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.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Although US is led by an unconstitutional* muslim born Mr X "president" traitor aided by a madrasa trained Koran recitator, the statue of Liberty is still standing. But for how long?
I respect islam, the worst crime ever against humanity
David Camoron, PM for an EU member state, supports EU membership for islamofascist Turkey which has agreed with 56 other islamist nations (OIC) to introduce Sharia and to actively violate those very Human Rights that constituted EU in the first place!
Here's the preamble to the Cairo declaration on "human rights" in islam which was introduced when the islamists realized islam could never submit to the original Human Rights based on freedom and implemented in 1948 as a bullwork against totalitarian ideologies like nationalsocialism and islam.
"The Member States of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC),
Reaffirming the civilizing (sic) and historical (1400 yrs of parasitic slavery/genocides/rapetivism) role of the Islamic Ummah which Allah made the best (sic) nation and the role (totalitarianist anti-freedom) that this Ummah should play to guide (sic) a humanity confused by competing trends and ideologies (Human Rights)"
Klevius comment: Like Human Rights!
"Wishing to affirm his right to life in accordance with the Islamic Shari'ah;
Believing that fundamental rights (Sharia) are an integral part of the Islamic religion
and that no one as a matter of principle has the right to suspend them in whole or in part or violate or ignore them in as much as they are binding divine commandments thereby making their observance an act of worship and their neglect or violation all abominable sin, and accordingly every person is individually responsible - and tile Ummah collectively responsible - for their safeguard."
Article 1 states that "All human beings form one family whose members are united by submission to Allah"
Klevius comment: These are islam's "humans" and as you see, non'believers do not count because they don't submit under Allah!
All men are equal in terms of basic human dignity and basic obligations and responsibilities
Klevius comment: Meaning girls, women, wrong-believers and non-believers don't have the same rights as muslim men!
Diana West: "The Cairo Declaration declares that the Muslim community's role is to “guide” humanity, a point that isn't “clubby” but is downright imperialist. But there is another implication to the debate: that Western identity is merely an atavistic expression of petty insularity. Free will, free conscience – the evolution of individual liberty – is the fruit of Judeo-Christian civilization, one that Islamic doctrine is unable to produce. Tragically, it is also one that Westerners are throwing away. Could the total transformation to “Eurabia” be far behind?"
Klevius comment: On the contrary, it's precisely because of the Judeo-Christian "civilization" that we'we got evil islam on our necks! It's truly foolish not to understand that islam is original Judaist slavery/rapetivism "economy", only far more sophisticated in its parasitism (e.g. the combination of patriarchal inheritance of muslimhood combined with apostasy ban).
And why doesn't Diana West touches upon the key to the problem, i.e. sex segregation? Because the Judeo-Christian "civilization" was born out of sex segregation, and has been able to survive because of sex segregation, until secularism stripped it off its main argument by creating the free individual under the unbeatable ideology of Negative Human Rights. Look at it! Western civilization has emerged not as a product of but in opposition to Mideastern monotheisms!
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Open letter to Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Peace be upon You! According to Mr X "president" there's no connection between islam & violence!
Btw, how come that PC charlatan opionist political editing tool Wikipedia calls you and Mohammed both feminists?! And that the same insane wild editing Wikipedia* defines antifeminism as the consideration that "feminism is a destructive force that endangers the family. Wikipedia happily cherry picks Paul Gottfried to say: Serious (sic - Klevius' sigh) conservative scholars like Allan Carlson and F. Carolyn Graglia have maintained that the change of women’s role, from being primarily mothers to self-defined professionals, has been a social disaster (Klevius comment: see Angels of Antichrist to get this tendentious and uninformed polemic confusion corrected) that continues to take its toll on the family. Rather than being the culminating point of Western Christian gentility, the movement of women into commerce and politics may be seen as exactly the opposite, the descent by increasingly disconnected individuals into social chaos. Wikipedia continues its senseless babbling and cherry picking: Antifeminist writer Jim Kalb describes the stance thus: To be antifeminist is simply to accept that men and women differ (Klevius comment: check out What's sex segregation to get this delusion corrected) and rely on each other to be different, and to view the differences as among the things constituting human life that should be reflected where appropriate in social attitudes and institutions. By feminist standards all societies have been thoroughly sexist. It follows that to be antifeminist is only to abandon the bigotry of a present-day ideology that sees traditional relations between the sexes as simply a matter of domination and submission, and to accept the validity of the ways in which human beings have actually dealt with sex, children, family life and so on (Klevius comment: Yes, why not take a look at the previous posting and give some consideration to words such as over population and rapetivism in islamic societies!). Antifeminism is thus nothing more than the rejection of one of the narrow and destructive fantasies of an age in which such things have been responsible for destruction and murder on an unprecedented scale.
* The only reason Wikipedia is mentioned is that it reflexes a weird but common type of PC edited folk "science" and hence well exemplifies and boosts common misconceptions.
Klevius comment: Just try to make sense of this! You can really see the oily Arabian islam wind blowing through this. But poor Mohammed has been squeezed in both of these categories! Schizophrenic? Probably. Ask his inventor, Malik (see previous posting)!
Klevius answer to this mess lies in Klevius Definition of feminism. And in the fact that the cutting of your clitoris was a similar effort to feminize you as the veil, the burqa, the Sharia etc. are for muslim women. As Otto Weininger put it: The worst obstacle for the emancipation of women is the Woman (i.e. the "feminine one", who strives like a transvestite (i.e. without the biological body) to fulfill a cultural mirage of "femininity" while her biological body, without any altering at all needed, already possesses it, i.e. what Klevius since long has termed heterosexual attraction!
For other readers of this open letter: Both Klevius and Ayaan Hirsi Ali know that the Enlightened individual long since theoretically eradicated the sex segregated "Woman". And since 1948 it's been inscibed in UN's Human Rights Declaration as (Article 2) Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as - sex... And unlike the sexist islamofascist OIC's Cairo Declaration (1990) on "islamic human rights" (i.e. Sharia) the original Human Rights Declaration doesn't allow for exceptions such as OIC's Sharia terms of "basic obligations and responsibilities"! This however, doesn't hinder necrophilic transvestites (feminists, muslims etc) from scavenging on her dead body. You ignorant islam supporter need to start working on the origin of islam! And when you have realized the true evilness of its birth then you'd be prepared for the 1400 year long body count. And hopefully, a reconsideration of your islam support when you realize how much additional damage it really causes, and how your perverse attitude constitutes a severe obstruction of justice, i.e. the indictment of islam, the worst crime ever against humanity.
A crypto-muslim in the White House, and 57 Sharia nations (OIC) undermining Human Rights in UN is a serious threat to everyone on the planet! Also consider Wikipedia's islamofascist human rights entry: Some (actually ALL 57 OIC members) islamic countries have criticised the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for its perceived failure to take into the account the cultural and religious context of Islamic countries and Sharia (sic).
Klevius comment: Isn't it hilarious that islam is defended on cultural grounds at the same time as islamic Sharia honor murders are called "cultural" and not islamic!?
The only moral way to go is called Negative Human Rights (the very basis for the UN 1948 Declaration on Human Rights). This way happens to go in the very opposite direction compared to Mohammed and other feminists!
Perhaps you should also take a look at the most important sociological writing from the last Century, Angels of Antichrist (no, Klevius isn't "religious" - Klevius is serious)! A quote from Angels of Antichrist: Although the simple Sicilian women in Lagerlöf’s novel, following the Good Samaritan, showed no signs of evil, they were certainly part of a movement that would become the most widespread political force ever. The question, however, remains; is it an evil one? (Klevius 1996).
Mr X "president" and Saudi/Pakistan (incl US and UK Paki etc muslims) funded islamic jihadists
OP Gupta: "On May 13, 2010 at a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee when Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) asked Attorney General Eric Holder: "Do you feel that these individuals might have been incited to take the actions that they did because of radical Islam?" Holder replied: "There are a variety of reasons why I think people have taken these actions. . ." Holder’s avoidance of the obvious (i.e. naming Radical Islam) is seen as the absurd and embarrassing refusal of the Obama administration to acknowledge who is trying to kill Americans and why. In fact, it is alleged to have banned from its official vocabulary the terms jihadist, Islamist and Islamic terrorism."
“And slay them (the infidels [Jews & Christians]) wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out, for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter” 2:191
" وَاقْتُلُوهُمْ حَيْثُ ثَقِفْتُمُوهُمْ وَأَخْرِجُوهُم مِّنْ حَيْثُ أَخْرَجُوكُمْ وَالْفِتْنَةُ أَشَدُّ مِنَ الْقَتْلِ وَلاَ تُقَاتِلُوهُمْ عِندَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ حَتَّى يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ فِيهِ فَإِن قَاتَلُوكُمْ فَاقْتُلُوهُمْ كَذَلِكَ جَزَاء الْكَافِرِينَ" البقرة 191:2
“Fighting is prescribed for you, and you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and that you love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows, and you know not” 2:216
" كُتِبَ عَلَيْكُمُ الْقِتَالُ وَهُوَ كُرْهٌ لَّكُمْ وَعَسَى أَن تَكْرَهُواْ شَيْئًا وَهُوَ خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ وَعَسَى أَن تُحِبُّواْ شَيْئًا وَهُوَ شَرٌّ لَّكُمْ وَاللّهُ يَعْلَمُ وَأَنتُمْ لاَ تَعْلَمُونَ" البقرة 216:2
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" 9:29
"قَاتِلُواْ الَّذِينَ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللّهِ وَلاَ بِالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ وَلاَ يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ اللّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَلاَ يَدِينُونَ دِينَ الْحَقِّ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُواْ الْكِتَابَ حَتَّى يُعْطُواْ الْجِزْيَةَ عَن يَدٍ وَهُمْ صَاغِرُون" التوبة 29:9
Husain Haqqani, now Pakistan's ambassador to Washington: "The most significant jihadi group of Wahhabi persuasion (PDF) [influenced by the doctrine of 18th-century Islamic scholar Muhammad ibn-Abdul Wahhab] is Lashkar-e-Taiba" which is backed by Saudi money and protected by Pakistani intelligence services. LeT "seeks to bring about a union of all Muslim majority regions in countries that surround Pakistan." According to Haqqani, LeT justifies its ideology by the Quranic verse that says, "You are obligated to fight even though it is something you do not like" (2:216).
The islamofascist terror manual called "Islamic Human Rights"
The Member States of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC),
reaffirming the civilizing and historical role (sic) of the islamic Ummah which Allah made the best nation (sic) and the role that this Ummah should play to guide a humanity confused by competing trends and ideologies and wishing to affirm his right to a dignified life in accordance with the islamic Sharia; believing that fundamental rights and universal freedoms (sic) in islam are an integral part of the islamic religion and that no one as a matter of principle has the right to suspend them in whole or in part (sic) or violate or ignore them (sic) in as much as they are binding divine commandments thereby making their observance an act of worship and their neglect or violation all abominable sin (sic), and accordingly every person is individually responsible (sic) - and tile Ummah collectively responsible - for their safeguard. Article 1(a): All human beings form one family whose members are united by submission to Allah (sic). Article 2: It is prohibited to take away life except for a Shari'a prescribed reason (sic).
Friday, July 02, 2010
Evil islam, its naked emperor, a silent media, a Queen scared of violent muslims - and MI5 offering employment for al-qaeda!
One of the most common plattitudes in the pathological PC boosting of islam (the worst crime ever against humanity) is the empty "But most muslims aren't violent Sharia fanatics!" Well duh, because most "muslims" know very little abt islam! Especially abt its origin and victims because they are brainwashed with only "religious"/political imam nonsense, not historical facts. To an extent so that they even believe there really was a historically proven Mohammed figure etc. If they weren't so ignorant and misled abt islam they should have ceased being muslims long since! Like most Christians the average Westernized Mohammed simply dosn't have time to check it out - the racist/sexist part is just enough. Islam has traditionally kept islamic nations (and those which islam has sucked blood from) in backwardness while its citizens have led their lives without paying too much attention to islam. However, now again evil (racism/sexism/rapetivism) islamic collectivism has been lifted as a political tool for racism sexism and greed.
The islamic micro factory - and its "waste" product
(to the left)Afshan Azad, 22, (known as Padma Patil in Potter movies) was allegedly attacked at her home in Longsight, Manchester UK, on May 21 by her muslim father Abdul Azad, 54, and brother, Ashraf Azad, 28, both of Beresford Road, Longsight. Abdul is accused of threatening to kill his daughter and Ashraf of threatening to kill and assault occasioning actual bodily harm against his sister. Father and brother were allegedly working together to kill the sister -- the same thing happened to Amina and Sarah Said, as well as to Aqsa Parvez. Despite this fact both were let free until the trial!
(to the right) Mohammed Salim, born in Pakistan and runs an “Islamic political party”, has, according to The Express, retired from his job as a teacher to “make more on benefits” earned £27,000-a-year. Not working, Mr Salim is said to pull in £29,096 a year “in handouts doing nothing more than biting the hand that feeds him and planning to father a 12th child for taxpayers to support”.
Mohammed and his 9 year old wife Aisha in Swedish politics 2010
Klevius scientific comment: This (Mohammed) is of course, pure speculation based on muslim mythology. According to Hugh Kennedy (professor of Arabic language and Arabic history, considered one of the absolutely foremost islamologs in the world): "Before Abd al-Malik (caliph 685-705) Mohammed (dead 632) is never mentioned on any official document whatsoever...". This may be compared to Germany's foremost islamolog, "Muhammad" (a convert who might now be reconsidering his conversion) Sven Kalisch, who lost his university position when he said that he couldn't find any Mohammed whatsoever, in his extremely deep and thorough research! He was put behind a university curtain and replaced by a muslim from Mideast, covered in a veil of "moderation" (meaning if he really is a"moderate" he will not count as a real muslim - rememeber, there's only one islam according to Turkey's islamist PM Erdogan)!
The only real difference between the Mohammed myth and the Harry Potter myth is the senseless evilness (agitation for racism/sexism/rapetivism) of the former!
So what abt the evidence for Jesus? Well, he wasn't apparently a pirate/war lord, and despite the fact that he was around some 600 yrs earlier there are historical records referring to him! Jesus was both historical and a religious myth while Mohammed was only a myth. Although there might have been tales abt one or several individuals on whom the Mohammed myth then later was loosely adapted, the islamic Mohammed figure is historically equally visible as a drop of water in the Arabian sand.
But also consider that although some 99% of Christianity shares much of the evil Abrahamic original rapetivism/racism curse (although not even close to that of islam), early Christianity seems in fact to have been something of a protest movement against rapetivism, until the "Church fathers" and the Roman empire put an end to it and gave us Catholicism (especially boosted because of islam's attacks on Europe) which was later opposed by the Protestants who thus opened up (under the threat from evil islam in the form of the Ottomans) for that very Western progress that muslims now so desperately long for while still supporting the evil metastasises of islam by not completely abandoning it! Yes, I know, muslims aren't allowed to abandon islam - that's one of islam's most basic evil tenets! And because the confinement of girls/women (sex segregation/rapetivism) is even worse/more elaborate in islam than in Catholicism, islam will try to undermine democracy and (negative) human rights by share numbers. However, an islam supporting vote is always inevitably a vote AGAINST democracy, and as such not legal in a free democratic society! When 57 islamist nations undetr the name OIC now abuse UN for spreading anti human rights Sharia (called "Human rights in islam" (sic) most people don't have a clue what's going on thanks to media fascists such as Media Matters and others!
Ramdas Lamb (Professor, University of Hawai, world religions and contemporary American religion): Muslims started out with tribal identity but subsequently adopted the concept of a belief based lineage as well. For both, their respective "tribe" came to consist of those who shared their beliefs rather than their genes. However, they kept the same narrow view of the world, one in which their specific group was and is seen to be superior.
That is why both religions have spent so much time and energy throughout their histories converting others to their ways of thinking, and that is precisely why they are the largest religions in the world today. This is a very different way of thinking and acting than is found in the other major religious traditions.
Klevius comment: And it was the longlasting Jewish civil war that resulted in a more narrow definition of Jewishness in the shadow of Jews believing in Christ and other Hellenized/Romanized (i.e. Westernized) Jews, hence making it less potent for growth while simultaneously opening up for the most evil (murdering/intimidating/raping/enslaving) variant of the original theme, now called islam. Also remember that the Jews, mainly due to their lucrative slave trading, were usually well off while the Christians were usually poor.
Btw, as you know if you have followed Klevius, he counts the the majority of non-muslim and non-orthodox Jews in Israel as productive Westerners who made the desert flowering, created jobs for the Arabs, and have produced high tech for some 60 yrs, while islam has been busy throwing bombs at them!
Ramdas Lamb: The killing off of one's opponent tribes is sometimes seen as a necessary step to assure the survival and proliferation of one's own. In the case of Christianity and Islam, this became translated into the destruction of opposing beliefs, rather than just peoples, to assure their own survival and proliferation. Fortunately, millions of individual followers have been more tolerant (Klevius: or simply ignorant of their "religion") than the doctrines of their own religions. Their exclusivist beliefs have lead many of their followers to dislike, denigrate, and even hate others' religions and their adherents. This concept of tolerance is clearly not consistent with the foundational doctrines of the Abrahamic (Klevius: i.e. Jewish) traditions!
Klevius comment: Did you hear that! What does Mr X "president" think abt it?! When Christopher Columbus, a slave hunting Jew who escaped the inquisition (the Catholic hunt for slave hunters) and "discovered" a new source for slaves, he just followed a longlasting Jewish slave tradition. The Christianizing of England, for example, was a direct consequence of the Jews taking so many British slaves. The Jews needed slaves not only to sell for good profit but also for their numerous salt mines in Europe. Salt, btw, was then transported to parts of Africa where it was hard to get and highly valued. And how did the Africans pay? Yes, with more slaves and some gold. The slavery Jews paved the way for islam in the Sasanian empire just as they did later in Spain until they were expelled, e.g. to Amsterdam from where they went to what should become USA. These are just some brief examples of an enourmous historical pattern of evilness that culminated in islam's 1400 yrs mega crime against humanity.
Mahmoud Aldebe is the leader of the main muslim organization in Sweden. He is also the guy who called the Swedish (convert) state imam Abd al Haq Kielan (aka Leif Karlson - see Klevius criticism abt him on Naive (or hypocrite & traitor?) top imam denies women a social life outside home) "a Jew who has converted to Islam to destroy for the Muslims" and that he had also called him "Shayṭān" (Satan). Kielan, for his part, accused Aldebe of using undemocratic methods such as "threats, slander and reprisal" against critics. Here Mahmoud Aldebe, an aggressive proponent for Sharia in Sweden, is seen together with his friend Mona Sahlin, the leader of Swedish socialdemocrats.
This man's ancestors were muslim slave traders! This man supported islamist riots/murders in Kenya! This man supports/blinks black racists such as Nation of Islam, New Black Panthers, Muslim Brotherhood etc!
Compare this disgusting muslim "president" with another muslim, the African heroine Ayaan Hirsi Ali!
This Mr X "president" Barry Barack Hussein Obama Dunham Soetoro (or whatever)was born to a muslim father and raised by an an adoptive muslim father (check out what this means according to islam - if I write it here it's merely dismissed as "islamophobia" anyway!). This very same man together with his wife sat for some 20 years (yes, 20 yrs!) in a black supremacist "church" (in fact a Nation of Islam thug hole) where Jeremiah Wright delivered never ending racist hate preaches and agitation for violent hate crimes. Only when Mr X then presidential candidate realized this connection could endanger his election he reluctantly pretended to "withdraw" himself from his beloved hate preacher. Interestingly Mr X now avoids churhes as much as possible. Maybe he doesn't like churches without hate preachers, who knows.
Also consider why Mr X has paid millions for hiding his real (muslim?) identity on the long form birth certificate (which still exists at least in digital form) which no one has been allowed to scrutinize. The short form version that has been flashed doesn't contain any info relevant for the question abt Mr X's birth identity! Birth place? On which hospital if any? Religious belonging etc?
What is truly scary though is how deliberate liars and misleaders of the public such as Media Matters, Factcheck (sic) etc paid opinionists are allowed to make politics!
Klevius conclusion: Mr X "president" takes cover behind his "color" while scrupulously letting loose the black etc blood dogs! While Soros and other idiots applaud it! You member of the public, don't you feel a little embarrassed of being so heavily opinionated by money rather than reason?!
However, always remember that you're living at a time when the BIGGEST LIE EVER is presented as a truth. When the pointing at the bottomless evilness of islam, easily seen in historical records and in islam's own original tenets, is called "islamophobia" by those who are too ignorant or too involved! Previous generations didn't have the possibilities we have to x-ray murky ideologies. But only because of a stupid (or deliberate for political purposes) revival of "religion" (see Klevius definition of real religion and how it differs from politics, and the most important sociological article from the last Century) has it been possible to present the worst crime ever against humanity as a "spiritual faith"!
Criticizing the worst (measured in numbers of victims islam by far exceeds both nazism and communism both proportionally and in absolute figures) ideological crime ever is now considered to "demonstrate that one cannot make accurate statements and hence should not be allowed a platform in media"!
Also consider the worst censorship since Hitler and Goebbels, right on your desk top! Media Matters* (who made you vote for the disaster Mr X "president") is Goebbels' twin on the web! Pamela Geller is btw especially targeted because she questions whether Americans really want a triumphant bin Laden mosque at Ground Zero!
* Media Matters belongs to the Georg Soros sphere, you know the guy who used (oil?) money for the purpose of making huge profit by playing with the currencies of small vulnerable nations - with disastrous effects for the poor people in those nations!
This defence for the worst crime ever was hanging for a week at the top of Google news!? Wonder how they do it? The same trick as when Mr X was made "president"?
IN GENERAL ONE MIGHT ARGUE THAT MOST GROUPINGS OUTSIDE FAMILY- FRIEND- ETC ARE POTENTIALLY IMMORAL, DANGEROUS AND LIMITING - AND ABOVE ALL, USUALLY AGAINST THE NEGATIVE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL!
By referring (in the hope of personal gain now) to a historical group/race/sex belonging you might well expose yourself for the evil/stupid deeds of that particular belonging!
US was born out of a protest against religion.
John F Kennedy: “One path the Americans will never go is the path of submission!”
Mideastern “monotheisms” are constantly struggling with what they call “reforming” themselves, which in reality is nothing else than covering up for an evil foundation that is so flawed and impossible to adopt/adapt to the idea of human rights that it instead of reformation results in the boosting of the most evil parts of them!
British MI5 boss (Eliza Manningham-Buller) regrets going to war in Afganistan because British al-qaeda symphatizers see it as an attack on islam!
This statement may be seen in the light of recent MI5 proposals to invite as many muslims as possible for high positions in the British counter-intelligence (sic)!