Calling criticism of islam "islamophobia" is pure racism and also supports islamic racism and sexism
Is BBC's Pakistan rooted and Saudi raised muslim(?) presenter Mishal Husain an "islamophobe" against evil* islam, or an apostate supporting toothless** "islam"? She doesn't fast during Ramadan but rather drinks some alcohol, and doesn't veil herself and says she doesn't feel any threats to her way of life (Klevius: thanks to Human Rights - not sharia islam), well knowing how muslim and non-muslim women suffer in muslim sharia countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia without Human Rights. What would she say to a muslim terrorist asking her if she's a muslim? Isn't it about time to stop this bigoted and hypocritical indirect support of islamofascism that this Saudi/OIC initiated "islamophobia" smear camopaign against Human Rights*** is all about?
* Human Rights equality violating sharia islam
** in line with the anti-fascist, anti-racist and anti-sexist U.N.'s 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration.
*** Socialists have an ideological problem with individual Human Rights, and are therefore vulnerable for islamism (see Klevius 1994).
Is UK turning into a militaristic unconstitutional islamofascist rogue state?
Negative Human Rights for a Positive Human Future
Everything Peter Klevius writes (or has written) is guided by the anti-sexist. anti-racist, and anti-fascist Universal* Human Rights declaration of 1948. In other words, what is declared immoral and evil is so done as measured against the most basic of Human Rights (the so called "negative" rights - i.e. the rights of the individual not to be unnecessarily targeted with restrictions and impositions). Unlike the 1948 Universal Human Rights (UHR) declaration, islam denies Human Rights equality to women and non-muslims. And violation of such basic Human Rights can't be tolerated just by referring to "freedom of religion".
* This means accepting everyone - without exception due to e.g. sex, religion, lack of religion, "security" etc. - as equal in Human Rights. The individual is protected by negative Human Rights, but of course not against substantiated legal accusations - as long as these are not produced as a means that violates the basic Human Rights (compare "not necessary in a free, democratic country"). The legislator may not produce laws that seek to undermine some individuals rights. This also includes e.g. "freedom of religion", i.e. that this freedom doesn't give the right to unfree others, or cause others to be in an inferior rights position. If by islam you mean something that fully adheres to basic Human Rights equality, then you aren't targeted by Peter Klevius islam criticism. However, if you mean islam accepts violations of the most basic of Human Rights, then you may also call Peter Klevius an "islamophobe" - and he will be proud of it. And when it comes to "security" it can't mean "offending" opponents to basic Human Rights.
This is why any effort to twist or accuse the writings of Peter Klevius as "islamophobia" etc. can only be made from a standpoint against these basic Human Rights. As a consequence, no body of authority can therefore accuse, hinder etc. Peter Klevius without simultaneously revealing its own disrespect for these Human Rights. Conversely, Peter Klevius can not accuse anyone who agrees on these rights - i.e. this leaves e.g. "islamophobia" etc. accusations against Peter Klevius without merit.
Every effort against these basic Human Rights is treason against a country calling itself free and democratic.
Most people today are A(mono)theists, i.e. not "believing" in an impossible "one god"*. Such a "collective god" would mean equally many personal "gods" as there are believers/interpretors. "Monotheisms" are for racist/sexist movements - not for individuals. Human Rights are for individuals living among individuals with same rights.
Religion always means a total or partial reduction of some people's (e.g. women''s) Human Rights equality.
Being against A(mono)theism must be categorized as contempt of basic Human Rights equality because "monotheists" have doctrines which can't comply with basic Human Rights equality.
Klevius moral formula is a bedrock you can't beat:
1 There's no absolute and fixed moral in a dynamic society.
2 Therefor we have to repeatedly agree on a minimum moral and equality for all.
3 In doing so we are logically forced to approve of negative Human Rights, i.e. not to impose restrictions other than necessary in a democracy based on as much freedom as possible for all individuals - no matter of sex, race etc. And, for the truly dumb ones, do note that this definition excludes the freedom to restrict freedom.
* Though some people keep calling their own racist/sexist "interpretation" as "god's/allah's will").
Klevius "islamophobia" CV
Some basic facts to consider about Klevius* (except that he is both "extremely normal" and extremely intelligent - which fact, of course, would not put you off if you're really interested in these questions):
* Mentored by G. H. von Wright, Wittgenstein's successor at Cambridge.
1 Klevius' analysis of consciousness is the only one that fits what we know - after having eliminated our "pride" bias of being humans (which non-human would we impress, anyway?). Its starting point is described and exemplified in a commentary to Jurgen Habermas in Klevius book Demand for Resources (1992:30-33, ISBN 9173288411, based on an article by Klevius from 1981), and is further explained in a commentary to Francis Crick's book The Astonishing Hypothesis under the title The Even More Astonishing Hypothesis (EMAH), which can be found in Stalk's archive and which has been on line since 2003 for anyone to access/assess.
2 Klevius out of island/mainland fluctuating Southeast Asia Denisovans up to big skulled Siberians as the birth of much more intelligent modern humans who then spread all over the world, is the only analysis that fits both genetic reality as well as tool and art sophistication seen in e.g. the Denisova cave (no dude, Blombos etc. don’t come even close).
3 Klevius criticism of Human Rights violating sharia islamofascism (e.g. OIC) which is called "islamophobia" by islamofascists and their supporters who don't care about the most basic of Human Rights (e.g. re. women). Klevius' "islamophobia" has two roots: 1) UN's 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration, which, contrary to any form of muslim sharia, doesn't, for example, allow sex to be an excuse for robbing females of their full Human Rights equality, and 2) the history of the origin of islam ( e.g. Hugh Kennedy, Robert G. Hoyland, K. S. Lal etc.) which reveals a murderous, pillaging, robbing, enslaving and raping racist/sexist supremacist ideology that exactly follows precisely those basic islamic tenets which are now called "unislamic" but still survive today (as sharia approved sex slavery, sharia approved "liberation” jihad, academic jihad etc.) behind the sharia cover which is made even more impenetrable via the spread of islamic finance, mainly steered from the islamofascist Saudi dictator family.
4 Klevius analysis of sex segregation/apartheid (now deceptively called “gender segregation”) and heterosexual attraction - see e.g. Demand for Resources (1981/1992), Daughters of the Social State (1993), Angels of Antichrist (1996), Pathological Symbiosis (2003), or Klevius PhD research on heterosexual attraction/sex segregation and opposition to female footballers (published in book form soon).
Klevius can no longer distinguish between the techniques of BBC and Nazi propaganda - can you!
Racist Theresa May is robbing EU citizens of their Human Rights
Support Klevius' Atheist anti-fascism against islamofascism
Klevius to dumb (or just evil) alt-left "antifa" people who support the worst of Human Rights violating evil:
True anti-fascism in its purest form is laid down in the Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948. Islam (OIC) has in UN decided to abandon the most basic of these rights (the so called negative Human Rights).
Fascism is, according to Google's top hit, "a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation*, and forcible suppression of opposition." 23 Aug 2017
So let's face islam with this definition.
A political philosophy, movement, or regime (islam) that exalts nation (Umma) and often race (muslims) above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government (Koran text/Mohammad's example) headed by a dictatorial leader (the caliph - e.g. the Saudi based OIC's Saudi leader), severe economic and social regimentation* (sharia), and forcible suppression of opposition (apostasy ban against muslims wanting to leave islam, and demonizing defenders of Human Rights by calling them "islamophobes").
And islamofascism gets away with it by calling itself a religion and thereby being protected by those very Human Rights it opposes.
* According to Cambridge dictionary, "extreme organization and control of people".
Human Rights is diversity - sharia is the opposite
The evil of Sharia islam is what makes it incompatible with Negative Human Rights (i.e. why islamic OIC violates Human Rights by replacing them with Sharia, hence excluding women and non-muslims from equality). The evil of islam and its origin may be easier to grasp with historical examples, e.g. the Origin of Vikings.
It's racism and sexism even if proposed by a "god"! Klevius altruistic virtual volunteering for the world community in defense of Universal Human Rights . Yes, I know, it's unfair. Klevius vs islam, i.e. Universal Human Rights vs Sharia (OIC) racism/sexism! Of course Klevius will win. The question is just how long we should allow the dying beast to make people suffer. (Negative) Human Rights is not a ”Western” invention! It’s where you end up when you abandon racism and sexism, idiot! After you have abandoned islam! Your confused islamophilia and ignorance about Human Rights make YOU an accomplice to islam's crimes! Whereas Human Rights work as egalitarian and universal traffic rules (no matter who you are or what you drive you have the same rights as everyone else) islam/Sharia differs between muslim men and the rest (women and "infidels")!
Have you noticed that when the history of slavery is (PC) debated islam is always excluded/excused? Atlantic slave trade and Roman slaves are eagerly mentioned while the world's by far worst, longest and most extensive one is blinked, as is the fact that islam not only sanctions slavery but is itself built on slavery and sex slavery (rapetivism)! The core idea of islam is the most thoroughly elaborated parasitism ever, i.e. what in 1400 yrs has made it the by far worst crime ever. But thanks to islamic teachings muslims are kept extremely ignorant about the evil origin of islam (institutionalized parasitism based on slave finance, rapetivism and pillage). Ohlig: The first two "islamic" centuries lie in the shadows of history. Klevius: There was no islam or islamic Mohammad (that's why the Saudis have levelled Mohammad's "grave" etc), only the evil murdering, pillaging and raping Aramaic-Arabic Jewish("Christian") led illiterate Arab thugs chasing for booty and sex. The "success" of this formula became later institutionalized and codified as a one way (Koran/Sharia) moral excuse (Allah) for further racist/sexist genocides. The bedrock and currency of this system was racist slavery. However, with Enlightenment the new idea of individual (negative) Human Rights emerged (incl. abolishing of slavery) and were, much later (1948), written down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights according to which everyone is equal no matter of sex, beliefs etc. Just like in traffic! But unlike traffic rules no one really seems to care about guarding our most precious asset as human beings. Instead racist sexist islamofascism (OIC and the Cairo Sharia declaration) is protected by Human Rights while they strive to undermine and eventually destroy these Human Rights! And most people don't seem to get it. Always remember, there is no islam without Human Rights violating racist/sexist Sharia. So a "vote" for Sharia-islam is AGAINST democracy and the freedom part of Human Rights!
Sayeeda Warsi (UK's non-elected OIC/Sharia politician) in essence doesn't differ from those muslim Saudi women who approve of sex slavery etc, other than that she is either ignorant or a traitor (against democracy and Human Rights) of the worst kind.
Friday, January 21, 2011
* Yes, 'conquest' in exactly the same meaning as Mohammed's and islam's "conquests"!
David Cameron! Islam is, from its very beginning and ideological core parasitism resting on slavery. This is why slavery is sanctioned in the Koran! This was the origin of sharia finance! Today islam sponges on Western oil money and aid. And this is why OIC is desperately whitewashing islam! Why don't you listen to this African narrative about Arabic islamic slavery, so to get courage enough to kick out Warsi and replace her with some of the many "muslims" against sharia - if you necessarily need a muslim to lead Brits!? But listen carefully, Mr Cameron! Although "The Legacy of Arab-Islam in Africa" is presented as a "shocking insight" it doesn't even come close to the origin of islam! The author even naively compares islam with Christianity. Pls, take a look at India's history and consider that the muslims there are either descendants to Arab-islamic slave raiders/traders and their local collaborators, or of those who submitted to islam to avoid being enslaved (also compare what Klevius has written about the Romanis, and K. S. Lal's "Muslim Slave System in Medieval India" about the import of African slaves to India by muslims through the Middle East, a trade never undertaken by India's indigenous religions due to limited contact with Africa.)! Klevius, on the other hand, who isn't a Christian and has never been and will never become, offers the only understanding/analysis of islam and its gruesome and non-comparable atrocities, that both fits its origin as well as the troublesome fact that islam today doesn't fit within Human Rights, and that islam today needs protection from its own evilness.
Islamophobia is a strange concept boosted by OIC. If you want to whitewash evil, it's a nice rethorical trick to call those who point to that evilness islamophobes! Interestingly enough, Trevor Phillips, the head of Runnymede Trust when it launched its completely flawed islamophobia campaign, has himself been accused as an islamophobic racist by former London mayor Ken Livingstone!
Is this why Warsi (who used to call pious muslims "idiots") now bawls about "islamophobia"?!
Pakistani Sayeeda Warsi, who isn't considered a real muslim by pious muslims, is now alternating in OIC's (islam's) headquarter in Jeddah Saudi Arabia and as unelected political leader in UK. Did her OIC boss order her to boost (in UK) for OIC's evil "defamation"/"blasphemy" law?! You know, the criminalization of criticism against evil islam/sharia (the worst crime ever against humanity), that OIC has been successful in UN to establish.
Also take a look at my posting: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 UK Camoron uses political Islam while denying Islam is Islam - and forbids BBC calling bin Laden & Co Islamists!Camoron acted as a typical useful political idiot when paving the way for evil islam.
Warsi received support for her general but unsuccessful election campaign from her old friend "Lord" Ahmed, a Labour peer, notorious for killing people while recklessly driving while SMS-ing for some 20mminutes, and for allegedly threatening England's Parliament with 10,000 muslim street jihadists if the Dutch freedom fighter Geert Wilders was allowed to enter the country that already possesses numerous medieval sharia courts ruling in the most central human rights issues around, i.e. family/girls/women etc issues were islamic sharia is the furthest from the Universal Human Rights Declaration of 1948! Warsi allegedly "welcomed Ahmed's support". Both Ahmed and Warsi can be seen to the left on the Mr X "president" pic below.
Melanie Phillips:: "There is a division between those British Muslims who are happy to live as British citizens under one law for all and thus subscribe totally to British and western values of democracy and who thus pose no threat to anyone at all, and those who want instead to live under sharia and as such are attempting to subvert Britain and the west in order to negate its democratic values and human rights and replace them by an Islamic theocracy. Yet Warsi is saying this distinction is in itself evidence of bigotry. So what does that tell us about her own views about sharia in Britain? Does the co-chairman of the Conservative Party support the encroachment of sharia – or does she want it to be resisted on the basis that as a British democrat she supports secular human rights and one law for all?"
Klevius comment: There are no "British muslims" who are happy to live as British citizens "under one law for all" except, of course, if that law is sharia. Per definition such "muslims" can't be. If you call yourself a muslim then you submit to full islam/sharia, if only just by being a silent/approving number in the Billion mass! Only those who subscribe totally to "Western" (they aren't "Western" but universal, dude!) values of democracy and Human Rights, i.e. Negative Universal Human Rights (not OIC's racist/sexist sharia "rights" in the form of OIC's Cairo declaration) thus pose no threat.But they are no real muslims either.
OIC openly declares (by adopting Cairo deckaration) it wants to implement islamic sharia (i.e. islamic infidel racism and sexist sex apartheid) instead of real Universal Human Rights (i.e. individual freedom).
Much of this happens within what has become UN's OIC mosque in the midst of New York!
In other words, if Warsi approves of OIC she also approves of islamic sharia! And if so, that would mean PM Camoron, eh Cameron, and his party approve of islamic sharia as well!?
Black islamic supremacism non-existent in Google but abundant in US and UK!
A Google news search today on 'black supremacist' resulted in three blocks of 'white supremacist'!
Strange, isn't it when keeping in mind that both US and UK are flushed with this racist black hate mongering by ultra fascist Nation of islam, one of the worst/weirdest forms of evil islam?!
take a read! Negative rights defend the individual against the collective, hence being the ultimate resort for human dignity. No wonder communists/socialists/islamists have shunned the concept - to an extent that OIC had to replace negative rights with sharia in order to fit islam.
Medieval BBC is offending non-religious people by replacing 'spiritual' with "religious" and 'natural cause' with "will of god"!
Most people on Earth aren't superstitious in the sense that they really believe in angels and monotheist gods gaming with mankind and individuals. So it's really a double insult! Firstly, somehow to assert that this kind of superstition is universal, and secondly, to monopolize language.
Btw, if you want the net's most advanced view on what it is to be a human, what consciousness is and isn't, and how the brain works, please try EMAH (the Even More Astonishing Hypothesis). It gives you a final explanation of the difference between robots and humans, as well as how to create an AI program.