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.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Sex segregation, female patriarchy and racist sexist islam vs Enlightened non-racist non-sexist Human Rights
The evil faces of islam
But the fact remains: A true muslim is forever married to a devilish ideology (incl. its draconian apostasy ban) and can therefore never produce a democratic vote (or become a true US president) because a true muslim believes in Sharia, i.e. the very opposite to the Human Rights modern democracy is based on.
To understand the unbridgeable gulf between islamic Sharia and Human Rights please read Negative Human Right! And if you don't believe Klevius ask yourself why OIC (a UN voting bloc consisting of 56+1 nations with majority or considerable muslim populations) had to dismiss UN Human Rights and replace them with "islamic human rights""! And how many of these muslims do even know about it?
The real origin of islam* (racist sexist sex and booty parasitism) is in general eagerly kept away from you by Google, other media, Wikipedia, politicians, teachers etc. Why? Simply because the origin of islam is way too disgusting to fit in the modern world based on Human Rights, i.e. the thought that we all should be treated equally. Whereas Human Rights function as traffic rules islam and its Sharia functions as a system of institutionalized sex and ethnicity** apartheid. And making islam equal castrates its very soul and appeal in no time, no matter if you are an open racist sexist or hiding your true nature in the closet. Only if you really have been so ignorant about islam can you be excused.
* most of you probably don't even know that historically there was never an early Koran or Mohammed at all. It's all made up by arranged fairy tales which, to use the words of one of the world's foremost experts on early islam, Hugh Kennedy: "...it's typical of the sources that we have fairly detailed accounts which completely contradict each other."
** Islam is the ultimate form of institutionalized racism/sexism.
To cover up the evilness of islam it's now PC to describe bad* islam as "islamism" thereby implying that when the Taliban and other jihadists stop fighting everything is ok. But a thug doesn’t need to be violent to rob his victim. He just needs to threaten to be violent. And Sharia coupled with state law easily takes care of this. In other words, islam and islamism are inseparable. So today we have muslim jihadist thugs receiving taxpayers' money when they turn from street jihadism to white collar jihadism (while usually still secretly supporting the former).
* "bad islam" implies there should be a "good islam" but the latter is nowhere to be seen except in the idealized and flattering descriptions created by those who eagerly want to cover up islam's true nature as a totalitarian social fascism that has caused more death an suffering than any other ideology on he planet.
Islamism is the desire to impose interpretations of islam through state law (Sharia). This is precisely what OIC has agreed on by replacing Human Rights with Sharia as the basis for their existing or future legislation. To try to talk this away by stupidities as "which Sharia?" won't change, only obscure OIC's abandonment of Human Rights.
Now, there are still some fools who believe (sic) that islam can be stretched and reformed to fit in a modern world based on Human Rights. But, as a possible reflection of their own uncertainty, to make it more secure they usually try to hide islam from scrutiny altogether by calling this dangerous political totalitarian ideology a “faith” and calling for its "protection" by the help of those very Human Rights islam disregards. Moreover, if islam (OIC) were asked about it, revealing atrocities committed as a consequence of islamic ideology ought to be criminalized as "defamation of religion".
However, at a certain point interpretations of islam inevitably cease to be islam. And to accurately pinpoint these points you just need to compare OIC’s Cairo declaration on islamic “human rights” with the real Human Rights Declaration from 1948. OIC realized this long ago. And the very basic disagreement (apart from the overall racist monotheist “mine/our god is the only right one”) is sex segregation, i.e. that according to Human Rights .
Btw, always remember that when true muslims talk about “human rights” they mean Sharia, not Human Rights.So when you hear muslim representatives claiming they defend "human rights" be on your guard!
Behind the appeasing of islam: The female patriarchy
The very origin of Judaism was sex and reproduction for the purpose of political survival. This is why otherwise unhealthy and unnatural circumcision lies at the heart of Judaic tradition, i.e. to squeee out as many children as possibly from the girls/women. Islam is the final development of this evil branch. But when the Italian Medici family begun blossoming due to its (Jewish) slave trade connections to islamic slave markets this also constituted the first real criticism of the degradation of human value. The Renaissance (coupled with the invention of the printing machine) came to be the starting point for not only Protestantism but also the emerging Enlightened idea about the moral necessity of the equality of mankind. And so finally, in 1948, after a devastating World War where muslims in Europe sided with the bad guys, the final piece was assembled. Women became full members of society. Sex should no longer constitute a hindrance for the freedom of girls/women. But two powerful enemies against this freedom prevailed: Psychoanalysis (see From Freud to bin Laden and Klevius Psychosocial Freud timeline) and the most evil part of Judaic monotheism, mainly represented by islam and, usually in a milder form, by many Christians as well. Sigmund Freud's disgusting sexism lives on as the horrifying GID diagnosis (in DSM), according to which girls who oppose or just don't comply well enough with prevailing gender stereotypes can be labelled mentally ill and even be taken from their families for the purpose of being "treated".
But without the eager assistance of what has been called "the female patriarchy" the rights of women shouldn't be so fatally contested as they are. Female patriarchy means the tendency among women to keep each other down for the purpose of appeasing males. To this Klevius will add the little talked about natural phenomenon called heteroseual attraction (HSA - see Klevius Gametes have no sex) which is biologically implanted in males and thus not easily understood by women. HSA doesn't however, necessitate sexual acts in any sense, i.e. no excuse for rape. But in islam, where women are seen as belonging to a different species, HSA is connected to rapetivism, i.e. the sexual and reproductive (incl. the cultural upbringing of new muslims) parasitism on girls/women.
An example of muslim female patriarchy
Jeswan Kaur (a voice from Malaysia commenting on Maznah Taufik, founder of the Obedient Wives Club): The very premise of OWC is shaky, for it emasculates women and turns them into slaves. In Malaysia’s case, it is making news of a different kind with regard to women, particularly Muslim wives being urged to “transform” into whores to please their husbands. Maznah Taufik said being an obedient wife was all about entertaining the husband, failing which the wife risked losing her husband to another woman. For Maznah, who is herself involved in a polygamous relationship, and her like-minded club honchos, a Muslim woman could bet on a successful marriage if she regaled in playing prostitute all the way in the bedroom. Pleasing a husband is a challenge the Muslim woman has to deal with throughout her married life. Unfortunately, many Muslim wives dare not displease their husbands for fear of being “dimadukan” or ending up in polygamous relationship.
Klevius comment: Here lies the crucial question: Should females be sex segregated, i.e. seen as a different species as in OIC's islamic Sharia, or should they be seen as equals to men as stated in the 1948 Human Rights Declaration? For me the answer is self evident. You're a true bigot and hypocrite if you continue supporting the worst crime ever against humanity!
And although these evil phenomenons exist outside islam it's only in islam that they are intended (now by OIC) to be state law. Just as they were at the origin of islam.
Negative rights for a positive future without islamic racism and sexism
Klevius advice to girls/women: If you need to/want to get access to males and the world by being sex slaves, you don't need islam and Sharia to do so. Human Rights give you the right to do so. However, if you don't wanna be a sex slave, islamic Sharia always denies you your dignity of full freedom.
Sex segregation in court
It's a tell tale sign that a Google News search (US) on 'sex segregation Walmart' (at a time when the Walmart decision was all over the news) didn't produce a single hit. And this despite the fact that it's all about sex segregation!
When five monotheist fanatics in the US Supreme Court faced female Walmart workers' collective protest against sex segregation they, of course, had to dismiss it on the "individual" ground.
According to justice Antonin Scalia there could be no class that was discriminated against because there was no written policy covering them all. "The conceptual gap between an individual's discrimination claim and "the existence of a class of persons who have suffered the same injury,"...must be bridged by "[s]ignificant proof that an employer operated under a general policy of discrimination,"...Such proof is absent here. Wal-Mart's announced policy forbids sex discrimination, and the company has penalties for denials of equal opportunity. Respondents' only evidence of a general discrimination policy was a sociologist's analysis asserting that WalMart's corporate culture made it vulnerable to gender bias.
Klevius comment: "Corporate culture"? What utter sociological nonsense. But what about "the existence of a class of persons who have suffered the same injury,"...must be bridged by "[s]ignificant proof that an employer operated under a general policy of discrimination". Yes, he's right in that sex segregation lacks proof precisely because the 1948 Human Rights Declaration has already erased such legislative hindrance, i.e. what is also called 'de jure segregation'. But what is left is 'de facto segregation, i.e. voluntary segregation that is not sanctioned by law but by cultural attitudes.
The plaintiffs also cited the fact that promotion decisions are made at the individual level by managers as an engine of discrimination, but Scalia saw in it the opposite: "Wal-Mart has no testing procedure or other companywide evaluation method that can be charged with bias....The whole point of permitting discretionary decisionmaking is to avoid evaluating employees under a common standard." To the contrary, left to their own devices most managers in any corporation—and surely most managers in a corporation that forbids sex discrimination—would select sex-neutral, performance-based criteria for hiring and promotion that produce no actionable disparity at all.
Irin Carmon: So because individuals don't discriminate against a class of people who they think are less likely to be competent or committed — and nothing is on the books, systemic discrimination must not exist. Case closed!
Klevius comment: This is the Catch 22 of sex segregation. And the sociologist's argumentation was really laughable.If her sex has culturally hindered a girl from learning something that boys do, and if this capability later on makes the boy a better performer in a job setting, then it's sex segregation that has constituted the basis for the problem.
Female justice Ginsburg: "Women fill 70 percent of the hourly jobs in the retailer's stores but make up only 33 percent of management employees," and that "the plaintiffs' 'largely uncontested descriptive statistics' also show that women working in the company's stores 'are paid less than men in every region' and 'that the salary gap widens over time even for men and women hired into the same jobs at the same time." Those are a lot of individual decisions that have nothing to do with each other. Managers, like all humankind, may be prey to biases of which they are unaware. The risk of discrimination is heightened when those managers are predominantly of one sex, and are steeped in a corporate culture that perpetuates gender stereotypes."
According to Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy, systemic discrimination only exists when written down or with a distinct policy.
Anthony Sabino, a law professor at St. John’s University: “The Supreme Court’s ruling should surprise no one,” . “Class actions are predicated on ‘common questions.’ A class of millions of disgruntled employees is just too vast to present a handful of questions that are fundamental to each and every one of them,”
Klevius comment: Only segregation can produce a million of problems not shared by those they are segregated from!
US is the perfect place to sue the legislators for neglecting sex segregation
Klevius draft to a US law suit, not against WalMart but against that very same US body of legislation that some 100 years ago neglected women’s right to vote as fully human beings:
There’s an ongoing tutorial for sex and race segregation to be blamed for much evil of today. “Blacks”, and people from the “developing world” teach each other "blackism" or "colorism" and due racist hatred against “whites” (by the eager aid of islam). This in turn leads to difficulties because of segregation and overtly positive counter reactions from the "whites" which often obscure a more neutral and balanced communication as well as even feeding more racism in both groups.
When it comes to sex segregation the US legislators should long ago have treated girls/women as a group similar to the group of former slaves*. The social handicap of being brought up in a "feminine" way hence missing all those competences boys in general get and combine during their childhood and as teenagers means that their (women as adult) real value as employees for WalMart suffers.Not to have addressed this crucial issue is a legislative crime that has been made possible precisely because of a general stupid and often religiously motivated reluctance to see the real horror and unjustice of sex segregation.
Read Klevius, the net's foremost expert on sex segregation!.
* this group should actually include everyone who has the burden of a deprived background hanging over her/him.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
A simple Google News search yesterday on the word 'sharia' produced this load of islam propaganda from Huffington Post (already notorious for its “bogus and crackpot medical theories“). How come that such tendentious biased and polemic crap ends up at the top of Google News? Is this the ultimate evidence for the accelerating infantilization (and due vulnerability for evil power steering) of the media world?
"Myth of Sharia" and "Sharia Paranoiac" are the top Google headlines, and both are produced by Huffington Post!? Does this really have anything to do with critical journalism? And what about the missing reporting on OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference) the world's largest voting block within UN and its agenda of replacing Human Rights with Sharia in its 56+1 member states?!
No wonder the worst crime ever against humanity keeps creeping...
R. Cort Kirkwood: Apparently, the British left didn’t give much thought to the problems Muslims would cause when they opened the borders to unfettered immigration from the Muslim world. - The Muslim violence and turmoil in Tower Hamlets is one more sign that Islamization proceeds in Britain. Muslims there frequently march in the streets to either demand the imposition of Sharia or proclaim that the dark night of Islamic rule will soon descend upon Britain. - To some degree, Sharia already controls at least part of Britain. At least a dozen Islamic courts operate in the country, deciding civil matters such as divorce, including those that involve husbands severely beating their wives and children. Police in the neighborhood in London where four Muslims beat a religious education teacher to a pulp have covered up a variety of such crimes, the Sunday Telegraph has reported. The crimes the Telegraph uncovered in Tower Hamlets are remarkable not only for their brutality but also for their frank expression of Islamic demands.
Klevius comment: Family law is the most central part of islamic Sharia because it regulates islam's one way racism and rapetivist sexism.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
The world's most important sociology lesson - and islam, the worst and most racist/sexist crime ever against humanity
But first read the most important sociology paper from the last Century, Angels of Antichrist - kinship vs social state. Why? Because it's the only one covering the trinity of kinship, social state* and sex segregation, while being written by an extremely well informed and unbiased** and extremely intelligent (sorry for that) researcher (pls, keep in mind that most academics are just ordinary peasant brains with extremely limited resources for intellectual inter-disciplinary overview and integrity).
* the social state is a legalized set of (potential or real) social impositions outside the realm of social necessities. The social state can be religious (e.g. Sharia slavery and rapetivism economies) or secular (so called "welfare state" were most of the taxes go to those working in it, not to those in need).
** an atheist since the age of 14. and native to the world's most developed secular, non-religious non-segregated and free countries (Sweden and Finland) during the latter part of the 20th Century).And for you idiots who don't know what an atheist is: Whereas an atheist is someone who don't believe in a "god" (because there doesn't exist a definition of "god", only a "belief" in "god" it's impossible to believe in it) an idiot is someone who wants to prove or disprove the existence of "god". Moreover, Klevius isn't biased because of academic, political or professional ties. And to top it all Klevius totally lacks depression etc mental disturbances/limitations, nor has he any negative addictions. That combination is quite hard to beat, dude, isn't it!
Sociologist Mark Elchardus of Vrije Universiteit Brusselhas been sued by muslims because his research clearly shows muslims are racist anti-semits
[in Brussels] anti-Jewish sentiments are unrelated to the level of education or poor social living conditions. . . . Antisemitism is theologically inspired. There is a direct link between being Muslim and anti-Semitic feelings. Catholics, too, are negative toward Jews, but their sentiments are by far not as strong.”
Klevius comment: Sadly, muslim voters make up 30% of the Brussels electorate, while not being forced to reveal whether they are real muslims (i.e. Sharia muslims, and hence anti-Human Rights and anti-democratic) or apostates from islam.
Professor Elchardus' (co-authored) original sociology research is based upon data presented in a 426 pp. report entitled, "Young in Brussels: findings from the JOP monitor Brussels." Chapter 8 of this study, "Anti-Semitism in Brussels," devotes some thirty pages to highlighting the problem of rising Jew-hatred in Brussels, particularly amongst young muslim students. Elchardus: Worrying is that half of muslim students can be described as anti-Semitic...Worse, the anti-Jewish feelings have nothing to do with a low educational or social disadvantage, as is the case with racist natives. It is islamic inspired anti-Semitism.
The Koran, hadith, and sira-are full of islamic Jew-hatred as acknowledged-and extolled-by the late Muslim Pope Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, who served as the Grand Imam of Sunni Islam's Vatican, Al Azhar University, for 14 years from 1996, till his death last March 2010. Tantawi's "academic" magnum opus, his 700 page treatise entitled, "Jews in the Koran and the Traditions", includes this summary of Muslim Jew hatred: [The] Koran describes the Jews with their own particular degenerate characteristics, i.e. killing the prophets of Allah [Koran 2:61/ 3:112 ], [and see al-Azhar Sheikh Saqr's contemporary Koranic citations, "Jews' 20 Bad Traits As Described in the Qur'an"] corrupting His words by putting them in the wrong places, consuming the people's wealth frivolously, refusal to distance themselves from the evil they do, and other ugly characteristics caused by their deep-rooted lasciviousness...only a minority of the Jews keep their word...[A]ll Jews are not the same. The good ones become Muslims [Koran 3:113 ], the bad ones do not.
Klevius comment: I'd say exactly the opposite holds true. The bad Jews became muslims in the sense that islam was the fulfillment of the most evil part of original Judaism. In the Judaic civil war before and during the emergence of Penis ruled islamic jihadism (this is why we now have only less than 10 Million Jews left while there are more than one Billion muslims) Christian Judaism played a significant role. It's at this point most islam analysts go wrong by neglecting the role of sex segregation. Not so Klevius who has realized the obvious fact (that would be obvious for everyone had they not let themselves be so duped by biased propaganda) that just like the male lust for women's bodies (heterosexual attraction) was a good (albeit evil/rapetivist) incentive for gathering jihadists, women's reproductive capability was good (albeit evil/rapetivist) for expanding muslim jihadist/robber/looting "armies" in the past as well as abusing democratic systems of today by the help of those Human Rights islam opposes. In this respect Turkey (the leader of the world's foremost Sharia organization OIC is an islamist Turk) and Saudi Arabia (the home of OIC) are today the most dangerous of islamic terrorist* states. These both islamist states are also protected by the muslim born apostate (?) Mr X "president" Barry Barack Barakeh Hussein Mohammad Obama Dunham Soetoro (or whatever)!
* islam is a terrorist "religion" because its Sharia violates Human Rights, not to mention the widespread racist/sexist street jihadism islam causes. Btw, isn't it tragic that members of islam, which is built on the purest of racist supremacist ideologies, accuse those who don't accept their racist ideology for racism?!
Negative rights for a positive future
Why the Negative Rights are not only more important than any "monotheist" "religion" but their very opposite!
Monday, June 06, 2011
In Klevius series bottomless ignorance about islam: The past is never dead - the islamic origin of Viking atrocities
Klevius comment: Would you believe it. This writer doesn't even mention islam!? This statement is just the opposite to the historical facts -. see Origin of Vikings. The first Vikings not only raided and traded most slaves to muslims, but the Nordic Vikings as a social phenomenon, was initiated by islam's hunger for its main sharia currency, slaves! Islam, through 1400 years, has destroyed everything in its way, including almost an entire continent, Africa.
And now when islam faces the 1948 Universal Human Rights Declaration, it's got only two choices left, to commit suicide through "reformation" or to separate itself from the rest of the world in a racist sexist manner (OIC' Sharia declaration called Islamic "human rights", which was produced for the very purpose of violating the real Human Rights .
No matter how much OIC, PC media and politicians etc, not to mention Saudis & CO, try to hide/avoid the rottening stinking body of the original islamic Leviathan, history inevitably strips its cover faster than the efforts to cover it up. And the covering up efforts are not to be belittled. In fact, we now see a global attempt for the most extensive history falsification ever.