats begin to view them as a new source of donations and votes."
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
also consider: Saudi islamofascist in UN urges us to respect an ideology based on disrespect
Britain has banned Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders from entering its soil! Why? Because some muslims may hate him! And as we all know muslims are masters in inciting hatred against non-muslims!
A British muslim peer has threatened to mobilize 10,000 muslims to block & intimidate the screening.
Klevius comment: First of all, what does a muslim have to do in a democratic parliament? Isn't islam anti-democratic & anti-human rights /apostasy ban, sanction of slavery, infidel racism, incitement to violence against "nonbelievers" etc etc)? Or maybe he isn't a real muslim after all! But why then does he support islamofascist intimidation?! Moreover, why does he happen to use the same mob/gang intimidation tactics as violent islamofascists?!
According to Lord Pearson, who invited Wilders to show "Fitna" (a film abt what Koran really says) at the House of Lords on Thursday, he was "very surprised that the British government should ban a European citizen — and an elected Dutch MP at that — from coming to this country." The government's decision is "weak and unacceptable in the extreme".
According to the British embassy Wilders was being refused entry because his views "threaten community harmony and therefore public security" in Britain. The embassy referred to article 19 of the 2006 British Immigration Regulations which states that a person may be banned from the United Kingdom "if his exclusion is justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health."
Klevius comment: Presuming that Wilders wasn’t planning to commit violent deeds of terror bombing etc. during his trip, one may ask whether the British government , in accordance with its own logic, should stop muslims from entering Britain! It’s a well known fact that muslims, more than any other group of people support and commit deeds of terror.
Isn't it strange that the world's largest "minority" (the islamic Umma is the world's largest nation with some 1.5 Billion inhabitants) which gets special support from not only its host nations but also from truly islamofascist countries they themselves would never accept as a country to actually live in, is seen as vulnerable & in need of special legislation for the purpose of protecting their collective mass power against tiny & unsupported lonely Western individuals or groups!
And while the same Britain fires a foster carer who didn't hinder a 16 y muslim girl from leaving islam* (and her allegedly abusive muslim parents) British government agencies have been instructed to refer to Islamic terrorism as anti-Islamic activity!?
* Leaving islam, i.e. apostasy ban, is the worst crime known to islam & its Sharia! As such it also stands in absolute opposition against the holiest democratic principles. Also consider that the unconstitutional & illegitimate US "president" is a born (& later also adopted) muslim who doesn't dare to, or simply doesn't want to leave islam!
To all of this you may add that some of the worst dictators & criminals )e.g. the Saudi Abdullah, who has for years challenged top positions on the lists of the worst human rights violators) have taken over UN by the help of 57 islamic nations & is now silencing any criticism against the, by far, worst crime ever against humanity! Geert Wilders, who is something so rare as a political hero, is now first in line.
Sunday, February 08, 2009
& The British foster mother who was fired because she did not hinder a 16 y muslim born girl from leaving islam!
Muslim born Barry Barack Hussein Soetoro Obama (or whatever name he has, or might, use - I wouldn't be too surprised if he adds an Abdullah or Mohammed when the "real work" has progressed safely), who is unconstitutional/illegitimate as a president (or as a senator), is now preparing for an enormous transfer/injection of U.S. tax money to islam under the shielding cover of recession & stimulus package! Because of the noise few even notice what otherwise, without a doubt, would have been recognized as a gigantic jihad veiled in economy.
Klevius comment: This is when Obama's "mysterious" islamic history & all the loose ends (Obama's islamofascist connections) get intelligible! The package is a proposal for more government/state, which, in terms of the "social state" (compare Klevius' Angels of Antichrist), means more financial support, not to the average citizen but to those involved in or directly supported by the state bureaucracy. In this picture not only notorious islamofascist terror organizations such as e.g. CAIR, Nation of islam, "educational" institutions etc, but also a variety of other islamofascist players & their supporter will be fertilized.
Yes, we already knew that Obama is an idiot. According to Robert Barro, Obama's & Co proposal "is probably the worst bill that has been put forward since the 1930s". However, Obama is a dangerous idiot. Barro only talked as an economist. His "worst" didn't even take into account the social disaster that follows when supporting islam, already heavily supported in the U.S. through Saudi etc oil money.
Klevius economy lesson: Islam is the opposite to economic growth precisely because it originated as an ideology for sponging on others (i.e. slavery, robbery etc. see Origins of islam) & still lacks technology, the only true source of economic growth! In this respect islam resembles socialism/communism. The price for the Soviet Union's (i.e. communist Russia) bombs & rockets was paid when Reagan, politely grinning, with a gentle push assisted its final collapse in 1989.
also compare Shinto meets islam!
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Who needs racist/sexist "godism"? Well, islamofascists & Co do, while most people like Buddhists & we others don't!
FOR YOU WHO HAVE A STUPID DISCRIMINATORY PREJUDICE AGAINST "NONBELIEVERS" (nonbelievers, btw, usually rest on Human Rights, i.e. that everyone is equal - quite the opposite to e.g. islam) - READ KLEVIUS DEFINITION OF RELIGION, "GOD" ETC.!
And why the word "non-believer" etc? I don't use to call myself a non-satanist either! Or non-socialist, or non-rapist, or non-whatever I'm not! Why should others "belief" render me a nonbeliever. Here you can see how far this stupid "godism" demagogy has gone.
The true soul of islam is easily visible in Hama's rocket attacks randomly launched against Israeli children & other civilians (for the purpose of not making peace with Israel possible, simply because islam thinks Israel (i.e. the "West") ought not to exist (did you know that the islamic birth-plant called Palestine can't survive without Western aid?)! The true soul of Klevius, on the other hand, is seen in his analysis of the Negative Human Rights which stop him from inciting violence (other than lawful - & lawful, of course, means based on these same Negative Human Rights of equality - not islamofascist racist & sexist rights against6 the less worthy "infidel", girl/woman/slave etc)!
If you want to make a moral excuse for your own illogicality & due immorality a "god" comes in handy. When you state that your (islamofascist?) "god" demands the disbelievers, infidels (or whatever you title those whose morality is more powerful than yours - e.g. Negative human rights) to go to "hell" (i.e. to be assaulted by you or your fascist pals).
From mud to mad & from slave to slaver
The unchallenged deep & fascistoid racism/sexism in Koran/islam ultimately rests on its notion of only muslims (i.e. those who have submitted under "god's spirit") as being real humans (remember this when you hear abt "islamic human rights", peace, tolerance etc!). Non-muslims, according to Koran, are made of mud only, whereas muslim's have got the "human soul". I personally first time encountered this creepy & bottomless despise for the other (infidel) from the eyes of a child in Sweden when I politely stopped for a muslim family (fair skinned Arabs) who was abt to cross the street, but who seemed to think I could pass first. When I stopped the boy looked at me through the windscreen with a despise in his eyes that shocked me deeply. I knew no one from the family & I've never been involved in any serious disputes etc. with muslims. So the boy's attitude was general & learned! While the rest of the family didn't pay any attention to me (rather the opposite) their true racism was revealed through the child. He demonstratively slowly crossed the street with a manner as he not only owned the world but also ruled it & knew that I was an infidel without human value. He looked healthy and well suited. This happened slightly before 9/11. I've since several times been the target for muslim racism that, if reversed, would have rendered me a considerable dose of money if brought to court. Most of it occurred before I wrote a single word abt islam. I didn't look like a skin head either & I didn't use to have personal quarrels.
I might be too stupid in not understanding the righteousness that so many supporters of islamofascism seem to have discovered/defended in islam (compare e.g. Ian Buruma below). But although I haven't bothered to take any thorough IQ test (also read abt IQ tests in my book Demand for Resources) my half-sister (who had a quite average dad* compared to mine) use to brag that she scored 167 on IBM's official test long ago. Did I mention that she is a long term communist who now, in line with the fashion of today, has sided with the islamofascists & their jihad against Enlightenment & Negative Human Rights (btw, whereas the concept "crusades" signified recovery of lands lost to the islamofascists, "jihad" meant the opposite, namely extension & conquest through the madness of enslavement, murder & rape/tivism). Is the IQ limit for understanding islam then over 170? I don't think so, but at least one may distinguish between fanatics who try to change the world in accordance with some "godism" & those who warn for it!
* Most people on our mother's side have been well on the "better" side of the IQ chart. However, on the father's side my genitor was Olof Kinnmark, who, apart from being one of Sweden's best chess players, was known for his artistry & wit. Although brain size doesn't necessarily determine IQ (see Klevius theory on the Origins of humans), my hat size 62+ with a minimum of hair & a thin skeleton, seems not to be a limiter either. Sorry & excuse me for writing like this but it also gives me an opportunity to criticize the common (& sexist) bragging of size in much less important issues! Intelligence seems to be the most taboo of topics. Yet, real intelligence is no threat at all but the contrary (it's no guarantee for "success" either, rather the opposite, although it's nice & easy to live with). Moreover, although intelligence may be very fast, the stupid ones have all the time in the world to check it in retrospect - but sometimes they just don't want to!
NYT again sides with islamofascism - & again, quite successfully, tries to dive to the bottom of the journalistic sea
Brain dead defense of islamic murder, intimidation etc.
Ian Buruma on Wilders: "Comparing a book that billions hold sacred to Hitler’s murderous tract is more than an exercise in literary criticism; it suggests that those who believe in the Koran are like Nazis, and an all-out war against them would be justified."
Klevius comment: Can anything compete with this new low mark of defenders of fascism?! Apart from the obvious fact that "an all-out war" against the "Nazis" (this name is used to cover up the deep & embarrassing socialist roots of fascism) was declared after the National-socialist Germany had already started World War 2 in Europe, & that no one back them seriously wanted to declare "an all-out war" against the German people, i.e. the "Nazis" (but rather against its militant "jihadists"), there is also a much more essential problem that Buruma's extremely limited & ignorant (or perhaps simply dumb - which would make his stupidity more understandable) "analysis" misses. A book seems to be "sacred" mainly because it's (by hamans) connected to an alleged "god" whose existence is "believed", simply because the book (written by humans) says so! What a wonderful tool for racism (& sexism), & what do Buddhist & other non-godists think abt their books hence being dismissed as not "sacred"?!
Isn't it, btw, quite weird how the godists have not only monopolized the use of "faith" & "religion" but also connected this new meaning to a strange form of global necessity, i.e. the completely unfounded assumption that mideastern godism is somehow essential to all of us! This propaganda has gone so far that even many Buddhists & others are trying to squeeze in the stupid word "god", if not for other reason than being "cool" in this (very brief & temporal) era of ignorant/deliberate islamofascism.
Another point completely missed (?!) by Buruma is the lowscale but extremely widespread racist/sexist (& often outright violent - compare Linda 18, above) islamofascist jihad on our streets, schools, universities, residential areas, legal matters (extreme abuse of "racism, "religious rights"** etc) social & public institutions etc.
** Islam cannot, in any sense, claim protection under "religious rights" simply because it denies these rights for others! Islam is the extreme opposite to Negative Human Rights. This is also why islam couldn't stand U.N.'s 1948 declaration based on the thought that all humans are to be treated as equals, but had to come with its own islamic "human rights" Cairo declaration (via 57 islamofascist nations in U.N. - why are they there?! - lead by Saudi Arabia, the most intolerant & oppressive nation on the planet, which, of course, has omitted e.g. the rights to freedom for girls & women as well as the right of equality for girls/women in matters of divorce, inheritance, child custody, and maintenance, criminal laws etc. etc.
While the majority of the world's population disagrees with the Mideast "monotheist" (what a laughable word - there are millions of personal "gods" but only one fascism, namely political & militant jihad islam) "god", media & politics are full of fascist islam. WHY?!
Cure your ignorance abt the worst crime ever against humanity!