Calling criticism of islam "islamophobia" is pure racism and also supports islamic racism and sexism
Is BBC's Pakistan rooted and Saudi raised muslim(?) presenter Mishal Husain an "islamophobe" against evil* islam, or an apostate supporting toothless** "islam"? She doesn't fast during Ramadan but rather drinks some alcohol, and doesn't veil herself and says she doesn't feel any threats to her way of life (Klevius: thanks to Human Rights - not sharia islam), well knowing how muslim and non-muslim women suffer in muslim sharia countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia without Human Rights. What would she say to a muslim terrorist asking her if she's a muslim? Isn't it about time to stop this bigoted and hypocritical indirect support of islamofascism that this Saudi/OIC initiated "islamophobia" smear camopaign against Human Rights*** is all about?
* Human Rights equality violating sharia islam
** in line with the anti-fascist, anti-racist and anti-sexist U.N.'s 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration.
*** Socialists have an ideological problem with individual Human Rights, and are therefore vulnerable for islamism (see Klevius 1994).
Is UK turning into a militaristic unconstitutional islamofascist rogue state?
Negative Human Rights for a Positive Human Future
Everything Peter Klevius writes (or has written) is guided by the anti-sexist. anti-racist, and anti-fascist Universal* Human Rights declaration of 1948. In other words, what is declared immoral and evil is so done as measured against the most basic of Human Rights (the so called "negative" rights - i.e. the rights of the individual not to be unnecessarily targeted with restrictions and impositions). Unlike the 1948 Universal Human Rights (UHR) declaration, islam denies Human Rights equality to women and non-muslims. And violation of such basic Human Rights can't be tolerated just by referring to "freedom of religion".
* This means accepting everyone - without exception due to e.g. sex, religion, lack of religion, "security" etc. - as equal in Human Rights. The individual is protected by negative Human Rights, but of course not against substantiated legal accusations - as long as these are not produced as a means that violates the basic Human Rights (compare "not necessary in a free, democratic country"). The legislator may not produce laws that seek to undermine some individuals rights. This also includes e.g. "freedom of religion", i.e. that this freedom doesn't give the right to unfree others, or cause others to be in an inferior rights position. If by islam you mean something that fully adheres to basic Human Rights equality, then you aren't targeted by Peter Klevius islam criticism. However, if you mean islam accepts violations of the most basic of Human Rights, then you may also call Peter Klevius an "islamophobe" - and he will be proud of it. And when it comes to "security" it can't mean "offending" opponents to basic Human Rights.
This is why any effort to twist or accuse the writings of Peter Klevius as "islamophobia" etc. can only be made from a standpoint against these basic Human Rights. As a consequence, no body of authority can therefore accuse, hinder etc. Peter Klevius without simultaneously revealing its own disrespect for these Human Rights. Conversely, Peter Klevius can not accuse anyone who agrees on these rights - i.e. this leaves e.g. "islamophobia" etc. accusations against Peter Klevius without merit.
Every effort against these basic Human Rights is treason against a country calling itself free and democratic.
Most people today are A(mono)theists, i.e. not "believing" in an impossible "one god"*. Such a "collective god" would mean equally many personal "gods" as there are believers/interpretors. "Monotheisms" are for racist/sexist movements - not for individuals. Human Rights are for individuals living among individuals with same rights.
Religion always means a total or partial reduction of some people's (e.g. women''s) Human Rights equality.
Being against A(mono)theism must be categorized as contempt of basic Human Rights equality because "monotheists" have doctrines which can't comply with basic Human Rights equality.
Klevius moral formula is a bedrock you can't beat:
1 There's no absolute and fixed moral in a dynamic society.
2 Therefor we have to repeatedly agree on a minimum moral and equality for all.
3 In doing so we are logically forced to approve of negative Human Rights, i.e. not to impose restrictions other than necessary in a democracy based on as much freedom as possible for all individuals - no matter of sex, race etc. And, for the truly dumb ones, do note that this definition excludes the freedom to restrict freedom.
* Though some people keep calling their own racist/sexist "interpretation" as "god's/allah's will").
Klevius "islamophobia" CV
Some basic facts to consider about Klevius* (except that he is both "extremely normal" and extremely intelligent - which fact, of course, would not put you off if you're really interested in these questions):
* Mentored by G. H. von Wright, Wittgenstein's successor at Cambridge.
1 Klevius' analysis of consciousness is the only one that fits what we know - after having eliminated our "pride" bias of being humans (which non-human would we impress, anyway?). Its starting point is described and exemplified in a commentary to Jurgen Habermas in Klevius book Demand for Resources (1992:30-33, ISBN 9173288411, based on an article by Klevius from 1981), and is further explained in a commentary to Francis Crick's book The Astonishing Hypothesis under the title The Even More Astonishing Hypothesis (EMAH), which can be found in Stalk's archive and which has been on line since 2003 for anyone to access/assess.
2 Klevius out of island/mainland fluctuating Southeast Asia Denisovans up to big skulled Siberians as the birth of much more intelligent modern humans who then spread all over the world, is the only analysis that fits both genetic reality as well as tool and art sophistication seen in e.g. the Denisova cave (no dude, Blombos etc. don’t come even close).
3 Klevius criticism of Human Rights violating sharia islamofascism (e.g. OIC) which is called "islamophobia" by islamofascists and their supporters who don't care about the most basic of Human Rights (e.g. re. women). Klevius' "islamophobia" has two roots: 1) UN's 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration, which, contrary to any form of muslim sharia, doesn't, for example, allow sex to be an excuse for robbing females of their full Human Rights equality, and 2) the history of the origin of islam ( e.g. Hugh Kennedy, Robert G. Hoyland, K. S. Lal etc.) which reveals a murderous, pillaging, robbing, enslaving and raping racist/sexist supremacist ideology that exactly follows precisely those basic islamic tenets which are now called "unislamic" but still survive today (as sharia approved sex slavery, sharia approved "liberation” jihad, academic jihad etc.) behind the sharia cover which is made even more impenetrable via the spread of islamic finance, mainly steered from the islamofascist Saudi dictator family.
4 Klevius analysis of sex segregation/apartheid (now deceptively called “gender segregation”) and heterosexual attraction - see e.g. Demand for Resources (1981/1992), Daughters of the Social State (1993), Angels of Antichrist (1996), Pathological Symbiosis (2003), or Klevius PhD research on heterosexual attraction/sex segregation and opposition to female footballers (published in book form soon).
Klevius can no longer distinguish between the techniques of BBC and Nazi propaganda - can you!
Racist Theresa May is robbing EU citizens of their Human Rights
Support Klevius' Atheist anti-fascism against islamofascism
Klevius to dumb (or just evil) alt-left "antifa" people who support the worst of Human Rights violating evil:
True anti-fascism in its purest form is laid down in the Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948. Islam (OIC) has in UN decided to abandon the most basic of these rights (the so called negative Human Rights).
Fascism is, according to Google's top hit, "a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation*, and forcible suppression of opposition." 23 Aug 2017
So let's face islam with this definition.
A political philosophy, movement, or regime (islam) that exalts nation (Umma) and often race (muslims) above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government (Koran text/Mohammad's example) headed by a dictatorial leader (the caliph - e.g. the Saudi based OIC's Saudi leader), severe economic and social regimentation* (sharia), and forcible suppression of opposition (apostasy ban against muslims wanting to leave islam, and demonizing defenders of Human Rights by calling them "islamophobes").
And islamofascism gets away with it by calling itself a religion and thereby being protected by those very Human Rights it opposes.
* According to Cambridge dictionary, "extreme organization and control of people".
Human Rights is diversity - sharia is the opposite
The evil of Sharia islam is what makes it incompatible with Negative Human Rights (i.e. why islamic OIC violates Human Rights by replacing them with Sharia, hence excluding women and non-muslims from equality). The evil of islam and its origin may be easier to grasp with historical examples, e.g. the Origin of Vikings.
It's racism and sexism even if proposed by a "god"! Klevius altruistic virtual volunteering for the world community in defense of Universal Human Rights . Yes, I know, it's unfair. Klevius vs islam, i.e. Universal Human Rights vs Sharia (OIC) racism/sexism! Of course Klevius will win. The question is just how long we should allow the dying beast to make people suffer. (Negative) Human Rights is not a ”Western” invention! It’s where you end up when you abandon racism and sexism, idiot! After you have abandoned islam! Your confused islamophilia and ignorance about Human Rights make YOU an accomplice to islam's crimes! Whereas Human Rights work as egalitarian and universal traffic rules (no matter who you are or what you drive you have the same rights as everyone else) islam/Sharia differs between muslim men and the rest (women and "infidels")!
Have you noticed that when the history of slavery is (PC) debated islam is always excluded/excused? Atlantic slave trade and Roman slaves are eagerly mentioned while the world's by far worst, longest and most extensive one is blinked, as is the fact that islam not only sanctions slavery but is itself built on slavery and sex slavery (rapetivism)! The core idea of islam is the most thoroughly elaborated parasitism ever, i.e. what in 1400 yrs has made it the by far worst crime ever. But thanks to islamic teachings muslims are kept extremely ignorant about the evil origin of islam (institutionalized parasitism based on slave finance, rapetivism and pillage). Ohlig: The first two "islamic" centuries lie in the shadows of history. Klevius: There was no islam or islamic Mohammad (that's why the Saudis have levelled Mohammad's "grave" etc), only the evil murdering, pillaging and raping Aramaic-Arabic Jewish("Christian") led illiterate Arab thugs chasing for booty and sex. The "success" of this formula became later institutionalized and codified as a one way (Koran/Sharia) moral excuse (Allah) for further racist/sexist genocides. The bedrock and currency of this system was racist slavery. However, with Enlightenment the new idea of individual (negative) Human Rights emerged (incl. abolishing of slavery) and were, much later (1948), written down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights according to which everyone is equal no matter of sex, beliefs etc. Just like in traffic! But unlike traffic rules no one really seems to care about guarding our most precious asset as human beings. Instead racist sexist islamofascism (OIC and the Cairo Sharia declaration) is protected by Human Rights while they strive to undermine and eventually destroy these Human Rights! And most people don't seem to get it. Always remember, there is no islam without Human Rights violating racist/sexist Sharia. So a "vote" for Sharia-islam is AGAINST democracy and the freedom part of Human Rights!
Sayeeda Warsi (UK's non-elected OIC/Sharia politician) in essence doesn't differ from those muslim Saudi women who approve of sex slavery etc, other than that she is either ignorant or a traitor (against democracy and Human Rights) of the worst kind.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Black victims are eagerly presented in media and cynically rallied for scum political aims, while black racists and white victims are kept out of light
Kent Police in UK were called to Gloster Way in Aycliffe, Dover/UK (port to France) at 4.15am following concerns for 19-year-old Elisa Frank, sister to one of the slaughtered girls in Wakefield, West Yorkshire, and a previous girlfriend to Ahmed Otak. Her tip-off led to the discovery of two dead women, Samantha Sykes and Kim Frank, in Frank’s flat in Wakefield, West Yorkshire from where Elisa Frank was allegedly kidnapped by Ahmed Otak, who was in company with two others whom the Dover/Kent police then released (?!).
Klevius comment: Do I need to tell you that BBC, who first eagerly followed the French police chase of the alleged "right-wing" serial murderer, suddenly lost all interest in the case (2 min compared to 10 min for Humperdink's Eurovision song in a World News program) when he turned out to be a muslim jihadist, Mohamed Merah.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
The web's most racist comments (made by "Ms Lucy Black") removed from Yahoo and from investigation?!
These comments by "Ms Lucy Black" must be some of the most disgusting and racist comments ever posted on the net, yet no action, and a couple of days later it's nowhere to be seen nor is there any arrest made or effort to trace the racist. Is it because she's black, muslim or both?
Klevius comment: This is just the tip of an enormous iceberg of anti-white racism mainly composed by islam (Saudi/OIC) and "political correctness".
Jihad victims made invisible after first being stabbed to death and then publicly racially abused
These UK girls were allegedly stabbed to death by Ahmed Otak who had also allegedly kidnapped one of the girls sister.
And while people are frequently chased, harrassed and arrested for almost whatever "racist" remarks the worst ones get free.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
However, when two white UK girls, Samantha Sykes and Kim Frank, allegedly were murdered by Ahmed Otak in what looks like a clear case of islamic hate crime inspired by Sharia, a black racist posted the following:
Klevius question: Is she already arrested?!
Saturday, March 17, 2012
While Clooney is arrested and islam criticism is silenced islam (the worst of crimes) goes free and continues abusing, raping and murdering - and Mr X respects it
The worst crime in islam, and hence a basic definition of islam, is to leave islam. Hence respecting islam equals respecting its apostasy ban.
Mr X "president" wouldn't dare to target Sudan's Omar al-Bashir on whom the International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for war crimes etc. Despite the inevitable screaming fact that this muslim islamofascist is by far the worst in the whole of Africa. It's easier to arrest Clooney and help the islamofascist Saudi muslim organization OIC to silence "islamophobes".
Democracy has become popular among majority Sunni muslims who hate minority Shia muslims
Saudi supported salafists in Egypt aim to ban bikinis, alcohol, pornography, the teaching of English etc. And Mr X "president" respects it.
The continuing "low scale" (albeit cumulatively enormous) racist/sexist islamic assaulting raping and murdering
White girls and islam inspired murders, rapes, kidnappings etc.
Ahmed Otak (middle) accused of murdering Samantha Sykes and Kim Frank (right) sister of Elisa Frank who had previously dated him and whom he allegedly kidnapped to Dover (where the tunnel out of England is). Due to the total lack of information (while BBC is full of programs and "news" about a back guy killed a couple of decades ago). The teenage girls who tried to defend Kim's siter were slaughtered with a big kitchen knife and it would come as no surprise if they were decapitated as well in accordance with islamic Sharia. But as always we are kept ignorant about the facts.
Here a black racist's comment to these murders.
Ms Lucy Black • 4 days ago
If this is how white females who date out end up, I think they should do it more.
Ms Lucy Black • 4 days ago
Neither of them are "beautiful". They're just white.
Ms Lucy Black • 4 days ago
Who the hell cares. Just white females. There are plenty more alive unfortunately.
Lying about islam
Nick Cohen: The British Museum's current Hajj exhibition charts the history of Mecca as a destination for pilgrims with the wariness of a conscript crossing a minefield. The exhibition sticks to the authorised version of "religious scholars". It allows no discussion of the findings of historians of Islam – "true scholars who have read more than one book", as Richard Dawkins puts it – that the traditional account is as much a fairy story as the traditional accounts of Christianity and Judaism. Fear of bombs in the building or of staff receiving the same treatment as Salman Rushdie and Ayaan Hirsi Ali have kept evidence about the Muhammad of history far from public view.
The exhibition goes further than the standard tongue-biting editor or panicked publisher, however. It not only fails to question Islam's foundation myths but augments the myth-making by excluding evidence that might embarrass the Saudi royal family. In a piece for the American arts magazine Guernica, Joy Lo Dico embarrasses other critics by pointing out what was in front of their noses. Saudi Arabia provided exhibits. The Saudi royal family's King Abdulaziz Public Library partnered the museum. HSBC Amanah, a bank that issues sharia-compliant loans, sponsored the show. By negligence or design, nothing in the exhibition offends the Saudi state, which derives legitimacy from its control of sacred sites and income from pilgrims.
You might have thought that of all people the museum's director, Neil MacGregor, would deplore cultural vandalism. The author of A History of the World in 100 Objects would surely deprecate the destruction of buildings of historical significance. He must know that Saudi's monarchical dictatorship has wrecked Mecca with an abandon worthy of the Taliban. It has destroyed the remnants of the 7th-century city, most notably the houses of the prophet, his first wife and Abu Bakr, father of Aisha, one of Muhammad's other wives.
According to the Wahhabi monarchy's puritanical and iconoclastic version of Islam, anything that generates idolatry – images of the prophet, homes associated with him – is dangerous. So medieval Mecca had to go.
Klevius comment: The British Museum does not mention this at all and Mr X "president" respects islamofascism.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
As you can see Santorum, despite his double wins, doens't manage to make it to Google's Top Stories list among septic tanks, Jews, Honolulu or Ron Paul (a candidate who has no possibilities to survive).
Thursday, March 08, 2012
Klevius comment: Obama hence also supports Kony's LRA via Bashir.
Some old news (1870) from the same area and same islam
S W Baker: It is impossible to know the actual number of slaves taken from Central Africa annually; but I should imagine that at least fifty thousand are
positively either captured and held in the various zareebas (or camps)
or are sent via the White Nile and the various routes overland by Darfur
and Kordofan. The loss of life attendant upon the capture and subsequent
treatment of the slaves is frightful. The result of this forced
emigration, combined with the insecurity of life and property, is the
withdrawal of the population from the infested districts. The natives
have the option of submission to every insult, to the violation of their
women and the pillage of their crops, or they must either desert their
homes and seek independence in distant districts, or ally themselves
with their oppressors to assist in the oppression of other tribes. Thus
the seeds of anarchy are sown throughout Africa, which fall among tribes
naturally prone to discord. The result is horrible confusion,--distrust
on all sides,--treachery, devastation, and ruin.
It appeared that slavery and the slave trade of theWhite Nile were institutions almost necessary to the existence of
It was obvious to all observers that an attack upon the slave-dealing
and slave-hunting establishments of Egypt by a foreigner--an
Englishman--would be equal to a raid upon a hornets' nest, that all
efforts to suppress the old-established traffic in negro slaves would be
encountered with a determined opposition, and that the prime agent and
leader of such an expedition must be regarded "with hatred, malice, and
all uncharitableness." At that period (1869) the highest authorities
were adverse to the attempt. An official notice was despatched from the
British Foreign Office to the Consul-General of Egypt that British
subjects belonging to Sir Samuel Baker's expedition must not expect the
support of their government in the event of complications. The
enterprise was generally regarded as chimerical in Europe, with
hostility in Egypt, but with sympathy in America.
It was freely stated that an Englishman was placed in
command because an Egyptian could not be relied upon to succeed, but
that the greed of new territory was the actual and sole object of the
expedition, and that the slave-trade would reappear in stupendous
activity when the English personal influence should be withdrawn. Such
unsympathetic expressions must have been a poor reward to the Khedive
for his efforts to win the esteem of the civilized world by the
destruction of the slave-trade in his own dominions.
Few persons have considered the position of the Egyptian ruler when
attacking the institution most cherished by his people. The employment
of an European to overthrow the slave-trade in deference to the opinion
of the civilized world was a direct challenge and attack upon the
assumed rights and necessities of his own subjects. The magnitude of the
operation cannot be understood by the general public in Europe. Every
household in Upper Egypt and in the Delta was dependent upon slave
service; the fields in the Soudan were cultivated by slaves; the women
in the harems of both rich and middle class were attended by slaves; the
poorer Arab woman's ambition was to possess a slave; in fact, Egyptian
society without slaves would be like a carriage devoid of wheels--it
could not proceed.
In the year 1870 the slave-hunting of Central Africa was condemned.
Since that time Englishmen have been honoured with the special attention
of the Khedive, and have been appointed to posts of the highest
confidence. European tribunals were established in the place of consular
jurisdiction, British government officials have been invited to reform
the financial administration, and Mr. Rivers Wilson has been induced to
accept the responsible office of Minister of Finance. Nubar Pacha has
been recalled to office, and he must regard with pride the general
confidence occasioned throughout Europe by his reappointment. The
absolute despotism hitherto inseparable from Oriental ideas of
government has been spontaneously abrogated by the Khedive, who has
publicly announced his determination that the future administration
shall be conducted by a council of responsible ministers.
I found lands varying in natural capabilities according to their
position and altitudes--where sugar, cotton, coffee, rice, spices, and
all tropical produce might be successfully cultivated; but those lands
were without any civilized form of government, and "every man did what
seemed right in his own eyes."
In this dislocated state of society, the slave trade prospered to the
detriment of all improvement. Rich and well-populated countries were
rendered desolate; the women and children were carried into captivity;
villages were burnt, and crops were destroyed or pillaged; the
population was driven out; a terrestrial paradise was converted into an
infernal region; the natives who were originally friendly were rendered
hostile to all strangers, and the general result of the slave trade
could only be expressed in one word--"ruin."
The slave hunters and traders who had caused this desolation were for
the most part Arabs, subjects of the Egyptian government.
These people had deserted their agricultural occupations in the Soudan
and had formed companies of brigands in the pay of various merchants of
Khartoum. The largest trader had about 2,500 Arabs in his pay, employed
as pirates or brigands, in Central Africa. These men were organized
after a rude military fashion, and armed with muskets; they were divided
into companies, and were officered in many cases by soldiers who had
deserted from their regiments in Egypt or the Soudan.
Sunday, March 04, 2012
Militant Judaic/Christian faith paved the way for militant islam (the worst hate crime ever) and, after islam's attacks, rigid* Catholicism
For a better understanding of the posting headline please see Origin of Vikings
And for a better understanding of the concept 'marriage' see Sex segregation, Marriage, Kinship and Friendship
About heterosexual attraction confusing the debate see From evolution, hetero-sexual attraction and bio-kinship to sex-segregation and racism
A senselessly ignorant Catholic Cardinal
Klevius comment: Cardinal Keith O'Brien is a grotesque subversion of Human Rights! For his information Human Rights are UNIVERSAL unlike "religious rights" which are tied to "beliefs", "god's laws" etc. This means that Human Rights are aimed to protect same-sex relations from racists and sexists such as e.g. Cardinal Keith O'Brien.
Proposed reading for the Cardinal and others ignorant about the crucial difference between Human Rights and religion: What does Negative Human Rights mean?
Or is he so sly so he, like OIC and other islamists, uses the expression "human right" for the simple and cheap purpose of confusing those less informed?!
However, Keith isn't alone in his "religious" evilness. A much more important role is played by the world's main islamofascist muslim organization OIC (Organization of islamic Cooperation) which not only has replaced Human Rights with islamofascist Sharia but moreover, also has taken UN hostage for the purpose of criminalizing criticism/scrutiny of islam. the worst ideological hate crime ever against humanity. Islam's history of 1400 years of slavery, genocides and rapetivism is so immense that if you haven't started scatching it a yet you will be surprised beyond imagination of islam's original inborn evilness. In fact, this is why issues regarding islam are so "sensitive" that they have to be hidden behind a wall of denial! This is why your children are taught a perverted version of real, original islam! And this is also why the evil original islam is always surfacing after the "moderate islam" has paved the way (according to Turkish PM Erdogan "moerate islam" doesn't even exist).
Klevius' personal experience of Catholicism
In 2000 I met a nice mother of two in San Francisco with whom I and one of my children spent some lovely time. She, or at least her husband (who didn't show any interest in me), was a Catholic. Rooted in Scandinavia I naively happened to ask her whether they already had installed female priests there. The reaction this question had on her baffled me. She gave me a look full of embarrassed guilt when she told me such plans were quite far from immanent. And soon after she stopped showing up, I still wonder why...
Muslim born (apostate (?!) Mr X "president" together with OIC support violent muslim jihad by blaming it on non-violent non-muslim critics of islam. Islamofascists want to silence non-islamic scrutiny of islam
OIC has for long eagerly asked for an international law that would criminalize criticism, "stigmatization" or "stereotyping" of islam. Resolution 16/18 approved by Obama during a three-day conference in Washington, where he and Hillary Clinton committed to the key principal muslims have been seeking for years, i.e. blaming “free speech” for “sectarian clashes”, i.e. muslim jihadist violence. The U.N. strategy, proposed by Pakistan “on behalf of OIC” seeks to blame any statement about islam to which muslims would react violently on what is described as “incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”.
Klevius question: Doesn't the Catholic homophobe above fit in the “incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence” classification, especially when considering the widespread violent hostility out there against same sex relations, especially in muslim countries but also in muslim enclaves in the West?
How can we avoid "sensitive muslims" who occupy our surroundings in a for us intrusive and offensive way? Shouldn't non-muslims have the right to be served by a non-muslim instead of being harrassed by muslims?
You may also be interested to read the latest news on brain research and how it still struggles to catch up with EMAH