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.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
These two guys (and their accomplices) support Sharia!
It's alleged (e.g. by Saudi bribed Washington Post, Fox, NYT, etc whimp media) that Sharia isn't that dangerous after all because it can be reformed for modern usage. And as a a "reference" thay offer the least trustable namely the grand mufti of Egypt! Or maybe these media see Egypt as a goal for how the US ought to develop?!
According to supremacist Sharia racism, a muslim is superior to a non-Muslim and women are inferior to men. I.e. ALL muslim men are superior to ALL others on the planet!
Muslims against Ground Zero mosque
Raheel Raza (Their Jihad ... Not my Jihad) and Tarek Fatah (The Jew is Not My Enemy) members of the board of the Muslim Canadian Congress: "If this mosque is being funded by Saudi sources, then it is an even bigger slap in the face of Americans. It's a repugnant thought that $100 million would be brought into the United States rather than be directed at dying and needy Muslims in Darfur or Pakistan. As Muslims we are dismayed that our co-religionists have such little consideration for their fellow citizens (Klevius: non-muslims and wrong-muslims aren't citizens in the muslim Umma, dude!). We simply cannot understand (Klevius: When you say so -I told you you're ignorant abt islam!) why on Earth the traditional leadership of America's Muslims would not realize their folly and back out in an act of goodwill. As for those teary-eyed, bleeding-heart liberals such as New York mayor Michael Bloomberg and much of the media, who are blind to the Islamist agenda in North America, we understand their goodwill. Unfortunately for us, their stand is based on ignorance and guilt, and they will never in their lives have to face the tyranny of Islamism that targets, kills and maims Muslims worldwide, and is using liberalism itself to destroy liberal secular democratic societies from within.
Klevius conclusion: Dear reader! As you can conclude from the above there's a lot of ignorance abt islam around. These muslim nuts, like those they critisize, really openly reveal their ignorance about islam! But unlike muslim born Mr X "president" (the Saudi puppet) they oppose the Ground Zero/Cordoba mosque (btw, take a look at the Origin of mosque!). And how do they explain away the fact that 57 islamist nations (OIC) have agreed to violate Human Rights and replace them with Sharia?! Moreover, OIC has also (in UN) criminalized criticism about islam! And finally, if you're so stupid so you disbelieve Klevius just because what he says is so painful to hear, why not check out Klevius crystal clear criticism abt why OIC had to dismiss Human Rights and replace them with Sharia "rights" i.e. sexist sex obligations put on girls/women and racist inequality put on non-muslims (and girls/women, no matter if muslims or not - btw, according to Human Rights women can choose if/how they want to live sex-segregated lives, but according to Sharia such an option can never be allowed, simply because this is the heart of Sharia, i.e. what Klevius call rapetivism! Sharia is a dead end path and continued driving hence ends up in a crash, not always as harsh as in the case of the founder of US Bridges TV, but a stop for freedom and continued racism/sexism anyway).
But rest assured. Islam will inevitably be annihilated by its own inborn and unreformable evilness. Islam is pure parasitism and nothing else (the rest is copied, no matter how many islam labels you try to apply on it - it's like spitting on paper and pretend it's glue) and Cordoba was one of the most successful slave economies thanks to islamic/Koranic slave finance in cooperation with Jewish slave traders and others.
Btw, Human Rights don't differ between "people of the book" and non-religious etc people!!!
Islamic apostasy ban according to Sharia
The main difference between Judaism and its newest branch islam, is the passing of the -ism via the muslim Penis instead of the Jewish Vagina. This combined with islam's intolerance not to let muslims leave islam and not to let non-muslim men to marry muslim women, explains why we have less than 10 Million Jews but more than one Billion muslims.
Islam uses green color despite the fact that it's the least green ideology! It gives birth to most kids and feeds them via oil money and other parasitim because islam in itself would never survuve on its own.
Arab islam nutheads drooling over Japanese Shinto high tech.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Should Nazis have political freedom? How media/politicians/teachers etc try to conceal the historical truth about islam, the by far worst crime ever!
Unlike other political ideologies/religions etc islam’s very basis rests on slave taking and raping. This parasitism is then presented in the framework of Jewish writings collected and cherry picked in the literal mess we call Koran. A “moral” construction for defending evil parasitism. This is why islam in itself has never managed to produce anything of value for humanity, and this is also why islam by far exceeds all other ideologies when it comes to the cumulated number of victims!
Islam’s evil original formula (sex and booty parasitism) is still around unchanged: Infidel racism (conquest and enslavement - incl. dhimmitude - of infidels), sexist rapetivism (sex slavery under Sharia – incl. obligations to offer sex and to rise children to new muslims), muslimhood spread via a muslim penis combined with the prohibition of females to choose non-muslim men, and apostasy ban, i.e. that leaving islam is the worst of sins. So Mr X “president” (as a supporter of anti-constitutional islam he cannot function as president in the US) tries to live in two places at the same time, i.e. pretending to be a Christian (in accordance with islam it’s possible to cheat if it helps islam) while keeping up his muslimhood given via his father’s penis (no matter if his father was practicing islam or not – what counts is that even he was a born muslim who hadn’t committed open apostasy).
Why would a “moderate” muslim frontal figure (imam Feisal Abdul Rauf) used in the presentation of the Cordoba triumph mosque be any guarantee for who/what will follow? And the most likely follower is islam itself, i.e. the origin of islam!
And btw, just like OIC, imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is a Sharia supporter, i.e. he violates girls’/women’s and non-muslim men’s Human Rights.
In reality, the overwhelming majority of muslims, in OIC countries (57 muslim states whose leaders, not the people, have agreed to implement Sharia instead of Human Rights) as in the West, are deeply ignorant about islam and how its basic tenets differ from the real Human Rights which constitute the backbone of the Western civilization. .
In the case of islam one has only one option, i.e. “broad-brushing an entire religion”! Everything else is either ignorance or deliberate cheating.
No wonder islam/OIC tries to desperately hide the historical facts (facts which are still still around and out of reach for reformation due to their intimate coupling to the most basic tenets of islam) about islam by forbidding criticism of islam!
This is OIC, 57 islamist nations whose foreign ministers/teaders have agreed on violating Human Rights and instead implement islamic Sharia law! OIC constitutes the largest voting unit in the UN!
Klevius comment: Isn't it strange that the worst of crimes, anti democratic and totalitarian islam successfully abuses democracy and Human Rights for destroying them!?
The only hope for a free world is Negative Human Rights, i.e. the very foundation on which the 1948 Human Rights declaration, as well as the US Constitution, stand on!
Warner Todd Huston: With the shocking report by Christine Brim revealing that the folks involved in planning the Ground Zero Mosque are heading a major push to get Shariah law forced upon the United States, one has to wonder why this startling fact has not become the talk of the town among the Old Media and the chattering classes? Brim found segments of the Cordoba Website that have recently been scrubbed, segments that show that Rauf is a participant in pushing radical Sharia law on the United States and other western countries through an effort called the Shariah Index Project. The goal section of this scrubbed part of the Cordoba Initiative's website announced that it intended to "define, interpret and implement the concept of the Islamic State in modern times."
Saturday, August 14, 2010
That it was refugees from an English church establishment who planted the flag of freedom on US soil should be enough to discourage the establishment of a Saudi Sharia establishment, shouldn't it! Stop the rape and defamation of the Statue of Liberty!
The main purpose of all Sharia variants is to limit freedom for girls/women!
It's extremely simple. The very fact that islamic nations (OIC) cannot accept Human Rights reveals the true nature of islam and muslims (i.e. those muslims who understand islam - not the masses of ignorant muslims). And the main clashing point is the freedom HUman Rights give girls/women. In fact, Human Rights according to the 1948 Declaration, makes no difference between the sexes whatsoever, while the whole idea of islam (in addition to its built in racist conquest parasitims) is sex segregation. And precisely because girls/women (and on national level as well) in the West haven't as yet fully taken care of their freedom from sex segregation given through the Human Rights, islam has utilized this vanishing echo from the past to sneak in their totalitarian Sharia.
To understand Sharia there's no need discussing cruel penalties etc typically muslim atrocities. What is needed is the essence of Sharia itself. This starts with the racist notion of the infidel wihch will be discussed in a later posting. However, the majority of Sharia regulations are about girls, women and sex. Sharia (in OIC* terminology now called the 1990 Cairo declaration on islamic "human rights") is the very opposite to Human Rights based on freedom (i.e. the Negatiev Human Rights embedded as the foundation of the 1948 HR Declaration). Sharia, which mainly is about confining girls/women, is not only based on sex segregation, but also on sex slavery! Sharia submits girls/women to domestic whoredom in a double sense. Apart from compulsory sex services on demand, women in muslim households also have to reproduce muslimhood in their husband's children. So in conclusion, a muslim penis can muslimify whomever female reproducer (the reproducer herself doesn't even need to be or become a muslim, she's just a reproductive robot in the scheme) whereas a muslim (or non-muslim) woman or a non-muslim man cannot de-muslimify anyone.
If you like to be sex segregated although you don't have to, according to Human Rights, you're completely free to do so. However, according to Sharia you have no choice, this is the whole idea with Sharia! And coupled with apostasy ban and some more utterly evil decrets.
According to Sharia a muslim woman may marry only a muslim man whereas a muslim man can marry whomever. This is the simple and extremely chauvinist formula. Rapetivism is a rape (marital sex slavery) combined with the capture of the newborn into a Sharia muslimhood rhat neither the poor kid notr the mother can escape without considerable problems.
* OIC consists of 57 islamofascist nations whose foreign ministers/leadership have agreed to dismiss Human Rights and replace them with Sharia - high above the heads and understandings of many of their subjects).
An example of misleading and twisted "logic" from islam sponsored Mediamatters
Mediamatters: Hannity (Fox) rattled off his definition of Sharia: “Where women get stoned to death for adultery, where women who are raped need four male eyewitnesses, where women are forced to wear clothing that they may not necessarily want to wear, where women can't drive, where women can't get an education." The implication was that Rauf agrees with such Draconian treatment. Except, of course, that Rauf doesn’t. Hannity selectively quoted from a Huffington Post column by Rauf, omitting that Rauf criticized such punishments -- and, more importantly, ignoring that Rauf drew a line between Sharia and various penal codes. Rauf wrote that "we cringe" at interpretations of Sharia law that lead to "women being stoned and forced into hiding behind burkas and denied educations" and "beheadings and amputations." (Klevius: Isn't this exactly what Mediamatters does here?!). He also made a distinction between Sharia and the "penal code," adding that Muslim countries must "revise the penal code so that it is responsive to modern realities." (Klevius: However, no matter how you modernize or interpret Sharia its basic evil, as explained above, won't change and isn't even mentioned here!)
Hannity has no intention of trying to understand.
Klevius comment: And Mediamatters has no intention of trying to explain Sharia, only to use the islamist retorics of avoidance paired with demonizing. If you don't know what Sharia is then how do you know what it's not, especially considering the abundance of horrifying Sharia examples in praxis, historically and contemporary?!
The problem with islam and its supporters/accomplices is that islam is the worst crime ever committed against humanity! I know, truth hurts. An evil ideology of parasitism with 1400 years of genocides, enslavement and rapetivism.
After the Jewish civil war(s) one branch became islam. But whereas Judaism went via the Vagina, muslimhood was/is spread by the Penis (this is why Mr X "president" is a muslim). This explains why we now have less than 10 Million Jews but more than one Billion "muslims"! Mohammed's tribe was Jewish* as is Ramadan (Yom Kippur). And his wife Khadija was wealthy long before she met Mohammed and he allegedly introduced islam!
* All "monotheisms" are variants of the "original" Jewish patriarchal rapetivism, even Christianity if we don't count its brief sex opposing beginning, which, in fact, was a protest against classic Judaic rapetivism and racism (circumcision, Caananite enslavement, sex slavery and the "chosen people", you know)! Original Christianity was triggered by the much more liberal standards of the Romans, and expanded by the help of Roman tax excemptions etc while it simultaneously became taken over by so called "church fathers". Remember, Jews wee taxed because of their lucrative slavery business, And, yes, Mohammed means Christ, and was used by Arab Jews believing in Jesus until it was realized that there was a problematic discrepancy between the Christ of the Gospels and booty/sex jihadism.
Islam/Koran sanctions and is based on the enslavement of non-muslims
The main lineage in Jewish/islamic ideology has been parasitism finance with the main currency consisting of slaves. Wealthy Jews ruled most of the pre-islamic slave trade routes through which evil islam later came to spread by the help of Jewish collaborators. The Arabs would never have been able to conquer anything bigger than a caravan or power empty spaces where they could slaughter/rape defensless civilians. Every serious historian knows that the Arabs were really lousy, cowardice and technically backward soldiers. This is also why islam never has achieved anything in science and technology. Islam's primary interest has always been parasitism. Whereas Jews occupied the financial/commercial interface between power blocks, hense also slipping into science and technology, islam due to its totalitarian parasitic mass movement/conversions/genocides never reached that far. Every scientist etc you may find in the history books named muslim is in fact a converted scientist etc!
Islam has by far been the worst slave raider/trader in history. The role of slavery in monotheist "religions" (although in Christianity to a much lesser extent**) goes hand in hand with sex segregated rapetivism (i.e. ideological rape). In fact, it may be argued that the slaves was the main currency and basis for finance until Capitalism*** freed most of them. Also consider that Columbus was a Jew who was imprisoned when he tried to bring slaves from America to Europe! And that most so called "European" slave traders were in fact deported Jews! Deported because of their involvement in slavery, i.e. the same reason why Shakespeare via his Renaissance informants created the disgusting (Jewish) merchant in Venice!
** Christianity emerged as an anti-sex movement before the "Church fathers" disciplined it.
*** Capitalism is based on and feeds from technology, not slaves (No dude, cheating with assets isn't Capitalism!). Consequently, it's no surprise that Capitalism followed by Abolitionism (anti-slavery) both emerged in England.
The Indian caste system was a product of islam
Helen E. Hagan, anthropologist: "It is known that the caste system existing in that area is not so much directly related to the caravan trade as it is to the importation on an ideology – Islam.
I would like to recapitulate briefly some of the important facts of this historical development. - The first policy of Arabs, as clearly established by historical documentation, was to tax the inhabitants of these regions with such heavy war taxes that the sale of women and children was included in their treaties"
Understanding islam's ongoing genocide in Darfur
By reading Klevius/KLEVUX you expand your knowledge exponentially in no time!
Friday, August 13, 2010
China victims already exceed those of Paki but criminal BBC continues luring ignorant people to pay islamic Jizyah tax to OIC while blinking Darfur
Holbrooke: Where are the countries of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and where are Pakistan's friends like Iran at this time of need?
Friday, August 06, 2010
9/11 caused more suffering than Paki floods! And even the most timid of muslims is, according to Koran, a supremacist racist rapist!
Islamic jihadism terror after 9/11 has probably caused much more death and suffering than the Paki floodings. So why can't OIC (56+1 islamist nations) take care of it. Why should infidels pay for muslims?!
Your ignorance of the political and supremacist racist/sexist character of islamic law seems still bottomless!
Islamic jihad flood pouring from the homeland of muslim Mr X "president's" first call, Saudi Abdullah & Co.
Klevius translation from the Swedish news paper that distributed the above bruise from islam:
They (the 4-5 Africans) seemed completely normal (when Linda and her friend asked direction and the boys promised to guide them). When they passed through a wooden area the men changed completely and pulled the girls in different directions and started beating them with batoons and kicks in the head and on the body repeatedly and even more so when they screemed. While they *the muslims - Klevius' addition) raped her friend Linda fought for her life. "I don't survive one more hit in my head" she thought. She barely breathed and lay down until her (muslim) torturers went raping her friend. Then she stumbled away while keeping both her hands on her head because of all the blood that was pouring.
An islamic triumph mosque at Ground Zero in the city of the Statue of Liberty!?
Robert Spencer: The question is, does the First Amendment really give every religious group the right to construct a house of worship wherever it wishes to do so? Is there never an occasion in which a location might be inappropriate? Many people have likened the construction of the mega-mosque at Ground Zero to the construction of a shrine to the kamikazes at Pearl Harbor or of a statue of Hitler outside the Auschwitz gates. Would the KKK be greenlighted to build a “reconciliation center” on the site of the 16th St. Baptist Church, as this parody has it? (Others have rejected these comparisons based on the claim that the Cordoba Initiative leaders are “moderate” Muslims who hold to a radically different point of view from that of the Muslims who took down the Twin Towers on 9/11, but the Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s record of deceit and advocacy of Sharia should be enough to establish that that argument is fallacious. And of course they’ll be reading from the same Qur’an that inspired the 9/11 attacks; there is no “reformed” version.) The question is, if the shrine to the kamikazes were sponsored by a religious group, or Auschwitz were subject to First Amendment law, would there be no stopping the building of such things? And today, government agencies do not hesitate to put roadblocks in the way of the construction of houses of worship — at least non-Islamic ones. St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church stood in the shadow of the World Trade Center and was crushed under the rubble when the towers collapsed on September 11, 2001. Almost nine years later it has still not been rebuilt; the rebuilding project is mired in bureaucracy, with New York City officials being uncooperative and throwing up roadblock after roadblock. The contrast is telling with the mad rush on the part of New York City officials to build the Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero. A March 2009 New York Times story on the church stated that “in recent negotiations,” New York’s Port Authority “cut the size of the church slightly and told church officials that its dome could not rise higher than the trade center memorial.” But a thirteen-story mega-mosque? Fine! Unable to rebuild their church, the St. Nicholas congregation has held St. Nicholas Day services in a tent at Ground Zero. But a thirteen-story Islamic supremacist mega-mosque headed by a pro-Sharia, anti-free speech imam who refuses to denounce Hamas and has a history of duplicitous statements? Let’s clear aside every hurdle, tar opponents as bigots, and get that baby built!
Klevius comment: If New York becomes a Mecca for muslim tourists who want to celebrate islam's victory over the USA, then shouldn't the Statue of Liberty be demolished (as the Buddha statues in Afghanistan) so that muslims and islam won't be offended?!
Nonie Darwish (a brave and intelligent former muslim woman with integrity who, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, should be the foremost idol for other muslim girls/women): They all (islam supporters) have to deal with Islamic groups who promote Sharia and jihad –that are founded, undeniably, on basic principles of Islam. We can live in denial and insist that there is moderate Islam separate from radical Islam, and we can say Islam is a religion of peace. But the truth keeps forcing itself on us. It is only a matter of time, if we are not careful, that full-blown underground Islamist groups will start popping up in Europe and America doing to us what the Taliban is doing to Karzai and the Muslim Brotherhood is doing to Mubarak and other Muslim leaders.