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, September 25, 2010
Time to burn OIC's Human Rights violation and to indict the Saudi hate criminals and their supporters
Btw, did England incite hatred against the German Nationalsocialists thus causing unrest and chaos? And was Germany's attack reasonable because of an unfair Versaille treaty? Patrick Buchanan makes the case that, if not for the blunders of British statesmen the horrors of two world wars and the Holocaust might have been avoided? To this one may add that whereas Nationalsocialism was national and hence not totalitarian in a universal sense, islam is truly totalitarian, on a micro level as well as on a macro level.
57 islamic nations (OIC) have here agreed to adopt Sharia!
This man, Saudi "king" Abdullah (aka Mr X "president's" first call) is an oil parasite whose main task in life has been the spreading of evil islamism!
OIC, a Saudi initiated and supporting organization consisting of 56+1 islamist nations who have:
1 decided to violate Human Rights by replacing them with islamist Sharia which denies girls and women their rights given in the 1948 Human Rights Declaration
2 hijacked UN by constituting its biggest voting bloc
3 criminalized criticism against islam by calling it "islamophobia"
The mosque mouse, silenced by islam
Sept 28-30, 2010, the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), is sponsoring Sharia propaganda at the AIC’s Chicago campus.
Founded in 1969 OIC is now a 56 (+ Palestine) state collective which includes every lslamic nation on Earth. Currently headed by Turkey’s Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, OIC thus represents the entire muslim Umma and is the largest single voting bloc in the UN.
John Laffin warned in 1988 that the Jedda-based OIC, initiated and patronized by Saudi Arabia, is persuading Muslim nations to jettison even their inchoate adoption of “Western models and codes,” and to revert to the pre-Western retrograde systems of Sharia.
According to Laffin, the Saudis offered sizable loans and grants in return for a more extensive application of Sharia.
Saudi Arabia also distributed an abundance of media and print materials which extended to non-muslim countries, including tens of millions of Korans, translated into many languages for the hundreds of millions of muslims (and non-muslims) who did not read Arabic.
And now two special US envoys to the OIC later (both the former, Sada Cumber, and current envoy, Rashad Hussain) will attend the Chicago OIC propaganda for the purpose of islamization.
Andrew Bostom : Elizabeth Kendal, in a recent commentary  about the plight of brutalized Egytpian Muslim “apostates” Maher el-Gowhary and Nagla Al-Imam, made a series of apt observations which illustrate the most salient aspect of Islam’s persistent religious totalitarianism: the absence of freedom of conscience in Islamic societies. Egypt, Kendal notes, amended its secular-leaning constitution in 1980, reverting to its pre-colonial past and designating Sharia (Islamic law) as “the principal source of legislation” — an omnipresent feature of contemporary Muslim constitutions, including the new constitutions of Afghanistan and Iraq — rendering “constitutional guarantees of religious liberty and equality before the law illusory.” This is the inevitable outcome of a Sharia-based legal system, because:
Sharia’s principal aim concerning religious liberty, is to eradicate apostasy (rejection of Islam) through the elimination of fitna (anything that could tempt a Muslim to reject Islam) and the establishment of dhimmitude — the humiliation and subjugation of Jews and Christians as second class citizens [or non-citizen pariahs]; crippling systematic discrimination; violent religious apartheid …
In Egypt, as in virtually all Muslim states, a person’s official religion is displayed on their identity card. According to Sharia, every child born to a Muslim father is deemed Muslim from birth. According to Sharia, a Muslim woman is only permitted to marry a Muslim man. (This is the main reason why Christian men convert to Islam, and why female converts to Christianity will risk life and liberty to secure a falsified/illegal ID, for without a Christian ID they cannot marry a Christian.)
There is no religious liberty in Islam, for Islam survives as religious totalitarianism that refuses rejection.
Islam’s refusal to abide rejection by its votaries — the global Muslim umma’s strident rejection of freedom of conscience — is now openly codified, and has been for two decades. The 1990 Cairo Declaration, or so-called “Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam”, was drafted and subsequently ratified by all the Muslim member nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.
Both the preamble and concluding articles (24 and 25) make plain that the OIC’s Cairo Declaration is designed to supersede Western conceptions of human rights as enunciated, for example, in the U.S. Bill of Rights and the UN’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The opening of the preamble to the Cairo Declaration  repeats a Koranic injunction affirming Islamic supremacism (Koran 3:110; “You are the best nation ever brought forth to men … you believe in Allah”), and states:
Reaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which Allah made the best nation …
The preamble continues:
Believing that fundamental rights and universal freedoms 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 or violate or ignore them in as much as they are binding divine commandments, which are contained in the Revealed Books of God and were sent through the last of His Prophets to complete the preceding divine messages thereby making their observance an act of worship and their neglect or violation an abominable sin, and accordingly every person is individually responsible — and the Ummah collectively responsible — for their safeguard.
In its last articles 24 and 25, the Cairo Declaration maintains
[Article 24] All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia. … [Article 25] The Islamic Sharia is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration.
Michael Hamilton: As noted in Shariah: The Threat to America, Ihsanoglu used the occasion of an earlier speech to an OIC Council of Foreign Ministers’ conclave to declare war on freedom of speech:
In [the OIC’s] confronting the Danish cartoons and the Dutch film “Fitna,” we sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed. As we speak, the official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked.
Of late, the Organization of the Islamic Conference has taken to the United Nations its war against expression that gives offense to Islam. Last September, the Obama administration actually co-sponsored a resolution with Egypt (representing the OIC) in the UN Human Rights Council, calling on the United Nation’s member states to limit such expression, as part of the OIC’s ongoing campaign to have the UN recognize Islamophobia as a form of racism subject to prosecution under international law.
This effort to establish what it calls “deterrent punishments” for shariah slander is only one example of OIC activity at odds with American interests and the U.S. Constitution. Other examples include:
• Disrupting U.S. Efforts in Afghanistan: In the July 2010 edition of the OIC’s “Islamophobia Observatory” Bulletin, the OIC sharply criticized Gen. Petraeus’ counter-insurgency manual as “a manifestation of Islamophobia”;
• Damaging Middle East Peace Negotiations: Since its founding, the OIC has pursued an aggressive anti-Israel campaign, including creating a fund for the intifada in 2001;
• Denies Civil Liberties and Freedom to Muslims and Non-Muslims: The OIC for decades has tried to deny American Muslims and others the protections of the UN Convention on Human Rights and the U.S. Constitution, insisting instead that they comply with the shariah apartheid doctrine formally adopted by the OIC’s members as the so-called “Cairo Declaration of Human Rights.”
According to the conference agenda published by the OIC New York UN Permanent Mission (http://www.oicun.org/9/20100727101615770.html), the executive director of the Chicago franchise of the Hamas-linked CAIR, Ahmed Rehab, will moderate a panel entitled: “The Role of the OIC and the Scope for its Relation with American Muslims.”
In yet another ominous move, the Organization of the Islamic Conference has announced that it will meet on September 30 with American Muslim leaders – many of whose groups the federal government has identified in court as Muslim Brotherhood fronts – for the purpose of creating the “American Muslim Liaison Council to the OIC.”
Question to: Nobel Prize Laureate Shirin Ebadi by David G. Littman (Representative: AWE & WUPJ)
My question is addressed to Madam Shirin Ebadi.
Thank you for your remarkable frank speaking here and your courage - a true lesson for us all.
A year ago, on Human Rights Day 2007, OIC Secretary-General Prof. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu stated that the OIC General Secretariat is considering the establishment of an independent permanent body to promote Human Rights in Member States in accordance with the provision of the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam and to elaborate an OIC Charter on Human Rights.
Four days later, on 14 December 2007, Pakistan's Ambassador Masood Khan - speaking for the OIC at the Human Rights Council -claimed that the 1990 Cairo Declaration was "not an alternative competing worldview on human rights," but failed to mention that the shari'a law was "the only source of reference" in that Declaration's articles 24 and 25 - the same shari'a law in which there is no equality between Muslim men and women and Muslims and non-Muslims. The Final Communiqué of the 3rd Extraordinary Session of the Islamic Mecca Summit on 8 December 2005 had provided a clear message on this - and on the UN system of human rights.
Madam, do you feel that the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam - and a future Islamic Charter based on shari'a law - would clash with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam and the International bill of Human Rights? To give one example: the marriage of girls at nine years old, as in Iran, since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Klevius comment: Islamic “monotheism” is the most evil form of the old Jewish “the chosen people” racism. The only meaningful difference is that whereas old Judaism was spread via the Vagina, islam is spread via the Penis (rapetivism). This fact together with islam’s harsh apostasy ban (meaning leaving islam is considered a crime) and that muslim women are not allowed to marry non’muslims, explains why there are now less than 10 Million Jews but more than one Billion muslims.
OIC’s Cairo declaration clearly violates girls/women’s Human Rights. Under OIC’s islamic Sharia a female doesn’t really count as a fully human (only "truly" muslim men counts) because of islam’s rigid sex segregation. Because of their sex females are, according to islam, forever and in all aspects of life, doomed to legal difference as prescribed by whatever Sharia happens to rule. To make this more simple to understand, just compare to the original Human Rights which expressly state that sex should not be an excuse for limiting girls’ and women’s freedom. And even more simple: Whereas under Sharia women are doomed to sex segregation, under Human Rights a woman can choose to sex segregate herself as well as to refuse to sex segregate herself (However, due to the detrimental effects of psychoanalysis this latter option isn’t always open for girls because they may be labeled as “suffering” from gender identity disorder – see Klevius explanation of this repulsive psychiatyric intervention in girls’ lives).
Negative Human Rights constitute the backbone of the Human Rights Declaration and the US Constitution. Islam/Sharia is the very opposite. This is why OIC violates the most important part of the Human Rights by replacing their freedom with medieval islamofascism.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Political heroes in Sweden victorious despite being hindered to speak, demonized, violently attacked and left without police protection
So you guys in fact like islam, although you try to cover it up by saying you like "difference" hence implying that Sweden Democrats are against foreigners when in fact their main point is that they are against islam (a totalitarian ideology that is the worst crime ever against humanity)! Why this skewed hypocrisy? Or are you just nuts?! Check out what OIC and their Sharia plans stand for before you make fools of yourselves!
You racist/sexist islam supporter! Islam inevitably means Sharia, and Sharia is completely incompatible with Human Rights! This is why OIC (57 islamic nations) has decided to violate Human Rights and replace them with Sharia "rights"! Is this simple and easily controlled fact so hard to get into your head you ignorant! And no, idiot! It's NOT abt cruel Sharia penalties, honor murders, clitorechtomy etc, no matter how disgusting these cultural phenomenon are (although often initiated/backed by islam). What it all comes down to in islam is infidel racism and sex segregation. The latter (which is a variant of the former) to an extent that women aren't considered fully human due to precisely those "obligations", "duties", and "dignities" referred to in OIC's Cairo declaration (Sharia), which btw also criminalizes criticism against islam. Whereas Human Rights don't make it possibly to refer to sex as a reason for limitating freedom, the Cairo declaration does, you moron! And if you don't submit to the (empty, i.e. not imposing) Negative Human Rights (Klevius distinction of these rights is still by far the best on the net) you end up as a racist/sexist pig! Negative Human Rights are btw the basis for the US Constitution as well as UNs Human Rights Declaration.
ISLAM DOESN'T MEAN YOUR NICE BUT IGNORANT MUSLIM FRIEND, ISLAM MEANS SHARIA FASCISM! ISLAM IS AN EVIL HATE CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY THAT WAS FUELLED BY A RACIST/SEXIST "MORAL" THAT DEFENDED PARASITIC SLAVERY AND RAPETIVISM AS "THE WILL OF ALLAH"!
This islamist, Abdirizak Waberi, fits the Swedish ruling party (Moderaterna) but not his critics! And this man fits (?) all those ignorants (and islamists) who rally in Stockholm against islam critics.
Swedish politician critical to islam (the worst crime ever against humanity) tortured in his home by Arab-muslim islamofascists
The evening before September 11 a Swedish politician, David von Arnold Antoni (Swedish Democrat, critical of islam), was savagely attacked and tortured for some 20 minutes by two masked men who spoke Swedish accented in Arabic and called him “Svenne bastard” and “Swedish devil” during the attack. After the men forced themselves into his apartment, they scratched his neck and one held Antoni down while the other carved a swastika into his forehead. When leaving they stole David’s laptop and money. However, after investigating the attack as a hate crime, police have concluded Antoni made the whole thing up and are contemplating charging him with filing a false report. Why? Because doctors who examined Antoni concluded (sic) his injuries are fake on a 9-out-of-10 scale (sic again). The certificate issued by the Office of Forensic in Lund, says, “Strong reasons concerning the location and appearance suggest that is self-inflicted injury.” Antoni said “I find it very interesting that the police chose to give this certificate just before the election. There are certainly those who can benefit from it in the election.”
Klevius comment: This follows a common pattern when islam is involved, doesn't it?!
In March 2010 David von Arnold (Swedish Democrat, critical of islam) was attacked by a man in a green military coat and covered with a Palestine scarf. The man tried to stab him with a knife but Arnold managed to avoid the attack by spraying the attacker with a red colored self-defense spray. However, the Swedish police closed the case without further investigation.
Sweden Democrat party leader, Jimmie Akesson, commented:
- My first reaction when I heard during the night that David was tortured in his home was an unreal feeling. It is difficult for me to come to terms with the idea that many socialists considered threats, violence and torture as a legitimate political tool. It is as far as one can get from the democratic values that I and my party represents.
Nina Kain, another Sweden Democrat, found a Swastika on her door. She concludes: Democracy in Sweden isn't what it used to be. You can't say what you want in Sweden anymore.
In the days leading to the election the Sweden Democrats were forbidden by the Swedish police to hold campaign meetings, allegedly because of the threat from islam.
According to Nina Kain, that's like giving the right to free speach with one hand and taking it away with the other.
Klevius comment: Also consider how an extremely important security analysis abt islam is presented on Google:
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Media and streets are filled with aggressive political "religion" in a world where most people are unbelievers!
Thursday, September 09, 2010
One pastor against OIC (57 muslim nations whose leadership has agreed to violate Human Rights and replace them with Sharia - btw, the same OIC that has criminalized criticism against islam in UN) and misleading media bribed by Arabic oil money!
When a Christian* wants to point to the evilness in Koran/islam through a symbolic gesture, media and politicians jump on him like wolves instead of debating/informing about the real problem islam's intolerance incl. all the burnings of Christian churces, destroying of Buddhist statues, Saudi Arabia's/OIC's bottomless and totalitarian intolerance against other "faiths" and non-faiths etc etc!
And whatever islam will cause in the future may be conveniantly blamed on this tiny Church and its pastor.
Isn't this cute! A mother who knows hardly nothing abt true evil islam assists it by abusing her even less knowing daughter.
What is she doing?!
Islamist OIC (57 uncivilized and undemocratic Sharia nations who deliberately violate Human Rights) has taken over UN by being its biggest voting block!
What is Hillary doing?!
Klevius question: "Moderate" muslims aren't violent, right? And "moderate" muslims don't take the Koran literally and seriously as fundamentalists, right? So Terry Jones' burning finger pointing only hits "islamists", right?
Klevius analysis: 1) Historically islam is by far the single ideology that has caused most suffering and least production/development. This is selfevident since islam originalted as parasitism based on racist infidel enslavement and sexist rapetivism reproduction.
2) When wealthy Jewish slave traders in the Sassanid empire released the force of illeterate Arabs as a means in their civil war around the slave trade routes surrounding and through the Arabian peninsula, looting and sex turned out to be an excellent combination if ideologically connected to old Judaism. However, this released evilness soon became a force of its own that much later became (im)morally "sanctioned" by Malik who long after the alleged "prophet" had died, was the first islamist ruler to even mention about him and the first to order the writing of a Koran.
3) Today this islamic evilness is upheld by OIC, the disgusting organization to which Mr X "president" sent an islamist (one that had learnt the Koran by heart) Sharia proponent TO REPRESENT USA!
It may also be necessary to emphasize another selfevident fact confused by lost media and islamist propaganda, namely that islamic Sharia is as far you can get from the US Constitution and Human Rights. This is the very reason why islamic OIC can't accept them!
How crazy is pastor Terry Jones based on the interview excerpts below compared to muslims who want to impose Koran based anti-Human Rights sexist (especially for females) and racist (the "Infidels") Sharia all over the places?!
Pastor Terry Jones interview excerpts:
Moran: You are in the tradition in burning books of the Nazis who burnt the Talmud and the torah. Of a long line of haters. Why shouldn't people assume that you are the same?
Jones: Well I think it is very easy to see a difference. We have tried to make it very clear that even though this is a very radical message, a radical way of doing something we are not against Moslems. We do not hate them. And plus the Nazis, what the Nazis did was the Nazis gathered up all the books that were against their ideology and burned them. That's not what we are doing. We are not by any means promoting the burning of books.
Moran: But you are burning the holy book of Islam.
Jones: Right. We are burning one book for one particular reason to warn radical Islam. We see all around the world right now with Afghanistan, with the other places, we see how dangerous and how radical this element can be. They are even calling for the death of the president. And I think we think that it is time to stand up. Its time for America to stand up and say no.
Moran: Millions of devout Christians in this country look at you and what you plan to do and are revolted by it. they don't think this is a Christian thing to do at all they think it's an act of hated, of holy war.
Jones: Well there are also millions of people who agree with us.
Moran: Millions of people agree with you?
Jones: Well we have done many interviews and some of those interviews there is attached a poll and we are running somewhere between 40 and 60 percent of the population agree with us. And to a certain extent i think in Christianity that is the problem. We've lost our guts, the church has become weak. The church has become afraid, the church is hiding behind their walls they no longer stand up on issues. We've had several times pastors come here saying we are in agreement with you, what you are doing is right, or anyway the message that you are wanting to send is right. But we can't say anything. If we do we will lose our congregation. We have people who work for large companies have stopped out front and said we are in agreement with you but if we say anything we will be fired. That is in a country where we supposedly have free speech.
Moran: Christians sometime ask what would Jesus do. Do you really think that Jesus Christ if he were here today he would say pastor go burn that holy book?
Moran: Jesus Christ would say that.
Jones: Absolutely. If you look at Jesus' life most of the time Jesus was as people imagine him. He was very nice, and very patient and very loving but there were also times when esus did radical things. He threw the money changers out of the temple he looked right at Peter and called him the devil. He went into the synagogues - that would be like me going into the churches today -went into the synagagoes and called those pastors, those pharases, he called them snakes, he called them vipers. And in fact the Bible says itself that even if an angel of light should appear to you - which is supposedly what happened to Mohammed even if an angel of light should appear to you and give you a different gospel to this one, let him be accursed. So I think Jesus would not run around burning books but i think he would burn this one.
Moran: You think he would burn this one.
Moran: It just seems like such a hateful thing to do. Is there no other way? To get your message across. That you don't like radical Islam then to burn the holy book of a million and a half people?
Jones: I think there are many ways.
Moran: So why do this one?
Jones: I think this the example way. i think the better way is diplomacy, talk, discussion . Ithink those things are valid and I think most of the time those things are better. But we have chosen this way because, because of the seriousness of it. we feel that we are dealing with radical Islam in other words we are dealing with a religion or lets say a sharia law that they have nothing against stoning people. They have nothing against hanging homosexuals, they tie bombs around themselves and go into buildings, they fly planes into buildings, they teach their kids there's nothing better than to die as a martyr. We are dealing with an element that we believe you can't really, can't always reason with. Sometimes you have to show them, this far and no further. And that is what we are trying to say. You have to remember we are not harming people, we are burning a book to send a very very radical message. A very radical stop to Islam.
Moran: How would you feel if Muslims burned the gospels?
Jones: I would not like it. I don't like it when they burn the Bible. I don't like it when in Afghanistan when they burn the flag but I also do not serve a god of violence. It doesn't make me want to kill people. It doesn't make me want to storm an embassy. It doesn't make me want to call for the death of the president and that is what we are trying to reveal. Of course its insulting. of course Its not a nice thing to do. But what we are trying to show is that this is a very dangerous radical element and here in America we need to wake up. And it could be that even that its larger than our politicians and news media would like us to believe. That maybe America should wake up that may be even our president should wake up and we should take a real close look at Islam.
Moran: What does that tell you about the way many of your fellow Christians here in the Gainesville community feel about you and look at what you're planning to do.
Jones: Well to me, it tells me we've lost, that we've lost the battle. Christianity has lost their guts, they're not willing to stand up. Jesus himself said i am the only way, Jesus was not some kind of a liberal hippie that roamed around, roamed around on the earth, Christianity is not open minded. Jesus said i am the only way. And when we do acts like that we have left the bible, those people are not Christians, those men of God do not represent Jesus Christ. the bible is very very clear and with those actions we have completely watered down the gospel. We have tried to make the gospel acceptable to mankind, we have tried to fit the Gospel into our society, make it look attractive, make it look good, that's why we have so much become a better me and we have god wants you to have a better car and a bigger house. there's nothing wrong with prosperity but we have watered down the Gospel. that is not the only Gospel . the Gospel is Jesus Christ is the only way. that is it. he is the risen crucified savour and the church has even lost that. i was shocked as we even preached the gospel just that. Jesus is the only way. people are mad. people are upset. that's just the very basic of Christianity.
Moran: You've put neighbors here in danger as well in the Gainesville community. how do you feel about that?
Jones: I think that is a possibility. of course, it's just like the comments that the general made or a comment there. we are very concerned about that we are very moved by that. we hope and pray nothing happens to them and nothing happens to us. but then again we feel we cannot back off of the truth because i could get hurt. because they could get hurt. we feel that strongly about it. We feel this message needs to be spoken and has to spoken. people have throughout history given their life for the truth.
Moran: Now, authorities have tried to stop you from doing this, they've denied you a permit to have an open fire and have you had conversations with local and national authorities about this.
Jones: like you said, the city of Gainesville has denied our burn permit. we requested it again, they denied it again, we have consulted a 1st amendment lawyer, he is of the opinion they have violated our first amendment rights, the example he used was the same, the same rights that were violated in the civil rights movement, when Martin Luther King tried to get permit to protest and they denied him. so we will still continue on. as you mentioned, we have met with the FBI, we have met with the police department and on September 11 the FBI and the police will be here.
Moran: And what do they tell you? they tell you don't do this?
Jones: They urged us not to do it. yes that's correct
Moran: The FBI and the local police say this is not a good idea.
Jones: Yes that's true.
Moran: What do you say to people who say you are crazy. you are on the lunatic fringe of Christianity and you don't represent anybody but yourself and a couple of other people and this is a crazy thing to do
Jones: I agree that the burning of the koran is pretty radical. i think there are scripture for that. i think there are reasons that are very valid why we are doing that, but actually except for the burning of the koran every Christian should be on our side. the fact that they're not on our side it shows their own ignorance, a lack of bible knowledge and more than that, lack of guts. in America we have lost our guts. We are too involved in the American lifestyle. I think Billy Graham said the American dream has become America's god. i think we are too involved in that to really pay the price. because basically All it boils down to is spiritually is that we are saying Jesus is the only way. That's true and all it boils down to in the natural or the American sense is that Islam, Moslems -build your mosques, worship all you want, stay peaceful but don't try to push your agenda upon us
Moran: What evidence is there that Muslims in America as a whole haven't abided by the laws, supported the county in it's wars and it's national struggle, that they're good Americans. what evidence is there otherwise?
Jones: I think in America right now because they are still very small in size, i think that in America right now as a whole they are peaceful. we do see pockets of that also around the world. If you look at Europe there does seem to be a tendency there that as they grow in numbers, as long as they are small they remain peaceful, as they grow in numbers they begin to demand sharia law and sharia courts, that is actually a pretty proven fact in Europe. Europe is beginning to wake up. Even In Holland they are calling for banning of Koran. Here in the US the Moslems just had a large rally i guess several months ago in Washington dc and there were some pretty radical things said there. I heard very clearly several of the Moslems that were interviewed, they were calling for sharia law, they definitely want that to be instituted here in America. So now is the time to yell, it's not time to yell when it's too late or almost too late. Now is the time to yell when the danger is not so great.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali: "The Muslim mind needs to be opened. Above all, the uncritical Muslim attitude toward the Qur'an urgently needs to change, for it is a direct threat to world peace"
Klevius comment: There's no hope for islam precisely because of its evil (parasitic) origin which is tied* to it in a way that constitutes the soul of islam itself. Loosening up inevitably means the destruction of islam as we know it! When muslims en mass start realizing this they'll abandon islam. Except for those morons (true believers in islam) who really like to be racist/sexist idiots.
* Whereas the Bible is a collection of many writers, the Koran is (according to muslim mythology) the words of a completely unfathomable "Allah" out of reach for humans - except for his(?!) "last messenger" who unfortunately happened to be illiterate.
Sunday, September 05, 2010
Crimes of the supporters of the worst crime ever: Islamic Sharia punishment usually not reported as such
This is Tina Pajarinen 23, who, together with her friend, was Sharia like"punished" by a muslim (? Klevius qualified guess) hotel guard on , Kefalonia, Greece (for allegedly having taking a swim when the pool wasn't officially open). The muslim (?) run after and repeatedly hit the poor girls with a carpet whip in accordance with islamic Sharia against infidel whores.
This is what happens all the time around the world without the connection to islam being revealed bcause of our criminal media.
And the driving force behind this muslim's (?) utterly criminal behavior is an Arabic oil campaign (without oil or slaves parasitic islam is nothing!) that politically and economically utilizes a racist/sexist evil medieval ideology.
Afterwards the muslim (?)perpetrator (who couldn't speak English) just laughted at the girls when they saw him next day - well aware that islamic Sharia rules over the infidel law and that chances are slim he will face punishment for his hate crime, because the infidels don't dare to mess with islam (the worst crime ever against humanity).
If the criminal wasn't a muslim or just mentally disturbed, then at least, his behavior is boosted by that racism/sexism that oil funded islam propaganda has made so popular and widespread.
Not to fill the last reuge of freedom with anything is our most holy duty (Klevius 2004)! Negative human rights hence stay in direct opposition to ALL forms of islam & other fascisms!