Saudi Aramco's confidence scam
BBC, in an interview about Corbyn, also desperately tries to agitate for more militarism and use of nukes - although fact being that a UK with nukes and war meddling globally may draw more attention and due risk for the Brits than without.
However, unfortunately BBC demonizes China on behalf of UK's relying on militarist meddling, weapons sales and islamofascist sharia finance. So you see the solution: Cut off sharia etc. islamofascist ties and open up for prospering with China - not the over-selfish game of spying and dying of US.
BBC boosts stupid nationalist "Britishness" with peculiar "sports" like cricket and rugby because the world has already "colonized" football and the English language is a global property.
John le Carré: I'm depressed and ashamed of British nationalism. Nationalism needs enemies but today we really have no identifiable enemies except among ourselves.
North Atlantic (sic) Treaty Organization invades a country in Mideast and attacks (with chemival weapons) a people without a country.
UK's Brexit business model: Sharia finance, weapons sale and militaristic meddling?UK Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (sic) and Global Neo-Imperialist and Militarist Meddling, Jeremy Hunt, 15 Oct. 2019: It's wrong to accuse Donald Trump - it's Americans isolationism because American taxpayers don't want to pay between 1/2 and 2/3 of the defense of Europe. And Turkey is very skilled at finding wedges and gaps between allies. UK should be EU's bridge to US.
Peter Klevius: No, EU should take care of its own defense - against whom? The Saudi dictator family who is the world's no 1 spender on weapons and islamic terror incitement and who hates EU's anti-sharia legislation? And UK taxpayers should not have to pay more for dangerous militarism. Militaristic meddling is a bad and dangerous business idea.
Peter Klevius congratulates Savid Javid for abandoning the islamofascist "islamophobia" smear. BBC’s bigoted hypocrite Mishal Husain and others ought to follow!
BBC's Mark Mardell couldn't get a visa to China because of his extreme and hateful Sinophobia - but that didn't stop him/BBC from producing a fake anti-China program series while pretending to be there. Is Sinophobia really better than cooperation?
People in UK-land (especially women) will loose their Human Rights after Brexit - while sharia prevails in UK, and UK citizens in EU are protected by the European Court of Human Rights.
Saudi war crimes investgated by the Saudis
If China today became a full democracy (and even accepting full Human Rights) - nothing would change, because it's not the rulers but the high tech industry in China that outperforms the West. And unlike islam, China doesn't have tenets against Human Rights. However, islam is tied to its supremacist and sexist sharia tenets (OIC) which deny women full Human Rights - just the opposite to what is said in the anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration from 1948. If islam would accept full Human Rights it would not be islam anymore. China's economic expansion has been a non-aggressive big contributor to wealth around the world, but when China reached out its Belt and Road hand, then the West bit it and supported extremist muslim terrorists. Islam induced hate crimes and terror are based on a shared evil ideology (a global muslim collective rather than as nationals, which inspire and hail each other) - but because most are committed by lonely or gang muslims, and because police and media are told muslim "ethnicity" ought not to be revealed, then the public are kept unaware of most muslim hate crimes. How come that evilness is protected? The answer is in the question. To hide its original evilness. And how come that BBC and UK politicians dare to support islamofascism in Kashmir? Freedom from sharia for women in Kashmir!
* UK PM Theresa May opposed Human Rights.
Islam (represented in UN by Saudi based and steered OIC and its sharia called “islamic human rights”) is against Human Rights!
Sweden’s Supreme Court has found a man guilty of rape for having sex without explicit consent from a teenage woman who had been passive and gave no clear expression that she wanted to participate in the sexual acts. Lack of a partner’s spoken agreement or any other clear approval can hence be considered rape. However, islamic sharia gives a muslim man the "right" to have sex with wives and and concubines his "right hand possesses" (e.g. "infidel" girls/women). The neo-islamist rational (original openly supremacist islam didn't need one) is that "it satisfies the sexual desire of the female". Peter Klevius wonders if Swedish Courts will accept this reasoning - perhaps only for muslims?!
Peter Klevius also wonders whether BBC's leading presenter, the alcohol drinking and not Ramadan fasting, Pakistan rooted and Saudi raised muslim, Mishal Husain, approves of sharia?
In UK both Tories and Labour are against "islampohobia" - so apparently also against Human Rights? And if not, then they are "islamophobic" after all. So how do you vote for someone critical of islam's Human Rights violations if parties don't allow "islamophobia"? Is it democracy?
What do BBC and Jeremy Hunt have in common? Both support the islamofascist murderer and war criminal Mohammad bin Salman.
Peter Klevius: Girls' emancipation needs more football and less cricket, netball etc.
BBC's cricket propaganda is a slap in the face of young girls who need equally much moving around and spatial skills as young boys. However, there's a huge sex segregation in females motivation and access to football - not only the world's by far most popular physical sport, but also the only one that doesn't use tools or hands to handle the ball, and which makes all participants moving most of the time even without the ball. Moreover, the very nature of the sport forces participants to a never ending series of spatial and strategic challenges - with or without the ball and even while playing alone. So why is BBC so hostile to the Queen of sports (the "beautiful game") that is perfect for the physical and spatial development of girls - and in the face of the football loving majority who has to pay compulsory fees (and paying extra for football channels) to this faking regime propaganda media that uses stiff and lifeless colonial cricket for neo-colonial purpose?! England banned football for girls/women already 1921 and suggested cricket, land hockey and netball instead - almost like today except it's not called a ban. And what about the laughable notion of a "world cup" in cricket?! When is the "world cup" in caber tossing between Gotland and Scotland?
The murderous war criminal, Saudi muslim "custodian of islam" (and OIC) "prince" MBS is OK but Human Rights defender Peter Klevius isn't. Why?! Because the former isn't an "islamophobe", dude!
BBC thinks the militaristic Saudiphil Jeremy Hunt "is a safer option" as UK PM. What about you?
Racist Sinophobia disguised as "security" while muslim terror spreading Saudi murderous dictator and war criminal is "an important security ally"!?
Nothing in Primate/Haplorhini evolution came out of Africa - not even Africa (it was disconnected due to tectonics).
A “definition” of “islamophobia” ought to be balanced with a definition of muslim Human Rightsphobia.
"Diversity" without basic (negative) Human Rights is like having a car without steering - dangerous.
In its senseless and continuous "islamophobia" ranting BBC says to be 'muslim' is the same as to be 'English'. Klevius thinks not. A 'muslim' is one who wittingly or unwittingly adheres to what historical records show being the most evil enslaving ideology ever around (from a Human Rights perspective). And Klevius doesn't count as real muslims those who call themselves "cultural muslims" for the purpose of benefiting from a certain "ethnicity", or those who against their will are trapped in muslimhood because of the evil apostasy tenet in islam. And islamic "modesty" attires is a protected way of calling other women "whores".
The most serious threat to our Human Rights is the hate campaign against "islamophobia" which really is directed against Human Rights.
As long as most muslims in the world are ruled by a sharia (e.g. Saudi based and steered OIC) that gravely violates the most basic of Human Rights, and as long as the most devout muslims do the same by simply following original evil (according to Human Rights) islam, you can't legislate against criticism of islam without simultaneously legislating against Human Rights. Why do you want to hinder muslims from apostating? It's a Human Right! Islam should not be allowed to traumatize apostates. Authentic original (e.g. Wahhabi/Salafi) islam doesn't fit in the boots of "Euro-islam" and Human Rights.
Klevius suggests the UK baby should be named Muhammad. After all, according to BBC, the Queen is related to him and all politicians love islam. And several hadiths describe him as white (one even proposing the killing of anyone who says he was black). Only problem being that he then may be described as a white supremacist. Luckily the baby, according to BBC, is “mix-race”.
Klevius to EU voters: If you respect Human Rights - don’t vote for anyone who supports the islamofascist Saudi dictator family who spreads Human Rightsphobia via the Saudi based and steered OIC’s world sharia!
No true muslim can be fully human.
Why? Because islam's dividing the world in muslims and (not fully human) "infidels" makes it impossible. Only by fully accepting the basic (s.c. 'negative') Universal Human Rights equality - which islam can't accept (see e.g. Saudi based and steered all muslims world Ummah sharia organization OIC) without committing ideological suicide - can we meet every human as basically equal, in the same way as we can give every road-user a basic equality in traffic, i.e. we have traffic sense. So Klevius asks muslims whether they have "traffic sense"? And for all the rest of you - to be 'human' in a global sense can only be achieved by giving every human you meet basic equality - no matter how alien that human might feel to you. Because every human has the right to be "alien" and there can't even be any alternative to this as long as we don't accept brainwashed totalitarianism (see e.g. Klevius 1996 paper Angels of Antichrist). This is the only way to meaningfully talk about 'humankind'. And to alien hunters Klevius says you probably meet them every day already.
So when BBC and other fake media talk about xenophobia against muslims, they actually contribute to spread xenophobia themselves.
A "good muslim" is one who suppresses and distorts original islam so to fit Human Rights. However, some just pretend to do so - and some just continue hating the "infidel".
Peter Klevius to Greta Thunberg: Saudi salafist oil funded supremacist islam or Chinese Taoist (kindness) high tech - which one do you think is the real threat to the people and environmment in EU and the world?
Ultimate bigotry and hypocrisy – militant spying and war mongering 5 Eyes instead of true 5G?
Saudi hate spreading antennas (Salafi/Wahhabi mosques etc.) or Chinese world leading 5G tech? No one knows the amount of street etc. victims of Saudi hate because when the haters are muslims their attacks are not recorded as hate crimes. If a Chinese would attack shouting 'Tao' it would most certainly be classified as a hate crime. However, chances are slim that it ever occurs compared to hate attacks made by muslims.
Arabic (not "white" etc.) islam has been the by far biggest enslaver throughout 1,400 years. Islamic language imperialism via the Koran. And all races have been complicit in the muslim Koranic slave trade. So how do you distinguish between descendants of slaves or slave traders? Will Cambridge check today's "Caribbeans", "Africans" etc. about it? Klevius warns there might be unwelcomed surprises, e.g. that many of those who come to Europe are actually descendants of slave trading black Africans on whose wealth lineage top they are better privileged than those from slave lineages. And what about "whites" like Klevius who were cut off from any lineages? Should the skin color Klevius was born with be used against him because of the privileges of others with the same skin color? Same question may be asked about sexism. Klevius doesn’t see it fair to blame him for male sexism just because he happens tp be male, do you!
The real threat is the US led Saudi supporting spy organization 5 Eyes, which 1) tries to block superior tech, and 2) uses China as a scapegoat for US/UK privacy breaches. It's not China but US that wants to control you! So "securing 5G from Chinese influence" actually means giving US/UK a technical space for spying/influencing etc. In short, trying to hinder US/UK customers from accessing the best technology while spying on them.
Muslim terrorists get legal aid to stay in UK - EU nationals don't!
BBC collected a UKIP hating mob to shout "islamophobia" against islam criticism.
However, the very same BBC also willfully misleads people about islam so that most people in UK are completely unaware of that Saudi based and steered OIC and its extreme Human Rightsphobia is a world guide for (sharia) muslims. Moreover, BBC's top presenter (Mishal Husain) who seems to be muslim in name only (drinking alcohol, not fasting on Ramadan, no muslim attire, no Haji, no sharia, etc) so to dupe the public about islam.
The 1948 Human Rights declaration was created to protect against fascism. Accepting islam without a clear border against sharia that violates the most basic Human Rights, allows space for islamofascism (i.e. original supremacist islam).
However, the new fascist mob is shouting "islamophobia" because islam can't comply with it (compare Saudi based and steered OIC's sharia declaration against Human Rights). This smear is then "enhanced" by connecting it to murderers, Nazis, right wing extremists etc. Islam's sharia sexism and racist supremacism is the problem - so why is addressing it "bad"?!
BBC is also keen on silencing the only truly free media, i.e. bloggers etc. social media.
The crystal clear connection between the surge in knife, rape etc. attacks and islam - and its custodian, the islamofascist Saudi dictator family - is desperately silenced by BBC and politicians (BBC now tries to cover this up by airing long programs about "conventional" knife crimes instead). This means they are directly complicit, doesn't it. Klevius suggests boycotting BBC and Saudi bribed politicians. They constitute the worst security threat.
Peter Klevius evolution formula
Stop security cooperation with UK whose close connection to the the suspected murderer, war criminal and islamic terror spreading islamofascist Saudi custodian of islam, Mohammad bin Salman, constitutes the by far worst threat against the security of people in EU! Moreover, sharia islam (the only real islam for real muslims) which is a racist and sexist supremacist ideology that violates Human Rights, is supported by UK.
Don't let haters and Human Rightsphobes get away with it by calling themselves 'believers'!
Either religion is (grades of) supremacist hate and sexism and you better become an Atheist (and therefore universal human) - or you keep your "beliefs" for yourself. In traffic you can think what you want about other people, but you can't drive over them!
- and take responsibility for your own supremacist sharia, represented by Saudi based and steered all muslims world organization OIC, which violates the most basic Human Rights! And do note the difference between universal impositions and universal freedom! Full respect of the other rests on accepting her/his freedom. This is the only way of being universally human.
Islam is an evil* supremacist and divisive ideology - why isn’t this told by BBC, schools etc.?
* weighed against the anti-fascist, anti-supremacist, anti-racist and anti-sexist Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948 that all civilized people are supposed to build on. Islam doesn't fit these goals, so OIC (the legal world Umma steered from and by the Saudi dictator family) decided to replace them with medieval racist, sexist and supremacist sharia.
Article 24 of the Saudi based and steered OIC's sharia declaration (CDHRI) states: "All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia." Article 19 says: "There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Sharia." CDHRI also fails to guarantee freedom of religion, in particular the right of each and every individual to abandon their religion, as a "fundamental and non-derogable right".
Article 10 of the Declaration states: "Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion or to Atheism." Since in Islamic society all reasons for conversion away from Islam are considered to be essentially either compulsion or ignorance, this effectively forbids conversion away from Islam.
CDHRI denies women equality with men by imposing "own rights" and "duties to perform".
A global world is only possible under the guidance of (negative – i.e. individual freedom from racist/sexist impositions) Human Rights - as outlined in the original anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948. It excludes any religious or other supremacist tenets or impositions on the individual.
Due to the above and due to the West (politicians and media) having locked itself in with the islamofascist Saudi dictator family (the custodians of islam) we now have a deficit of (negative) Human Rights education – but massively more religious propaganda (e.g. Saudi spread “islamophobia” smear) against these rights. Against this background it's utmost hypocrisy to point against wealth spreading China while supporting islamic hate, terror and war crimes spreading hegemonic Saudi dictator family.
Saudi and BBC hate propaganda against Iran and Shia muslims behind attacks on Corbyn's "anti-Semitism"? BBC's inflammatory and offensive hate mongering use of the oxymoron "anti-Semitic" (reinforced by "islamophobia") protects Semitic (Arab/Sunni/Saudi) muslims from criticism while excluding non-Semitic Shia muslims (e.g. Iran). BBC also use "Asians" when they mean non-Semitic former British Asian muslims, i.e. again not incl. Iranian Shia muslims. Why? Because BBC's poster boy Mohammad Salman hates Shia. England also got a massive problem with "Asian" (sic - read 'mostly Sunni muslim') sex offenders. But no one dares to ask if islam's hate teaching of taking "infidel" sex slaves - and "muslim sensitivity" policies - may encourage it?
Don't let BBC's or islam's glossy surface (i.e. normal news/info and non-sharia muslims respectively) lure you to not see the evil core. Klevius is the opposite. WYSIWYG. No hidden evil core, just defense of your (whoever you are) basic Human Rights that islam wants to deny you.
Theresa May & Co defend sharia by saying "it's just a a contract". This is utter lie because any meaningful islam demands sharia and stepping out of the "contract" is the worst sin you can commit as a muslim (s.c. apostasy). Theresa May's and others deception is built on the mass of secular muslims, i.e. not true muslims. And these "secular muslims" get away with it as long as there's not enough true muslims to demand sharia all over the pitch - as yet. Moreover, Saudi led sharia finance demands sharia compliance - as does Saudi based and steered OIC, all muslims world organization.
Klevius supports "secular muslims" - Theresa May supports sharia muslims.
Is BBC's Pakistan rooted and Saudi raised muslim(?) presenter Mishal Husain an "islamophobe" against evil* islam, or an apostate supporting toothless** "islam"? She doesn't fast during Ramadan but rather drinks some alcohol, and doesn't veil herself and says she doesn't feel any threats to her way of life (Klevius: thanks to Human Rights - not sharia islam), well knowing how muslim and non-muslim women suffer in muslim sharia countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia without Human Rights. What would she say to a muslim terrorist asking her if she's a muslim? Isn't it about time to stop this bigoted and hypocritical indirect support of islamofascism that this Saudi/OIC initiated "islamophobia" smear camopaign against Human Rights*** is all about?
* Human Rights equality violating sharia islam
** in line with the anti-fascist, anti-racist and anti-sexist U.N.'s 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration.
*** Socialists have an ideological problem with individual Human Rights, and are therefore vulnerable for islamism (see Klevius 1994).
Is UK turning into a militaristic unconstitutional islamofascist rogue state?
Negative Human Rights for a Positive Human Future
Everything Peter Klevius writes (or has written) is guided by the anti-sexist. anti-racist, and anti-fascist Universal* Human Rights declaration of 1948. In other words, what is declared immoral and evil is so done as measured against the most basic of Human Rights (the so called "negative" rights - i.e. the rights of the individual not to be unnecessarily targeted with restrictions and impositions). Unlike the 1948 Universal Human Rights (UHR) declaration, islam denies Human Rights equality to women and non-muslims. And violation of such basic Human Rights can't be tolerated just by referring to "freedom of religion".
* This means accepting everyone - without exception due to e.g. sex, religion, lack of religion, "security" etc. - as equal in Human Rights. The individual is protected by negative Human Rights, but of course not against substantiated legal accusations - as long as these are not produced as a means that violates the basic Human Rights (compare "not necessary in a free, democratic country"). The legislator may not produce laws that seek to undermine some individuals rights. This also includes e.g. "freedom of religion", i.e. that this freedom doesn't give the right to unfree others, or cause others to be in an inferior rights position. If by islam you mean something that fully adheres to basic Human Rights equality, then you aren't targeted by Peter Klevius islam criticism. However, if you mean islam accepts violations of the most basic of Human Rights, then you may also call Peter Klevius an "islamophobe" - and he will be proud of it. And when it comes to "security" it can't mean "offending" opponents to basic Human Rights.
This is why any effort to twist or accuse the writings of Peter Klevius as "islamophobia" etc. can only be made from a standpoint against these basic Human Rights. As a consequence, no body of authority can therefore accuse, hinder etc. Peter Klevius without simultaneously revealing its own disrespect for these Human Rights. Conversely, Peter Klevius can not accuse anyone who agrees on these rights - i.e. this leaves e.g. "islamophobia" etc. accusations against Peter Klevius without merit.
Every effort against these basic Human Rights is treason against a country calling itself free and democratic.
Most people today are A(mono)theists, i.e. not "believing" in an impossible "one god"*. Such a "collective god" would mean equally many personal "gods" as there are believers/interpretors. "Monotheisms" are for racist/sexist movements - not for individuals. Human Rights are for individuals living among individuals with same rights.
Religion always means a total or partial reduction of some people's (e.g. women''s) Human Rights equality.
Being against A(mono)theism must be categorized as contempt of basic Human Rights equality because "monotheists" have doctrines which can't comply with basic Human Rights equality.
Klevius moral formula is a bedrock you can't beat:
1 There's no absolute and fixed moral in a dynamic society.
2 Therefor we have to repeatedly agree on a minimum moral and equality for all.
3 In doing so we are logically forced to approve of negative Human Rights, i.e. not to impose restrictions other than necessary in a democracy based on as much freedom as possible for all individuals - no matter of sex, race etc. And, for the truly dumb ones, do note that this definition excludes the freedom to restrict freedom.
* Though some people keep calling their own racist/sexist "interpretation" as "god's/allah's will").
Klevius "islamophobia" CV
Some basic facts to consider about Klevius* (except that he is both "extremely normal" and extremely intelligent - which fact, of course, would not put you off if you're really interested in these questions):
* Mentored by G. H. von Wright, Wittgenstein's successor at Cambridge.
1 Klevius' analysis of consciousness is the only one that fits what we know - after having eliminated our "pride" bias of being humans (which non-human would we impress, anyway?). Its starting point is described and exemplified in a commentary to Jurgen Habermas in Klevius book Demand for Resources (1992:30-33, ISBN 9173288411, based on an article by Klevius from 1981), and is further explained in a commentary to Francis Crick's book The Astonishing Hypothesis under the title The Even More Astonishing Hypothesis (EMAH), which can be found in Stalk's archive and which has been on line since 2003 for anyone to access/assess.
2 Klevius out of island/mainland fluctuating Southeast Asia Denisovans up to big skulled Siberians as the birth of much more intelligent modern humans who then spread all over the world, is the only analysis that fits both genetic reality as well as tool and art sophistication seen in e.g. the Denisova cave (no dude, Blombos etc. don’t come even close).
3 Klevius criticism of Human Rights violating sharia islamofascism (e.g. OIC) which is called "islamophobia" by islamofascists and their supporters who don't care about the most basic of Human Rights (e.g. re. women). Klevius' "islamophobia" has two roots: 1) UN's 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration, which, contrary to any form of muslim sharia, doesn't, for example, allow sex to be an excuse for robbing females of their full Human Rights equality, and 2) the history of the origin of islam ( e.g. Hugh Kennedy, Robert G. Hoyland, K. S. Lal etc.) which reveals a murderous, pillaging, robbing, enslaving and raping racist/sexist supremacist ideology that exactly follows precisely those basic islamic tenets which are now called "unislamic" but still survive today (as sharia approved sex slavery, sharia approved "liberation” jihad, academic jihad etc.) behind the sharia cover which is made even more impenetrable via the spread of islamic finance, mainly steered from the islamofascist Saudi dictator family.
4 Klevius analysis of sex segregation/apartheid (now deceptively called “gender segregation”) and heterosexual attraction - see e.g. Demand for Resources (1981/1992), Daughters of the Social State (1993), Angels of Antichrist (1996), Pathological Symbiosis (2003), or Klevius PhD research on heterosexual attraction/sex segregation and opposition to female footballers (published in book form soon).
Klevius can no longer distinguish between the techniques of BBC and Nazi propaganda - can you!
Racist Theresa May is robbing EU citizens of their Human Rights
Support Klevius' Atheist anti-fascism against islamofascism
Klevius to dumb (or just evil) alt-left "antifa" people who support the worst of Human Rights violating evil:
True anti-fascism in its purest form is laid down in the Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948. Islam (OIC) has in UN decided to abandon the most basic of these rights (the so called negative Human Rights).
Fascism is, according to Google's top hit, "a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation*, and forcible suppression of opposition." 23 Aug 2017
So let's face islam with this definition.
A political philosophy, movement, or regime (islam) that exalts nation (Umma) and often race (muslims) above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government (Koran text/Mohammad's example) headed by a dictatorial leader (the caliph - e.g. the Saudi based OIC's Saudi leader), severe economic and social regimentation* (sharia), and forcible suppression of opposition (apostasy ban against muslims wanting to leave islam, and demonizing defenders of Human Rights by calling them "islamophobes").
And islamofascism gets away with it by calling itself a religion and thereby being protected by those very Human Rights it opposes.
* According to Cambridge dictionary, "extreme organization and control of people".
Human Rights is diversity - sharia is the opposite
The evil of Sharia islam is what makes it incompatible with Negative Human Rights (i.e. why islamic OIC violates Human Rights by replacing them with Sharia, hence excluding women and non-muslims from equality). The evil of islam and its origin may be easier to grasp with historical examples, e.g. the Origin of Vikings.
It's racism and sexism even if proposed by a "god"! Klevius altruistic virtual volunteering for the world community in defense of Universal Human Rights . Yes, I know, it's unfair. Klevius vs islam, i.e. Universal Human Rights vs Sharia (OIC) racism/sexism! Of course Klevius will win. The question is just how long we should allow the dying beast to make people suffer. (Negative) Human Rights is not a ”Western” invention! It’s where you end up when you abandon racism and sexism, idiot! After you have abandoned islam! Your confused islamophilia and ignorance about Human Rights make YOU an accomplice to islam's crimes! Whereas Human Rights work as egalitarian and universal traffic rules (no matter who you are or what you drive you have the same rights as everyone else) islam/Sharia differs between muslim men and the rest (women and "infidels")!
Have you noticed that when the history of slavery is (PC) debated islam is always excluded/excused? Atlantic slave trade and Roman slaves are eagerly mentioned while the world's by far worst, longest and most extensive one is blinked, as is the fact that islam not only sanctions slavery but is itself built on slavery and sex slavery (rapetivism)! The core idea of islam is the most thoroughly elaborated parasitism ever, i.e. what in 1400 yrs has made it the by far worst crime ever. But thanks to islamic teachings muslims are kept extremely ignorant about the evil origin of islam (institutionalized parasitism based on slave finance, rapetivism and pillage). Ohlig: The first two "islamic" centuries lie in the shadows of history. Klevius: There was no islam or islamic Mohammad (that's why the Saudis have levelled Mohammad's "grave" etc), only the evil murdering, pillaging and raping Aramaic-Arabic Jewish("Christian") led illiterate Arab thugs chasing for booty and sex. The "success" of this formula became later institutionalized and codified as a one way (Koran/Sharia) moral excuse (Allah) for further racist/sexist genocides. The bedrock and currency of this system was racist slavery. However, with Enlightenment the new idea of individual (negative) Human Rights emerged (incl. abolishing of slavery) and were, much later (1948), written down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights according to which everyone is equal no matter of sex, beliefs etc. Just like in traffic! But unlike traffic rules no one really seems to care about guarding our most precious asset as human beings. Instead racist sexist islamofascism (OIC and the Cairo Sharia declaration) is protected by Human Rights while they strive to undermine and eventually destroy these Human Rights! And most people don't seem to get it. Always remember, there is no islam without Human Rights violating racist/sexist Sharia. So a "vote" for Sharia-islam is AGAINST democracy and the freedom part of Human Rights!
Sayeeda Warsi (UK's non-elected OIC/Sharia politician) in essence doesn't differ from those muslim Saudi women who approve of sex slavery etc, other than that she is either ignorant or a traitor (against democracy and Human Rights) of the worst kind.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
What is sharia? The deep ignorance of some islam supporting nutheads and a female sociology professor revealed and corrected by Klevius
Adam Serwer: The sharia panic that is driving state legislatures to try and criminalize Islam, and making GOP presidential candidates fearful of even looking tolerant of Muslims, is based on an understanding of the religion that would be analogous to treating the bombing of an abortion clinic as the only true possible interpretation of Christianity
Matthew Duss and Wajahat Ali: Any observant Muslim would consider him or herself a Sharia adherent. It is impossible to find a Muslim who practices any ritual and does not believe himself or herself to be complying with Sharia. Sharia is overwhelmingly concerned with personal religious observance such as prayer and fasting, and not with national laws. In reality, Sharia is personal religious law and moral guidance for the vast majority of Muslims. Muslim scholars historically agree on certain core values of Sharia, which are theological and ethical and not political. Moreover, these core values are in harmony with the core values at the heart of America.
Klevius help to these brain dead people: Main stream sharia is today OIC's preposterous and ridiculously pompous (see the burning paper at the top of the page) Cairo declaration on islamic "human rights".
In short: Islam originated as a parasitic ideology for enslavement and conquest. The enslavement of girls/women under a sex segregated institution Klevius calls rapetivism is the very blood of islam and this is why islam/OIC can never accept real Universal Human Rights because the latter gives women equal rights with men! Moreover, islamic sharia isn't only sexist but also racist in its notion that non-muslims are no full humans.
In length: The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI) is a declaration of the 57 member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) adopted in Cairo in 1990, which provides an overview on the islamic perspective on human rights, and affirms Islamic Shari'ah as its sole source. CDHRI declares its purpose to be "general guidance for Member States [of the OIC] in the Field of human rights".
Muslim countries, such as Sudan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, frequently criticized the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for its perceived failure to take into account the cultural and religious context of islam.
The CDHRI could be criticized for falling short of international human rights standards by distinguishing different fundamental equality of men and women (Art 6) and for permitting killing according to Sharia law (Art 2A).
Whereas the Universal declaration states
'Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.'
CDHRI does not guarantee equal rights, but merely equal dignity: Article 6 (a) Woman is equal to man in human dignity, and has rights to enjoy as well as duties to perform; she has her own civil entity and financial independence, and the right to retain her name and lineage. (b) The husband is responsible for the support and welfare of the family.
'All men are equal in terms of basic human dignity and basic obligations and responsibilities, without any discrimination on the basis of race, colour, language, belief, sex, religion, political affiliation, social status or other considerations.'
In particular, CDHRI has been criticised for failing to guarantee freedom of religion.
In a joint written statement submitted by the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), a non-governmental organization in special consultative status, the Association for World Education (AWE) and the Association of World Citizens (AWC): a number of concerns were raised, that the CDHRI limits Human Rights, Religious Freedom and Freedom of Expression. It concludes: "The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam is clearly an attempt to limit the rights enshrined in the UDHR and the International Covenants. It can in no sense be seen as complementary to the Universal Declaration."
The Centre for Inquiry in September 2008 in an article to the United Nations writes that the CDHRI: "undermines equality of persons and freedom of expression and religion by imposing restrictions on nearly every human right based on Islamic Sharia law."
Article 5 prohibits imposing any restrictions on marriage stemming from "race, colour or nationality."
Similarly, CDHRI is criticized as not endorsing equality between men and women; moreover, it is accused of asserting the superiority of men.
Adama Dieng, a member of the International Commission of Jurists, criticised the CDHRI. He argued that the declaration gravely threatens the inter-cultural consensus on which the international human rights instruments are based; that it introduces intolerable discrimination against non-Muslims and women. He further argued that the CDHRI reveals a deliberately restrictive character in regard to certain fundamental rights and freedoms, to the point that certain essential provisions are below the legal standards in effect in a number of Muslim countries; it uses the cover of the "Islamic Shari'a (Law)" to justify the legitimacy of practices, such as corporal punishment, which attack the integrity and dignity of the human being.
Klevius additional comment: To realy understand the seriousness of islamic sharia you only have to consider the enormous efforts made by Saudi and other muslim dictators to avoid Human Rights and replace them with islamic sharia via UN the organization that was established exactly to avoid this kind of fascism!
Klevius meeting with a sharia defending sociology professor who didn't have the slightest clue about what she was talking about
After having read a considerable amount of Klevius text describing how islamic sex segregation (sharia) violates women's real Universal Human Rights, she replied with the world "dignity". Moreover, she even accused me for wanting to decide what women do! Me who continuously and for many decades have defended women's Negative Rights, i.e. the right not to be restricted or limited because of once sex and due impositions (sharia) connected to one's sex! Under Universal Negative Human Rights women can still choose to segregate. That's up to the individual to decide. But under islamic sharia there will always be legalized cultural limitations imposed on you because of your female sex!
Sex segregation IS the difference between Human Rights and islamic sharia
To impose restrictions under the title "dignity" or "duties" doesn't in any way ease this sex apartheid which is long overdue.
Finaly a line from Saudi islamic sharia dictator Gazette's Ahmad Wahaj Al-Siddiqui (Islam ensures human rights): "The right of one is the duty of the other, so to infringe on one’s right is to oppress the other, that is why the infringement of rights is made subject to reckoning and hence is punishable in the Islamic Shariah."
Klevius comment: Yeah, right! Women's duty as sex slaves and fosterers of new muslim men!
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Godless nice and competent Japanese vs looting, rioting racist/sexist and hate mongering muslim Arabs
Not only are they kind and caring* but also the world's best technicians. Btw, there are only six days between the pics from the world's worst ever earth quake (9.0)/tsunami(10 m) combination!
* Talking about "caring", please do consider how social state supporters riot in London (for a definition of the social state read the most important sociological paper from the last Century, Angels of Antichrist! Whereas the welfare state should administer the re-distribution of wealth, the social state feeds its own bureaucracy, often via so called "services" which, when not plainly contra-productive, only gain those employed by the social state).
Dictator related muslim Arab oil beneficiaries (i.e. parasites on non-islamic Western tech) drawling over godless Japanese Honda's humanoid robot Asimo.
But Allah believing racist/sexist muslim Arabs seem to have an opposite tendency for rioting, looting, parasitism etc.
Strangely, some people equal the word 'religion' with Judaic "monotheisms", incl. its derivatives, Christianity and islam. Of these latter ones islam has not only, by far, been the most criminal and disastrous, but also the most "successful", measured in birth rate, due to its one way rapetivist distribution via the holy Penis (in the muslim faith islam the genitor penis makes the kid a muslim, and to not be able to get rid of this "muslimhood" islamic sharia has made it as hard as possible to commit so called apostasy).
Islam isn't only utterly sexist (no, there's really no honest intellectual escape from the troublesome fact that islamic OIC, i.e. the muslim Umma today via its Cairo declaration on islamic "human rights", has officially abandoned Human Rights* in favor of islamic sharia precisely because sharia doesn't allow girls/women full freedom as does the true Human Rights declaration).
* albeit treacherously now using the completely misleading phrase 'human rights' when they in fact mean islamic sharia! Just consider what this islamic cheating means when usually already pro-islam biased media spews their deliberate misinformation on the ignorant public.
An Arab is someone who speaks Arabic, isn't s/he. And an Arab muslim is someone who believes in islam, the worst ideological crime ever committed against humanity.
Muslim Arabs effectively destroyed the whole continent of Africa during 1400 years of islamic slave rading/trading that only ended (albeit only partially) thanks to Western "colonialists".
When muslims in the Ivory Coast and elsewhere vote bv their feet by running over the borders this constitutes a double violation of democracy. Firstly, you can't possibly give a democratic vote if you believe that a "divine" islamic sharia should rule your country, and secondly, as a muslim woman (repersenting half of the community) you are not a free voter but under male surveillance.
So when muslim born apostate (or muslim cheater?) Mr X "president" Barakeh Hussein Obama shuts his eyes for the Arab/islamic atrocities in Darfur and elsewhere (incl. Sudan's "president" Bashir who is searched for by an international court for crimes against humanity, while trying to islamize Southern Sudan) it represents one of the most perverted views on humanity.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Is Klevius more influential than muslim born apostate Mr X "president" Barakeh Hussein Obama Dunham Soetoro (or whatever)?
Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi (the islamist rebel leader in Libya): Jihadists against Western influence (i.e. freedom) in Iraq are now battling against Muammar Gaddafi & Co (aided by superior Western military - a technology parasitic islam could never have developed by itself - but now offered to the Saudi dictators by US muslim born "president").
Klevius comment: It's not an "Arab"* uprising for freedom in Mideast, it's an "English" revolt for freedom! However, due to Western PC support and Mr X "president", the islamists usually win politically in the short run although what the muslim countries really need is to get rid of islam, the worst ideological crime ever against humanity.
* Arabic is a late Jewish/Hebrew branch of the sexist (its sex segregated personal pronouns were/are quite unique except for in those Indo-European branches it has affected - probably beginning with the semitic overtake of the original non-semitic Sumerian ciivilization) Semitic language family which got its literacy via certain Jews. Unfortunatelythe Arabic language got stack with evil islam until now when it's time for their divorce.
Klevius has (since 2002-4) been your only intellectually (and indeed morally as well - see Klevius definition of Negative Human Rights) reliable resource on the web clarifying the impossibility of islam, i.e. that islam inevitably rests on the racist/sexist segregation of people by "religion" or sex (see Klevius' definition of religion to understand the apostrophe).
And in stripping islam from its disguise (PC and a religious "spiritualism" which was originally its main fascistic element, i.e. what, together with apostasy ban, kept the parasitic jihadist robbers together under a long row of evil dictators from the fictious Mohammed and on.
Pamela Geller: Throughout Obama's presidency and all of the Islamic revolutions sweeping the Middle East and Africa, he has sided with the Islamic supremacists at every turn. Taking his marching orders from the vile America-hater and Jew-hater, the devout Muslim Sheik Qaradawi, Obama is now paving the way for an Islamic state in Libya. Not that Libya has been good under Gaddafi - hardly. But there are degrees of evil. The situation can always be worse, and little matches the anti-human brutality of Islamic regimes in the twenty-first century. It's ironic that Obama has turned against Gaddafi, since Gaddafi has regarded him warmly, saying in April 2010: "Barakeh Obama is friend...He is of Muslim descent, his policy should be supported." As meticulously documented in my book, The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War on America, the ties between Gaddafi and Obama are close and extensive. Back in July 2008, Gaddafi endorsed Obama, going so far as to say: "All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man.
Bryan Fischer: The First Amendment was written to protect the free exercise of Christianity. They were making no effort to give special protections to Islam. Quite the contrary. We actually at the time were dealing with our first encounters with jihad in the form of the Barbary Pirates, which is why Jefferson bought a copy of the Koran. He was told by the Bey of Tripoli that Islam requires Muslims to rob, kill and pillage infidel Christians wherever they find them. Jefferson naturally found that hard to believe, so he bought a copy of the Koran to read it for himself. Sure enough, it’s right in there, in the 109 verses of the Koran that call for violence against the infidels. Islam has no fundamental First Amendment claims, for the simple reason that it was not written to protect Islam. Islam is entitled only to the religious liberty we extend to it out of courtesy. While there certainly ought to be a presumption of religious liberty for non-Christian religious traditions in America, the Founders were not writing a suicide pact when they wrote the First Amendment. Our government has no obligation to allow a treasonous ideology to receive special protections in America, but this is exactly what the Democrats are trying to do right now with Islam. From a constitutional point of view, Muslims have no First Amendment right to build mosques in America. They have that privilege at the moment, but it is a privilege that can be revoked if, as is in fact the case, Islam is a totalitarian ideology
Klevius comment: This is an example of a Christian who, as many others, probably read Klevius with disgust for years until he suddenly saw the light.
John G. Kays (a hypocritical moron and bigot who doesn't admit seeing the light because it's blinding him): : What does Gingrich mean by `Radicalized Islam`? Couldn`t the line be moving towards inclusion of all Muslim people?
Klevius comment: Why muslims?! Aren't we talking islam?! Moving towards the self evident inclusion of all of islam!
Btw, consider Klevius influence in the light of the following recent Google dumps:
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Klevius' democracy tutorial for dummies: A vote for islam/shara/OIC/Muslim Brotherhood etc is not democracy!
Zuhdi Jasser (President of US Islamic Forum for Democracy): “The desire of every individual before the law, before one law, and before government, is not a monopoly of the West. It’s a humanitarian principle that was embodied in the UN Declaration on Human Rights, the very UN declaration that the Cairo declaration – the Organization of the Islamic Conference countries – refused to endorse because they know that Sharia is not compatible with those ideas. - I think it’s almost racist to believe Muslims or Arabs have to be relegated to a collectivist, populist Islamist society because that’s what they are. Democracy means more than elections; it means protection of the individual."
Here's Klevius original text from 2004 analyzing the essence of the freedom (negative) part of the 1948 Human Rights Declaration. Enjoy the irresistable logic of Universal Individual Freedom regardless of sex - and don't hesitate to educate yourself about sex segregation, Klevius is probably your most trustworthy tutor:
Human rights are axiomatic rights ascribed to defined human rights possessors. This conceptualization does not recognize sub-human rights such as e.g. children’s rights (implying state interventionism) or women’s rights (implying sex segregation) because that would alter the very foundation of the concept human rights possessor (also see Klevius definition of feminism). Human rights stay in opposition (or as a complement if you like) to democracy. In fact, negative human rights are to be seen as the last resort for the very individual that was created by democracy. The basic negative (and positive) right of democracy is the right to vote. Without that right no democracy. So what makes democracy possible is something (the individual created by his/her right to vote) out of reach for democracy itself. You, not the democratic system, decide how/if to vote. But although democracy is just happy with this single concession that created the individual voting unit, you are not. You, the individual created by democracy, need more space of freedom. You are an invention that has to be protected, not only against your inventor, but also against every potential intruder with totalitarian aims. Negative human rights hence constitute what should not be accessible for democracy, but also what might be accessible for anti-democratic/totalitarian ideologies. The invention of “positive” human rights (so called "Stalin rights", sometimes even deliberately confused with obligations) is, in fact, pure abuse of negative human rights, i.e. a political (or perhaps political/religious) intrusion into the realm of “negative” basic human rights. The state, seen as a democratic representation, or whatever system of ruling, hence should be excluded from dealing with negative human rights issues other than administratively and as protector of (Angels of Antichrist, P. KLevius 1996). The minimum need of conformism for a society to work constitutes the maximum level of Negative Human Rights, i.e. its very definition, and hence also definies fascism as the progressive intrusion above the minimum need of conformism.
However, Zuhdi Jasser, like many with him, misses the most important part, namely that islam has to be abandoned alltogether. Why? Because there is no other islam than the evil parsitic racist/sexist one, i.e. what constituted the original islam, and what made it "successful" in the first place. You don't want to bow in spiritual contemplation towards the worst crime ever against humanity, do you really. And your only problem is that you can't comprehend the enourmity of this evilness simply because it's part of the Judaic tradition that you have been taught and made believe was an essentialy good one (why not ask the Caananites).
Ever wondered about Klevius' bragging that the fight between him and islam "is deeply unfair but at least jslam has many supporters on its rapid road to complete extinction"? The answer resides in the origin (yes, in singular) of islam, i.e. parasitism (robbing, slavery and rapetivism sealed by apostasy ban).
Today even islamists have figured out that islam (in any form) isn't compatible with democracy and Human Rights, simply because islam's very heart and bloodflow is rapetivism, i.e. the ideological and fysiological abuse of girls/women. And these muslim women often internalize this abuse as female patriarchy, much like surviving sex slave women settled in the slave harems of muslim dictators and other slave masters. That's why OIC was created by the Saudi "guardians of islam", together with sharia wrapped in the treatcherous title Islamic "human rights", and legalized via a sleeping UN.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
The world's foremost representatives of islamic evil terrorize muslims and others with OIC sharia and bullets
Ever wondered why muslim born and muslim adopted Muslim Brotherhood symphatizing Mr X "president" Barry Barack Hussein Dunham Obama Soetoro (or whatever) now hesitated to attack Ghadaffi with his missiles, drones, etc? Well, it's simply because he can't defend why he's not attacking the Saudi oppressors and hate mongerers!
This is the Saudi gangsta "king" Abdullah who not only represents the Saud dictatorship and its grim suppression of peaceful demonstraters in "Saudi" Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain etc, but who is also behind OIC and its treacherous manipulating of implementing sharia under the completely misleading title "human rights" in muslim countries and societies.
This is muslim born and muslim adopted apostate (?) Mr X "president"* who acts against the interest of those muslims who want to free themselves from the dictatorship of sharia islam and instead enjoy the freedom of the Universal Human Rights (please read Klevius definition/clarification for to reallty understand why islamic "human rights" (sharia) is your worst enemy!).
* A true muslim needs to obey sharia which violates both the US Constitution as well as Human Rights!
This Saud family member has heavily influenced not only the islamization of Harvard in his capacity as an outlet for oil money, his main asset being a reckless hypocrite when it comes to trying to present islam as "modern" while behind the curtain promoting evil medieval values which stay in sharp conflict with true Human Rights.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Whereas racist/sexist parasitic islam causes looting, split, chaos etc among muslims, the non-religious* Japanese show kind human cooperation and dignity!
Whereas muslim born Mr X "president" respects the ideology of islam, the worst crime ever committed against humanity, and bows in front of its Saudi caliph and fascist dictator, Klevius bows even deeper in front of the Japanese people!
Tuesday, March 08, 2011
Sayeeda Warsi calls herself a muslim. By calling oneself a muslim in general, it may be reaonable to assert a person as at least belonging to some loosely defined wide mainstream general muslimhood. It might be hard to challenge that the widest and most populous category of muslimhood today is OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference, i.e. 56+1 muslim states who all have agreed on sharia in accordance with an anti-human rights declaration - see burning pic at the top of the page). She certainly seems to comply with OIC's view on muslimhood when she sits in Saudi Arabia confined in a woman trap clothing together with the Turkish OIC boss - see pic above.
If Sayeeda Warsi generally complies with OIC's sharia (Cairo declaration), well then she is a muslim per this definition. And uf she doesn't then she's not. However, what is really troublesome is that the very reason OIC chose to violate the ideology of Universal Human Rights in UN was that according to the latter, everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in UN's Human Rights Declaration from 1948, without distinction of sex etc. According to ALL forms of islam/sharia girls/women are segragated in this respect!
Just consider the pompous text in OIC's sharia declaration (aka "islamic human rights" as it's presented via UN). The OIC muslims abuse and neglect in UN of the Universal Human Rights is perhaps one of the most staggering examples of how good intentions can be turned into evil praxis.
I'm sorry Sayeeda but there seems to be only two possible interpretations left: Either you, as a politician, are embarrassingly ignorant, or you are just trying to cheat us - like Mr X Hussein Obama!?
Muslim means islam and islam means sharia and sharia means constitution!
In USA the First Amendment of Constitution affirms the free exercise or practice of religion but forbids the establishment of religion by government. Sharia is, according to muslims, the ideal law of a "god" they call Allah, i.e. a religion!
Don't let yourself be cheated by all deliberate or ignorant/naive misrepresentations of creeping islamic sharia! The basic tenets of islam are sexist apartheid and infidel racism.
Indonesia is, according to Andre Vltchek, the worst example for revolutions in the Arab world
Andre Vltchek writes that it would be wrong to say that all Indonesians are welcoming more aggressive and dictatorial form of islam, but what is clear is that they are not willing to do anything to stop it from taking control of their country.
Andre Vltchek: Sharia law is being implemented in several locations, including parts of West Java. Annually, dozens of churches go up in flames. Controversial 'anti-pornography law' is now being put into practice (there are wide implementations that are not limited to 'indecent exposure' or pornographic web sites). Non-Muslim schools are being attacked periodically while members of a marginal Islamic sect had been recently murdered by a mob. Members of radical Islamic Defender's Front are allowed to rampage bars and places of warship right in front of the police that refuses to take action. Mosques are broadcasting sermons – in fact all that is happening inside - at the highest imaginable volume for 5-7 hours a day
Andre Vltchek: New catch phrase or journalist cliché is that 'Indonesia is the biggest Southeast Asian economy'. Of course it is – how could it not? It has officially 237 million people (although several top world statisticians now believe that it is actually inhabited by 300 million. On per capita bases Indonesia remains one of the poorest countries in the Pacific Asia, with some of the most unequal distribution of wealth. Indonesia is the forth most populous country on earth. But have you ever seen anything with the label 'Made In Indonesia' abroad, except few T-shirts and sneakers? You probably did not as the country produces very little for its size. The growth comes from uncontrollable (and often illegal) plunder of natural resources, and from unusually high commodity prices on the world markets. Wealth is distributed among very limited group of people, in fact scenario that is not unlike that of the countries like Sudan. Both Khartoum and Jakarta count with fives star hotels and luxury shopping centers and with misery that can only be found in sub-Saharan Africa.
Andre Vltchek: When Suharto eventually decided to go elites and military regrouped. Truly reform-minded President Wahid was deposed. Islam increased its grip on the society.
Klevius comment: Islam is human parasitism in its most elaborated form! Parasitism was its very origin, and to try to argue that islam could possess something good if we just take it with caution and in small doses, is just self-delusion.
Saturday, March 05, 2011
Klevius: Undemocratic and unconstitutional muslim born and muslim adopted Mr X "president" Hussein Obama ought to step down!
And btw, any opinion on when the House of Saud should step down?
And btw 2, why don't you commit open apostasy? Are you an islamophobe afraid of islamic sharia which condemns apostasy?! Didn't you say in Cairo that you respect islam?! And your pathetic excuse that your father wasn't a "practicing muslim". You should know that there is no thing as islam abandoning muslims just because they don't practice islam! On the contrary, this one way strategy of islam is precisely why it fulfills the requirements for being a fascist type of ideology. But not even the fascists could come up with such dehumanizing terror as islamic genocides and rapetivism. And don' you really know that due to islam's parasitic base tenets islam can never contribute to science etc. It can steal, copy, black mail, etc, but not produce. Islam can only reproduce itself! This is why pslam (OIC) can't accept the Universality of Human Rights. Girls and women are to be held as a separate species under the heterosexual attraction excuse which the West since long has proven false!
And your real low mark was in your campaign when you happily rode on the worst kind of racism just to get votes from racists.
Look at your pals, you hypocritical bigot! What's the difference, for example, between you and the CAIR rewarded Hasan to the left, except of course, that you haven't stabbed and decapitated your wife? I mean, he was an officially celebrated islamist whose main job was to whitewash the evil truth of islam via his state supported Bridges TV, which broadcasted a misleading picture of islam for the ignorant infidels. Same bigotry and hypocrisy as shown by Paki/Brit Sayeeda Warsi who calls pious sharia muslims idiots while she herself used to sit in OIC's headquarter in Saudi Arabia taking notes on how to promote OIC's anti-Human Rights sharia declaration (Cairo declaration on islamic "human rights") by bawling about "islamophobia", a weird expression invented for the purpose of covering up and avoiding debate on islam's inborn evilness.
You probably know very well (because those who sponsored you probably told you) that Jesus/Christ and Mohammed originally meant the same person for the Jews believing in Jesus who started islam's booty/sex jihadist parasitism (although the "peaceful" enslavement of infidels was just an extention of existing Jewish/Arabic slave trade). So it made me really want to puke when you in your campaign lied to the eldely ladies who asked you about your view on Jesus, well knowing your view had nothing to do with theirs but all to do with that of your beloved pastor Jeremiah Wright!
An other serious reason to doubt your morality was the eagerness you revealed in your campaign to (like Hitler and many others after him) appeal to racist voters. I mean, it's a wellknown fact what one of your voters revealed: "I don't care too much of the politics but it feels good to vote for someone with same skin tone"!
And the worst to the last. You know very well that OIC (Organization of the islamic conference) is a Saudi initiated body for islamofascism (56+1 muslim states - the biggest voting bloc in UN) that has decided not only to implement islamic sharia, but also to criminalize (in accordance with that very same sharia) criticism of the worst crime ever against humanity!
Pakistan's"blasphemy" law is pure islamic sharia evil in accordance with OIC's Cairo declaration (burning pic above), and you respect it!? Btw, the blasphemy murders in Pakistan were committed because those murdered objected to sharia law sanctioned by Allah (you know, the "god" that in islam is otherwise completely decapitated from this world so to leave room for islamic abuse from spousal to dictatorial! Pakistan demands death penalty and death penalty only for negative of comical views on the fairy tale figure Mohammed who historically never even existed. And the only way to avoid being execute is if the president considers it more valuable to continue receiving money from the civilized world!
The problem formulating religious terror of Jewish "chosen people" monotheisms
Finally, a more general reflection on this Zoroastrian/Jewish monotheist evilness which today is most powerfully represented by its historically and ideologically by far most evil branch islam. The word 'religion' has been hijacked by this islamic slave (and oil/welfare) financed system of parasitic sex slavery. Moreover, although islam is presented as the only real "religion" for the "people of the Book", it's almost like not belonging to one of these Jewish branches would constitute a social/psychological defect although most of the world's population don't share this skewed sex slave morality at all. And by naming an ideology like islam, which is the ultimate tool (a one way, thanks to islam's apostasy ban, spread via the Penis, not the Vagina, for parasitism, enslavement, genocides and rapetivism) a "faith" one has succeeded in delegating and covering up islamic atrocities under the innocence/ignorance of masses of individual "muslims"!
Btw, isn't it equally insulting for believers in Universal Human Rights to see someone "religiously" confined in a burqa as it is to know someone's respectfully bowing the worst crime ever committed against humanity and doing so towards what used to be the biggest slave market in the world (and this it was under islam!) and which is now the most intolerant and racist place on Earth and a commercialized gathering spot for fanatism?!
How ignorant are Americans of their muslim born and muslim adopted islamism supporting "president" when potential presidential candidate Mike Huckabee doesn't seem to have a clue?!
Mike Huckabee: " I would love to know more (about Mr X Hussein Obama). What I know is troubling enough. And one thing that I do know is his having grown up in Kenya".
Klevius enlightening of monotheist Huckabee: Mr X "president" Barry Barack Hussein Dunham Obama Soetoro (or whatever) was born on a location so far not officially revealed to the public. Thus is in line with the fact that also other records about him are kept secret. What is known is that a Kenyan muslim named Obama is proposed as his father on a brief short form birth form. This makes Mr X a muslim according to that very same sharia that he, OIC, Warsi etc respect and applaud.
It looks like Mr X spent his babyhood mainly on Hawaii, and that he grow up with little or no real contact with his muslim genitor father, or even Kenya, but more so with his muslim adoptive father in Indonesia. At young adult age it seems even that he was more interested in Pakistan than Kenya.
Klevius conclusion: So we have a "president" who is unconstitutional because he both applaud islamic sharia and is born a muslim without having committed open apostasy. We have presidential candidates who don't know about the real depth of the problem. And we have the evil wahhabi Saudi Abdullah with family, as well as the second larget muslim country, Pakistan, with death penalty (and nothing else) for saying/writing/drawing etc something that is n
egative about the historically non-existing Mohammed. Clearly a moral mess and confusion, isn't it!?
Wednesday, March 02, 2011
Islam schizophrenia: OIC/islam in UN opposes any support for freedom (from islam) fighters in Libya and elsewhere!
Klevius, the net's foremost* expert on the origin of islam
* Klevius is, so far, the only known both well informed and highly intelligent and non-biased male who has seriously analyzed sex segregation and totalitarianism against the background of negative universal/individual Human Rights (see e.g. Angels of Antichrist - the most important sociological paper from the last Century).
OIC and its treacherous supporters constitute the immoral Leviathan of today
According to the extremely treacherous islamist lier, the Turkish OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu (the very same guy who is lecturing Paki/UK Warsi on the pic at the top of this page), people in the Arab region "aspire to democracy, good governance and human rights". So why is this a lie?! Klevius answer: The very fact that he leads an organization with the pronounced aim of violating the Universal Human Rights by implementing islamic sharia under the cover of islamic "human rights". This comes handy for islamists because nowthey can both seek protection for their islamic social terrorism under the real Human Rights while promoting islamic sharia AGAINST Human Rights! Btw, The muslim traitor and OIC messenger Warsi also functions as a main outlet for OIC's treacherous propaganda language, e.g. the strange concept of "islamophobia" (you don't happen to suffer from poisonphobia as well, do you?!)l
As Klevius rightly predicted already a week ago the Organisation of the Islamic Conference now says that it is against any military intervention in Libya! Ihsanoglu: "Allow me to underline our position against any possible military intervention on the situation in Libya"!
No matter whether Al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood or the Gadaffis win (they are all intertwined via Koran/islam), OIC is satified as long as it keeps the secularists (i.e. anti-sharia) at bay.
OIC's "blasphemy" (sharia) in action
Pakistan Telecommunication Authority together with the Ministry of Information and Technology, block everything on the web that is against islamic sharia, i.e. "blasphemic". No wonder so many Pakis are ignorant about islam!
Klevius dictionary pick of today: 'Colonialism' is roughly the time period during which the West tried to liberate* people from the horrors, slavery and backwardness of islam, however, without fully accomplishing the task as yet.