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 BBS'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, May 31, 2012
Islam's racist/sexist evilness covered up by OIC and muslim ignorance about the creation of Mohammed
Hugh Kennedy (professor of Arabic language and Arabic history): "Before Abd al-Malik (caliph 685-705) alleged Mohammed (allegedly dead 632) is never mentioned on any official document whatsoever nor any form of religious pronouncement”!
Klevius: Isn't it slightly embarrassing that islam itself, i.e. its scriptures, doesn't recognize its main character until some generations after his death?! And that the name Mohammed existed long before Mohammed himself! So it's hardly surprising to find Christian notions of leaders of Saracean murderers called Mohammed (from the Christian 'chosen one') described as 'false prophets'.
More than 80% of islamic basic texts are about Mohammed, yet according to historical research Mohammed didn't even exist!
The most laughable, albeit also tragic feature of making the slavery/rapetivism manual called Koran "holy" is the demand that it should only be read/recited/understood in Arabic. Not only is there any connection between Koran and Mohammed before Malik spiced it with him, but there also is no way of making sense of such a connection even if it did exist! The first coins using Kufic script date from around 700 (compare Klevius groundbreaking albeit obvious theory about the beginning of the Viking’s slave girl raiding/trading for islam). During and after Muhammed only the Jazm script was in use. Hence the earliest copies of Korans were written without vowels and without the aid of diacritical signs for the correct meaning. Islam became the religion of the state under caliph Abd al-Malik, notorious for his cruelty. This happened because the islamic trafficking of slaves (Sharia finance) had by then grown to such an extent that it became necessary to build a lot of big mosques (see Origin of Mosque) to better deal with this enormous dirty business. This is also reflected in the various appraisals among African slaves in what is today's Iraq. Still, in the year 690, some 60 years after the alleged death date of Mohammed, Bar Penkaye did not know that the Koran existed hence indicating that Abdl-Malik's compilation and use of it was even later.
When should this disgusting racist black 'Ms Lucy Black' internet troll be hunted down and prosecuted?!
The picture of the girls is inserted by Klevius in the postings. If someone needs the original screen dump just ask for it?
While white racism is almost entirely eradicated in the West (I don't know about Ukraine and other eastern European countries, but I can assure you it won't last long there either) black/colored racism is still abundant and to a high extent boosted by Saudi/islamic hate mongering. However, no main stream seems willing to report it!? Why?
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Before shouting "islamophobia", aswer this question: Do you support islam or Human Rights? You can't get both!
So let's rather talk about what real islam is really doing! I try to make it short and easy:
1 Real islam is today undeniably OIC (Organization of islamic cooperation). OIC consists of 57 member states and has abandoned Human Rights and replaced them with Sharia in the UN (a fact most ignorant "revolutionaries" in the "Arabic spring" were quite misinformed about!
2 Because of the enormity of islam's slavery and genocide atrocities throughout its existence, and because of the share numbers of those poor (because of islam's innate parasitism and due impotency for producing other than new muslims) people not daring (apostasy ban) calling themselves other than "muslims", many feel it's impossibly to really point out how disgusting islam really is!
Hence the only option is to cover it up by calling it "defamation of religion" thus protecting islam from its own evilness. It was pure evilness (hateful racism and sexism) that paved the way for islam's original jihad slaughtering and enslaving and much later on, under Malik, became Koran and Mohammedanism, i.e. the atrocities were reformulated as "the will of Allah", i.e. blamed on "god". Not only that, islam's specific evilness also consists of its one way policy, i.e. that islam ideally wants to swallow individuals but never let them out again. Likewise, for islam it's impossible to accept full equality between the sexes. Especially this point makes it impossible for islam to exist in a world that follows the 1948 Human Rights declaration which clearly states that there should not be any limitation because of an individuals sex etc.
Of course one could imagine a scenario were islam reforms in accordance with the basic freedom principles in the original Human Rights declaration. However, that would be the end of islam itself and Klevius could immediately stop writing about it! This ideal scenario, however, has been made impossible by Saudi based OIC and those who naively or deliberately have supported it! Every muslim who doesn't accept this must rename to non-Sharia muslim or abandon muslimhood altogether.
Monday, May 28, 2012
1 Sharia (Cairo declaration) instead of Human Rights.
2 Criminalization of criticism ("islamophobia") against the worst racist/sexist hate crime ever against humanity.
Barry Rubin doesn’t want to talk about evil islam. And doesn’t count Saudi wahhabism as radical! Wonder why?
1 For most of history, the systematic interpretation and praxis of Islam held by contemporary revolutionary Islamists did not exist (Klevius: Oh yes, it existed, it’s called the Koran and was put together under Malik a few generations after the alleged Mohammed allegedly died). Thirty years ago, the radicals and their ideas (i.e. Koran) were marginal, viewed as crackpot by most Muslims (Klevius: Really! Sure it wasn't lack of those resources and that power that the Saudi's & Co have used for hate mongering?!). The Islamists (Klevius: And muslim feminists - see Klevius definition of feminism!) are well aware of this, and are themselves quite critical of Islam as it has been practiced since the seventh century or so.
Indeed, that “pristine” Islam they (Klevius: I.e. islamists and feminists) claim is the only proper Islam never existed. In his new book, Did Muhammad Exist?, Robert Spencer (Klevius: Who, together with Pamela Geller, is eagerly spat on by CAIR etc muslim front organizations in the US) argued persuasively that this mythical “fundamentalist” Islam didn’t even exist in the era of its birth and expansion (Klevius: Well duh, according to Hugh Kennedy, professor of Arabic language and Arabic history,"before Abd al-Malik, caliph 685-705, Mohammed, who allegedly died 632, is never mentioned on any official document whatsoever...", and according to Klevius, one has to differ between the evil plundering, enslavement and rapetivism in the vacuum after the Romans, and its “moral” institutionalization – by blaiming Allah – a couple of generations later under Malik!). What is indisputable is that within a few years of Muhammad’s death, both the caliphate and political rule over Muslims passed to the Umayyad dynasty which compiled much of what we know today as Islam and yet is considered to have been rather irreligious in practice (Klevius: Told you! Although looting and rapetivism constitute the backbone of “monotheism” it’s never admitted by the religious ones) by most Muslims. The Shia hate it (Klevius: And are therefore punished - now by Saudi & Co and their Western useful idiots!). Then came the not wildly pious Abbasid dynasty (see Klevius Origin of Vikings) eventually followed by the equally worldly Turkish dynasties. Over the course of 1200 (sic) years the “caliphate” was pretty much a matter of, to use Mao Zedong’s phrase, politics in command (Klevius: All islamic societies have lived on slavery and when slavery was abolished or made difficult by Europeans the Ottoman "empire" immediately stagnated).
The period when Islam was supposedly conducted according to the ideal of the Islamists and the Islam-is-innately-radical (Klevius: sic – evil became suddenly ‘radical’?!) crowd was for about a quarter-century after Muhammad’s death. And even during that brief era two of the three caliphs were assassinated and there was a bloody civil war that deposed the fourth one. Even according to Muslim calculation, then, the actual golden age of unity over what Islam meant and how it should be organized lasted two years after Muhammad’s death.
Consequently, the Islamists (Klevius: Now they’ve transformed into ‘islamists’) claim that for almost all of the 1200-plus years since Muhammad died virtually all Muslims—including the strict Saudi Wahhabis (Klevius: So the Saudi Wahhabists don’t count as radical, evil or islamist!? Someone ought to check Mr Rubin’s financial flow – does it stem from Riyadh?) –misunderstood Islam! So how can it be claimed by Western non-Muslims that all of those qadis, scholars, preachers, and pious Muslims were doing it wrong and that the radical Islamists are the truly correct Muslims?
And that’s how most Muslims have thought until very recently. I call this actually-existing religion that the Islamists condemn “conservative-traditionalist Islam” (Klevius: And the muslim feminists – who, like the “islamists”, also want to go back to the “roots of islam” - condemn “conservative- patriarchal islam”!). It was definitely not liberal or tolerant but it was and is quite different from the contemporary Islamist groups. Of course, there were many Sharia-mandated laws and practices in common with the Islamists, but many other points were not observed in practice, while other Islamist interpretation were not accepted at all. Certainly there was not a completely religious regime that matched the goals of an Usama bin Ladin, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, or Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi (Klevius: Oops, no mentioning of the most intolerant of them all, Saudi Arabia and its allies, e.g. Sudan, Bahrain etc!?).
Klevius crushing* of this ignorant, confused and naïve (or bribed?!) balancing-in-the-empty-middle (does Saudi Wahhabism really fit there?!) view on islam: The Turkish Ottoman Caliph! Hello Mr Rubin, are you awake! His name is Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, and the Ottoman Empire is now the OIC Caliphate that he leads together with the Saudi caliph (yes, there have been more than one caliph defore), who gets his position as “the Guardian of islam” because the Sauds’ right hand happens to possess the stolen land where Mecca and Medina are situated as well as the oil that generates the Saudi wealth! OIC’s Fuhrer, Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu himself said “that for 13 centuries, Muslims had shared a feeling of belonging to the muslim ummah, or global community, bound together under the banner of the caliphate.that ended when the modern Turkish republic succeeded the Ottoman Empire in the years after World War I. Following the abolition of the Ottoman Caliphate, many Muslims found themselves, for the first time throughout their history, facing the absence of the polity under which they lived for several centuries. The establishment of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (now name changed to the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation) can be seen as the embodiment of the concept of Islamic solidarity in the contemporary world”.
What is completely missing from Barry Rubin’s nonsense “analysis” is an often neglected detail. But a detail with proportions bigger than anything else on the planet Earth, i.e. what Klevius names ‘rapetivism’ and which is a consequence of sex segregation/apartheid, and which Klevius described in Angels of Antichrist, 1996:
In 1897, the first female Nobel prize winner in literature, Selma Lagerlöf from Sweden, wrote in her novel Antikrists mirakler ("The Miracles of Antichrist") that socialism is the disguise of Antichrist, conceived as the power of evil in the mask of goodness. Lagerlöf, however, also described women voluntarily helping poor people while bearing the growing idea of socialism in their hearts. She ended the novel in a rather optimistic mood, saying that we need not fear Antichrist if we just place the picture of him beside the picture of Christ. Although the simple Sicilian women in Lagerlöf’s novel, following the Good Samaritan, showed no signs of evil, they were certainly part of a movement that would become the most widespread political force ever. The question, however, remains; is it an evil one?
Apart from the obvious fact that they both have eliminated the concept of “god”, either by denying its validity altogether, or abusing it as a recycle bin for moral excuses, socialism and islam have in common the idea of an ideal “social state” as opposed to the not trustworthy individuals occupying it. This is why the so called Negative Human Rights, i.e. the very basis for freedom from state or religious oppression, never have been popular among true socialists and communists, and completely unacceptable in islam (this is why OIC has abandoned Human Rights and replaced them with Sharia in their manifesto, the so called Cairo declaration on Islamic “human rights”).
Not only are people in general, due to gross misinformation about islam, mostly unaware of OIC’s open violation against those Human Rights that were introduced to protect us against totalitarian ideologies, and that OIC wants to criminalize scrutiny (called “defamation”) of the worst ever racist/sexist hate crime against humanity, they are also cheated by the confusing mixing of the term ‘human rights’ in media etc with “islamic human rights”, i.e. Sharia, where the ‘islamic’ is usually left out.
*No one can be that stupid so Klevius assumes foul play, and therefore the harsh language.
2 The revolutionaries also pick and highlight the portions of the Koran and hadith they want while putting emphasis on those respected commentators of the past who support their basic interpretation and downplay those who held different views (Klevius: Isn’t that precisely what you do right now?!). To make Islam identical with revolutionary Islamist political ideology, which is in many ways is also a modern creation, is absurd. Just because the Islamists claim that they are the only “proper” Muslims doesn’t make that true.
Klevius crushing of this ignorant, confused and naïve (or bribed?!) balancing-in-the-empty-middle (does Saudi Wahhabism really fit there?!) view on islam: So where does the peaceful “moderate” muslim get his “truth” identical with islam? Let Klevius try to make it easier to understand for you. There are millions of stamp collectors out there. Most of them started as children, and most of them stopped collecting while keeping the collection in a long forgotten drawer or something, yet still often calling themselves stamp collectors if asked, despite the fact that, unlike islam, there’s no punishment for quitting. Now, the wider you define a stamp collector the more you will find. However, is this mass of collectors really representative of the devoted stamp specialists? Whom would you rather let inform you about stamps?
3 While the idea that Islam has been “hijacked” by Islamists ignores the fact that they have a strong claim to legitimacy, the claim that Islamists represent authentic Islam argues that the majority of the world’s Muslims are the hijackers? Neither side are heretics or hijackers but contenders for power. The Islamists seem to be succeeding—helped by the blindness and foolish policies of the apologists—in seizing control of Islam. That proves hey are dangerous but it doesn’t prove that they’re right.
Klevius crushing of this ignorant, confused and naïve (or bribed?!) balancing-in-the-empty-middle (does Saudi Wahhabism really fit there?!) view on islam: This paragraph is unintelligible but it could be said that the majority of the world’s Muslims are hijacked by islam in that they, due to apostasy ban and the confusing of ethnicity/culture with islam, are “useful idiots” used precisely as Barry Rubin does here, namely to boost and cover real islam. This is why Turkish PM Erdogan and other islamists love saying “there is no moderate islam, only islam”!
4 If the Islamists so obviously represent the proper fulfillment of Islam then why are the biggest opponents of Islamism pious Muslims willing to fight and die to defeat the revolutionaries? Why have the Islamists had such an uphill battle and so often been defeated by other Muslims? If the opponents view Islam as compatible with other interpretations—by no means necessarily liberal but anti-Islamist ones–isn’t that equally valid?
Klevius crushing of this ignorant, confused and naïve (or bribed?!) balancing-in-the-empty-middle (does Saudi Wahhabism really fit there?!) view on islam: First we need to guess what Barry Rubin really means with the term ‘islamism’. Based on his own text Barry Rubin seems to conceptualize islamists as those who want to impose a Sharia dictatorship, seek to destroy U.S. and Western interests (or the West itself), and, because they hate Israel they are prepared to risk their lives and devote extensive resources to trying to commit genocide against it.
However, Wikipedia gives the following definitions:
What puzzles Klevius is how on Earth can’t Saudi Wahhabism fit in at least some of these quite broad definitions?!
5 Other religions have also evolved over time due to changing interpretations and adaptations to different times and conditions. If you were to argue in the Middle Ages—when the dominant interpretation of Christianity was often quite bloodthirsty (Klevius: Let’s see, what happened in the Middle Ages in Europe? Nothing special, except that islam first tried to conquer it and then enslave the more vulnerable of the Europeans – just as it did in Africa and Asia. See Origin of Vikings) —that the Spanish Inquisition or Crusaders (any thought whether this Christian jihadism had anything to do with islam’s previous atrocities? In fact, to such an extent that Klevius has asked whether the strength of Christianity in Medieval and Renaissance Europe was caused by islam’s attacks) were not inevitably the proper view of Christianity, do you think that would have been persuasive at the time? True, Christian texts are far more peace-loving than what is in the Koran, but so what? Try that one on Savonarola or those massacring Protestants in France or executing priests in England just four centuries ago (Klevius: This sentence is so childish so it’s not worth a comment). They would have explained to you that they obviously represented proper Christianity (Klevius: Yes, why wouldn’t they? Haven’t you all the time argued that different groups of muslims claim representing proper islam?!).
Next time you see "fly Qatar" on your news channel, see it for what it is
- a disgusting sign of islamofascist bias!
Thursday, May 24, 2012
What do muslim born apostate (?!) Mr X "president" Barakeh Hussain Obama and muslim born apostate (?!) Sayeeda Hussain Warsi have in common? OIC and a schizophrenic relation to Pakistan and islam!
An US drone allegedly hit and destroyed a mosque in Pakistan in the Hasukhel area of Mir Ali in North Waziristan killing some ten persons while they were praying. Doctors at the Mir Ali hospital said six wounded had been brought in. Among those wounded, one died and four others were in critical condition.
Zaffar Jawaid of the Baloch Human Rights Commission: “Are we Baloch muslims children of a lesser God? Are we not as muslim, as Palestinians or Arabs, to deserve an outcry by the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC), to tell the Pakistan government to stop the massacre of its Baloch population?”
Klevius answer: I'm afraid not.OIC is a Saudi initiated and Saudi based islamofascist organization that (ab)uses democracy to oppress Shia muslims in mainly Arab speaking countries. OIC also utilizes Turk's islamofascist Ottoman aspirations by having a fanatic Egyptian born Turk, Ihsanoglu, as its Fuhrer.
The Baloch are a thorn in the side of Pakistan’s islamofascist movements that take billions of dollars from the West and then fund the Taliban so they can murder US and UK (and other NATO) troops in Afganistan.
Lyari and Balochistan has stood up to the islamofascist agenda of Pakistan’s establishment, corrupt military and Saudi steered ISI.
“We are secular, liberal Muslims who have rejected the path of the Taliban and Al-Qaida, so we (are) being punished by the Pakistani security apparatus, both in Lyari and Balochistan. They want to wipe us off the map, but we have been here for a 1,000 years, long before Pakistan came into existence or its puppets in al-Qaida and the Taliban. Pakistanis can fool the naive governments of Canada and the USA, but not us. We are Baloch."
Klevius comment: Sorry again but you can't possibly be 'muslims' while opposing islamofascist and Saudi led OIC, the world's all covering muslim organization! And this opposition is the very reason you don't get any help from Obama's and Warsi's beloved OIC!
And, btw, ask yourself, are you applying for Sharia or Human Rights?!
Cure your ignorance about islam and sex segregation by reading the web's best informed and least biased source!
Negative Rights for a Positive Future
Angels of Antichrist
(no stupid, Klevius is NOT a Christian - that would pretty much nullify his criticism, wouldn't it)
What is Sex Segregation?
Human Rights from Klevius without Love
Origin of the Vikings
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
are well exposed (although usually in a misleading way) but why do we hear so little about UK's OIC envoy in islamofascist and intolerant Saudi Arabia, Mohammed Shokat?! And why does Britain support islamofascism at all?
'Islamofascism' a too rude word? Not at all if you consider the facts: An organization created for the purpose to hinder muslim women from having full access to Human Rights!
Sayeeda Hussain Warsi pretends to be a "secular muslim" in the West while participating with dark forces who openly deny the very basis (Human Rights) that Western freedom is built on.
However, according to Choudary (islam4uk): “She is somebody who pretends to be a practising muslim but, from her views and statements, she is clearly against Sharia.
Klevius comment: So why is she sitting in the lap of Ihsanoglu in OIC's Sharia headquarter in Saudi Arabia?!
Sayeeda Hussain Warsi is, of course, also an eager homophobe as well: In 2005, she had to apologise after gay rights group Stonewall slammed her campaign leaflets for being anti-gay.
And by Political Scrapbook described as “someone responsible for some of the most vile homophobic leaflets in recent memory”.
But she got support from London Muslim: UK joins the OIC thanks to Sayeeda Warsi Sayeeda Warsi met the Sec Gen to the OIC (organisation of Islamic conference) which coincided with a decision by William Hauge to appoint the UK's first special representative to the OIC.
Monday, May 21, 2012
Totalitarian fanaticism replacing Human Rights while BBC misinforms muslims and others on how they're robbed of their Human Rights!
Sadly, Klevius is still the foremost (and lone?!) expert on sex segregation/apartheid and, consequently, also the web's foremost expert on islam. Why? Because islam rests so heavily on sex segregation/apartheid, even in its most "secular" form (as long as it's meaningful at all to call it islam) that an effort to understand islam without understanding sex segregation/apartheid is doomed to complete failure! In essence what Klevius is doing is in Bourdieu's words 'to restore to historical action, the relationship between the sexes that the naturalistic and essentialist vision removes from them'. And where Bourdieu went to the Kabyles Klevius went to the origin of islam, Christianity and Judaism!
Klevius beats BBC in reporting on the most essential and critical issue of our time: OIC and its Fuhrer Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu's islamofascist violation of the most basic of Human Rights!
BBC, the largest broadcaster in the world, has as its main responsibility to provide impartial public service broadcasting.
Klevius question: How come then that Klevius beats BBC when it comes to informing about OIC? As you can see on the 'OIC BBC' search below Klevius' 'BBC News', i.e. not BBC, is the first to offer real info about OIC. on the web (see the eighth result on the pic below: BBC News by Klevius)! And to really prove it you will find a picture of the first BBC post (BBC News - Profile: Organization of the Islamic Conference) further down to show that it completely avoids to inform the most essential feature of OIC, namely that it has abandoned Human Rights and replaced them with Sharia.
According to BBC OIC's aims are to 'safeguard islamic holy places' (Klevius comment: Those places are already carefully destroyed by the Sauds) and toe eradicate racial discrimination (meaning Human Rights "discrimination" of islamic Sharia) and colonialism (sic - islam has been the worst colonizer ever throughout 1400 years!). But nowhere in BBC's text can you find the most important namely OIC's violation of Human Rights by replacing them with Sharia!
While BBC has some 23,000 staff Klevius is not only alone* and without resources, he is also deliberately hindered in his extremely informative work by active and continuous "islamophobia filtering". Yes, Klevius knows that he could do much better by avoiding words like 'islamofascism' etc. but he loves it.
* no offence to other "islamophobes" out there but Klevius happens to be the one with the best potency for evaluating the origin of islam from a perspective of sex segregation/rapetivism.
Sunday, May 20, 2012
A Norwegian 10th-grader accused of supporting Breivik when she warned for the islamization of Human Rights
A Norwegian 10th-grader student is accused of supporting Breivik's political views in her speech on 17 May in Norwegian National Day celebration on the Gran Canaria.
And here is a Norwegian typical PC comment on the matter.
Morten Stensrud, Project leader at Kristiansand property (Klevius’ translation from Norwegian): It’s Breivik’s ideology that has led to his mass murder. If you share something of this ideology you need to take the whole package.
Klevius comment: You're so right Mr Stensrud. Every muslim should be responsible for islam's atrocities. However, that's not the same as when the girl and Breivik both happened to warn against islamization, i.e. warning against those who want to discredit and eliminate Universal Human Rights.
The head of the Parents Committee (FAU), Ronny Kiil Olsen said he supports the girl who gave the speech. - It was a speech which I approved and which was perhaps a little controversial. She is a reflective girl who came up with some political statements about the constitutional changes and mentioned among other things, the Islamization and Breivik.
However, "several of the audience reacted strongly" (!?) and the management at the Norwegian School of Gran Canaria, represented by principal Benedikte Grongstad, "regrets the incident" and said he is very sorry that this speech was part of a great event like 17 May.
Klevius comment: If islam is OIC, and OIC abandons Human Rights by replacing them with Sharia (the burning Cairo declaration on the pic above), then
a) What's so wrong with warning for "islamization" in a nation built on those Universal Human Rights islam spits on?
b) Why would the fact that both the student and Breivik opposed islamization make the student connected to Breivik's crime?!Moreover, there are many "secular muslims" (i.e. "muslims" who have, in practice, abandoned islam) who share Breivik's and the student's fear of islamization.
The only answer to these questions seems to be that the Saudi led islamization is approved of while the Universal Human Rights basis that Norwegian nationality has prided itself with, are abandoned. Unlike muslim countries you can,so far before Sharia islamization has made it impossible, still to go Norway and be protected by Universal Human Rights!
OIC's totalitarian islamofascist fuhrer of the Human Rights violating world Umma
This is Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu, the Turkish islamofascist leader of the Saudi initiated and based OIC, which is denying the world's muslims their Human Rights by replacing these rights with islamofascist Sharia (the so called Cairo declaration on "islamic human rights").
His crime: Leader of an islamofascist (totalitarian and against those very Human Rights that were introduced to protect us against fascism) organization (OIC).
Despite his lack of a beard (only a small grey Hitler mustache signs the evil he represents) he is equally Taliban as is e.g. BBC reporter Yvonne Ridley, a friend of Human Rights violator Abu Hamza.
Next time you see "fly Qatar" on your news channel, see it for what it is
- a disgusting sign of Saudi islamofascist bias!
. . .
Friday, May 18, 2012
The evil origin and soul of islam is sex apartheid - and some women don't seem to get that this is why Sharia contradicts Human Rights.
Saudi based OIC, all muslims world organization (and the strongest voting bloc in UN) has abandoned Human Rights and replaced them with Sharia (Cairo declaration on islamic "human rights"), i.e. that legislation should rest on or, ultimately, be Sharia, and that Human Rights which conflict with Sharia are void. Whereas Universal Human Rights - which were created against totalitarian and fascist ideologies - don't impose extra "duties" or "responsibilities" on the grounds of your sex etc. Sharia does! This is the very reason why islam/OIC couldn't tolerate Universal Human Rights.
The progression of this new fascism, i.e. islamofascism, has gone so far so when you read about "human rights" organizations, especially in mulsim countries, they represent in fact the very oppposite to Human Rights.
The reason for the Swedish debate was that Swedish imams advice female victims of domestic violence not to go to the police but rather offer more sex.
Three women, Suad Mohamed, Pernilla Ouis and Azam Quarai, challenged imams in Sweden on different issues, e.g. if they submitted to "modern islam" and the Swedish law which criminalizes polygamy and compulsory sex, i.e. marital rape etc. The imams avoided the question in normal treacherous manner and instead jumped outside the question by stupidly questioning whether it was right to have love affairs outside marriage and by trying to "explain" islamic misogyny, hence avoiding the main point, i.e. whther muslims ultimately should obey Sharia or secular law.
The three women, Suad Mohamed, Pernilla Ouis and Azam Quarai, who were all well articulated and otherwise informed clearly revealed a stunning lack of insight in the origin of islam. Why is that? Well, a good guess is to take a look at the school and university literature that is offered in the West on the topic. And it doesn't really matter if you are in compulsory school or writing your PhD, the (mis)information is just the same.
What was really striking was how these women naively try to think that jslam isn't it's own origin but rather their own fantasies.
And while these women in ´the center of Stockholm showed their total ignorance about islam the real muslims in Tensta, a heavily muslimified suburban to Stockholm, burned schools, cars etc while throwing molotov cocktails against police and firemen.
Fly Qatar to islamofascism
Next time you see the disgusting commercial for islamofascist Qatar Airways, consider what it stands for!
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Not everyone seems to have got it as yet. I.e. that islam is the most evil you can think of as long as you subscribe to Human Rights!
This is Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu, the Turkish islamofascist leader of the Saudi initiated and based OIC which is denying the world's muslims their Human Rights by replacing these rights with islamofascist Sharia (the so called Cairo declaration on "islamic human rights").
His crime: Leader of an islamofascist (totalitarian and against those very Human Rights that were introduced to protect us against fascism) organization (OIC).
Despite his lack of a beard (only a small grey Hitler mustache signs the evil he represents) he is equally Taliban as is BBC reporter Yvonne Ridley, a friend to Human Rights violator Abu Hamza.
MIM: Yvonne Ridley has made numerous appearences in the US on behalf of CAIR. Yvonne Ridley jokes about her relationship with Abu Hamza Al Masri, saying that 'one would have thought she was going to be opening a madrassa for Al Qaeda recruits from her flat in Soho'. Given the support she expressed for sucide bombing on a 2004 panel, this would come as no surprise to anyone.
Klevius comment: Ironically she also works for Iran's (Shia) Press TV which BBC has managed to shut down. However, far more importantly Yvonne Ridley represents those naive women who, after their heterosexual attraction has vanished, wake up as feminists/islamists (read Klevius, e.g. From Klevius without love or What is sex segregation, to understand this). Yvonne Ridley is not only a convert to islam, she's also an apostate from islam via her British "Sharia marriage contract" which makes her a hiding anti-muslim lone woman who still boosts true islam and the horrific crimes it commits not the least against vulnerable and ignorant UK girls.
Swedish/Norwegian Aftonbladet seems to suffer from some kind of confusion visavi islam as well
Klevius comment: Hitler was supported by a majority of Germans while Breivik, to my understanding, isn't supported by any sane Norwegian! Sadly, the Germans again seem to support fascism, now mainly in the form of islam.The same islam that caused and applauded the 9/11 murders. While muslims celebrated bin Laden & Co I've heard of no such celebrating of Breivik.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Does "diversity training courses" mean accepting e.g. islamofascism? And what about a course in distinguishing between sharia and Human Rights!
Does former UK welfare minister Frank Field (Labor) qualify for a "diversity training course"?
Case 1: Beckmann, a 17-year member of the Miami Dade fire department was demoted to the rank of firefighter after allegedly remarking on Facebook regarding the Trayvon Martin case: "I and my coworkers could rewrite the book on whether our urban youths are victims of racist profiling or products of their failed, (expletive), ignorant, pathetic, welfare dependent excuses for parents." According to Beckmann, he didn't write the message, only copied and pasted it from a website. Beckmann now faces a substantial loss in pay and will have to take a psychological exam by a county doctor and "diversity training" courses. The firefighter union said the action against Beckmann is excessive. "We will immediately file an appeal to an independent arbitrator," said union president Rowan Taylor via a statement. "We anticipate that the case will be heard within the next few months. The decision of the independent arbitrator will be final and binding."
Case 2: Former UK welfare minister Frank Field ’s paper ‘The Foundation Years: preventing poor children becoming poor adults’ revealed that many children begin school without knowing their first name because their parents barely speak to them. One of his most damning findings was that youngsters who were behind when they started school never caught up to their peers. Former welfare minister Frank Field blamed the situation on the low aspirations of parents trapped in poverty where no one in the family has worked for generations. These parents do not bother to play with, talk to or read to their children.
Klevius comment: Aren't these cases basically identical? But no one has even hinted at the possibility to rob Field of his money and having him passing "sensitivity" exams and "diversity training courses". However, behind all this it's easy to see the potentials in the Saudi/OIC steered campaign that here happens to target non-muslims but which globally is aimed to further islamofascism. All this sudden popularity of "sensitivities" is usually funded by islamofascist money. From a time when racism and segregation was about to vanish in a global understanding racist and segregational islam suddenly emerged with its hate mongering contaminating a whole world. In the 1980's from a Scandinavian point of view we used to be completely colorblind and tolerant visavi people's personal beliefs. However, today skin color and "faith" are extremely dangerous, to an extent that it's easier to avoid than meet. And if you have to meet you do it now as a tense lawyer - not as a human being meeting an other human being. Sad isn't it...
Rape accused Alwaleed bin Talal and the Saudi "king" both work hard with Western oil money and the Saudi based muslim world organization OIC to bribe Western politicians, universities etc for "religious (read 'islamofascism') tolerance".
When a "religion" is so evil and disgusting as islam then the only way to defend it is to deny people from telling the truth about it. Simple isn't it!
Monday, May 14, 2012
1400 years of pedophilic child abuse in islam and 25 years in the British social state: The cases of Rochdale and Cleveland
And no, Klevius isn't a Christian, and yes, it's the very origin of islam, not "in the name of islam" we're talking!
Essential Klevius reading for those (i.e. most people) not familiar with the deep bedrock of this topic:
Angels of Antichrist - kinship vs social state (1996 - the most important sociological paper from the last Century).
The Echo of incest - child sexual abuse as described in a Swedish news series 1998 (only available in Swedish but see pic below which is a summary of main research results, and which shows that there is a 1,000 times difference between the real, i.e. research actually targeting what is discussed, and the highest alleged numbers).
Pathological symbiosis (probably the world's only critical analysis of the emergence and disappearance of "pathological symbiosis" in psychoanalysis).
The British social state and the Cleveland scandal 1987
Social state professionals, social worker Sue Richardson and pediatricians Marietta Higgs and Geoffrey Wyatt, were central in the Cleveland incest hysteria case 1987 that destroyed the lives of 121 children and their families.
The Cleveland child abuse scandal occurred in Cleveland, England in 1987, where 121 cases of suspected child sexual abuse were diagnosed by Dr Marietta Higgs and Dr Geoffrey Wyatt, paediatricians at a Middlesbrough hospital (in the now abolished county of Cleveland). After a number of court trials, 26 cases involving children from twelve families were found by judges to have been incorrectly diagnosed, and cases involving 96 of the 121 children alleged to be victims of sexual abuse were dismissed by the courts. In the other cases, the child was subject to a child-protection order, and some were removed from their parents' care permanently.
Klevius comment: The cost of the inquiry (1988) alone was £4000000, a fraction of the other costs caused by these fanatics let loose with tax payers money within the social state and protected and monopolized by law.
Klevius comment: If you have read Pathological symbiosis and Angels of Antichrist (no, Klevius isn't a Christian) you have now gathered much of the picture. However, you may also benefit from reading Klevius unique Psychosocial Freud timeline while waiting for Klevius coming sex tutorial..
The British social state and islamic pedophilia 2012
Pathological symbiosis and Angels of Antichrist), police and prosecutors for years despite all possible evidence and cries for help.
The stories that spewed out of Liverpool Crown Court last week defied belief.
‘Muslims pick me up. They get me drunk, they give me drugs, they have sex with me and tell me not to tell anyone. I want to move.’
Anonymous Mirror writer “Fleet Street Fox” (why anonymous?!): Victoria Agoglia, ran away from her care home 21 times in two months, was found by the police five times, and on the same night she was picked up from the care home by a gang of men in a car she died from a heroin overdose. She was 15 years old. It’s believed that another four of those girls have died since. There are 65,000 children in care in the UK today - how many of them are perfectly safe? These 'homes' are anything but. They're either run on a shoestring by a local authority or a private business, neither of whom want to devote cash or attention to troubled children who need both. The people who work in them aren't able to enforce curfews or take a degree of parental responsibility. And they are being run in our name, with our money, and are failing our children. It's a national scandal of appalling proportions which demands an inquiry. There won't be one, because people who need our help the most are left to fend for themselves while politicians badger for inquiries into their pet projects. The nasty truth is that too many people of wealth and privilege believe that a 12-year-old girl from Rochdale in a short skirt simply cannot be raped.
£100,000-250,000 per child and year paid from taxpayers' money to keep muslim pedophiles served with child sex
Out of some 65,000 young people in state care, just 1,800 girls are in children’s homes. Of these were 631 suspected cases of girls involved in prostitution while in care. There is strong reason to assume the figures are a serious underestimate.
And not only does the care system fail to protect young girls/children, it actually puts them in jeopardy.
Anne Marie Carrie, chief executive of Barnardo’s, the children’s charity, pointed to a recent study that found sexual exploitation was raised as an issue of concern by almost two-thirds of girls in residential care.
Fiona McIntosh (Mirror): Why isn’t there an immediate inquiry being launched into the care homes that charge councils £250,000 a year for each troubled child, yet fail to look after them?
Who will take responsibility for the CPS cock-up that meant the pleas of a 15-year-old girl were not taken seriously enough to save her and so many others?
Not a single adult in their lives put a stop to the serial rape of these children until it was too late. Not only were these girls failed by their families, they were failed by care homes paid to look ¬after many of them.
Even the Crown ¬Prosecution ¬Service failed these kids by refusing to act when the abuse was reported two years before arrests were made.
Klevius comment: A note to those of less than average intelligence: Yes, muslims without knowledge in islamic/Koranic Sharia "teaching" would probably have the same amount of pedophiles and other rapists as any other population!
The origin of islam was based on sex slavery/child sexual abuse
Also consider that totalitarian islam is always under attack as long as not everyone submits to it. Hence Jihad and taking sex slaves from the "infidel enemy" is acceptable. And as Mohammed functions as a raw model for muslims nothing in islam hinders them from abusing non-muslim (or wrong-muslim) children.
Koran (33:50) - "O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee" This is one of several personal-sounding verses "from Allah" narrated by Muhammad - in this case allowing himself a virtually unlimited supply of sex partners. Others are restrained to four wives, but may also have sex with any number of slaves, as the following verse make clear:
Koran (23:5-6) - "..who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess..." This verse permits the slave-owner to have sex with his slaves. See also Koran (70:29-30).
Koran (4:24) - "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." Even sex with married slaves is permissible.
Koran (8:69) - "But (now) enjoy what ye took in war, lawful and good" A reference to war booty, of which slaves were a part. The Muslim slave master may enjoy his "catch" because (according to verse 71) "Allah gave you mastery over them."
Koran (24:32) - "And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit among your male slaves and your female slaves..." Breeding slaves based on fitness.
Koran (2:178) - "O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female." The message of this verse, which prescribes the rules of retaliation for murder, is that all humans are not created equal. The human value of a slave is less than that of a free person (and a woman's worth is also distinguished from that of a man's).
Koran (16:75) - "Allah sets forth the Parable (of two men: one) a slave under the dominion of another; He has no power of any sort; and (the other) a man on whom We have bestowed goodly favours from Ourselves, and he spends thereof (freely), privately and publicly: are the two equal? (By no means;) praise be to Allah." Yet another confirmation that the slave is is not equal to the master. In this case it is plain that the slave owes his status to Allah's will. (According to 16:71, the owner should be careful about insulting Allah by bestowing Allah's gifts on slaves - those whom the god of Islam has not favored).
Sex slavery pedophilia in the islamic Hadiths:
Bukhari (80:753) - "The Prophet said, 'The freed slave belongs to the people who have freed him.'"
Bukhari (52:255) - The slave who accepts Islam and continues serving his Muslim master will receive a double reward in heaven.
Bukhari (41.598) - Slaves are property. They cannot be freed if an owner has outstanding debt, but can be used to pay off the debt.
Bukhari (62:137) - An account of women taken as slaves in battle by Muhammad's men after their husbands and fathers were killed. The woman were raped with Muhammad's approval.
Bukhari (34:432) - Another account of females taken captive and raped with Muhammad's approval. In this case it is evident that the Muslims intend on selling the women after raping them because they are concerned about devaluing their price by impregnating them. Muhammad is asked about coitus interruptus.
Bukhari (47.765) - A woman is rebuked by Muhammad for freeing a slave girl. The prophet tells her that she would have gotten a greater heavenly reward by giving her to a relative (as a slave).
Bukhari (34:351) - Muhammad sells a slave for money. He was thus a slave trader.
Bukhari (72:734) - Some contemporary Muslims in the West, where slavery is believed to be a horrible crime, are reluctant to believe that Muhammad owned slaves. This is just one of many places in the Hadith where a reference is made to a human being owned by Muhammad. In this case, the slave is of African descent.
Muslim 3901 - Muhammad trades away two black slaves for one Muslim slave.
Muslim 4112 - A man freed six slaves on the event of his death, but Muhammad reversed the emancipation and kept four in slavery to himself. He cast lots to determine which two to free.
Bukhari (47:743) - Muhammad's own pulpit - from which he preached Islam - was built with slave labor on his command.
Bukhari (59:637) - "The Prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and I hated Ali, and Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, 'Don't you see this (i.e. Ali)?' When we reached the Prophet I mentioned that to him. He said, 'O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?' I said, 'Yes.' He said, 'Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumlus.'" Muhammad approved of his men having sex with slaves, as this episode involving his son-in-law, Ali, clearly proves. This hadith refutes the modern apologists who pretend that slaves were really "wives," since Muhammad had forbidden Ali from marrying another woman as long as Fatima (his favorite daughter) was living.
Abu Dawud (2150) - "The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Koranic verse: (Koran 4:24) 'And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.'" This is the background for verse 4:24 of the Koran. Not only does Allah grant permission for women to be captured and raped, but allows it to even be done in front of their husbands. (See also Muslim 3432)
Abu Dawud 1814 - "...[Abu Bakr] He then began to beat [his slave] him while the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) was smiling and saying: Look at this man who is in the sacred state (putting on ihram), what is he doing?" The future first caliph of Islam is beating his slave for losing a camel while Muhammad looks on in apparent amusement.
Ibn Ishaq (734) - A slave girl is given a "violent beating" by Ali in the presence of Muhammad, who does nothing about it.
Ibn Ishaq (693) - "Then the apostle sent Sa-d b. Zayd al-Ansari, brother of Abdu'l-Ashal with some of the captive women of Banu Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons." Muhammad trades away women captured from the Banu Qurayza tribe to non-Muslim slave traders for property. (Their men had been executed after surrendering peacefully without a fight).
Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller) (o9.13) - According to Sharia, when a child or woman is taken captive by Muslims, they become slaves by the mere fact of their capture. A captured woman's previous marriage is immediately annulled.
Since its origin islam rides on racism
These posts were quickly removed from Yahoo and Ms Lucy Black has still to be arrested and sentenced. But BBC seems to be too busy trying to eliminate critical competitor voices etc so the public doesn't get any info about this disgusting phenomenon (the pic of the murdered girls is attached by Klevius).
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Muslim civil war encouraged by Mr X "president's" Saudi ally in Sweden just like in Bahrain etc
Already many years ago Klevius wrote about different categories of mostly neglected (by police, media, politicians etc) islamic street jihad.
Sunni street jihadists target Shia muslims, Jews and "infidels" in Malmö/Sweden while the major blames it on "the far right" Sweden Democrats (which is, in fact, equally much a socialist party as is the social democrats - somehow it seems that criticism of islam could even make a communist "right-winged").
This is Ali who, at age 13, got his leg blown away by a deliberately aimed firework projectile in Malmö/Sweden. He needed 10 litre blood to survive. Imagine if the rocket had hit his head or some other part of his body. An "infidel" toddler that was also hit in a similar Swedish attack didn't stay a chance to survive. And no one connected these murderous attacks to islam despite both the Koran, the "prophet" and the Hadiths ask muslims to wage holy war on everyone who doesn't submit under islam.
This is what Klevius (a very convinced "islamophobe") wrote about Arabs and islamic firework terror seven years ago!
Tuesday, January 04, 2005
After criticism rich Arab countries give some aid - to Muslims!
Arab countries, who have become some of the world's richest by selling oil without even touching it, were very reluctant to send aid to tsunami victims although they use East-Asians as almost slaves at home. Now when they finally gave a small amount they directed it only to Muslims! Japan, who has become rich by producing world leading technology, has given the largest financial aid so far and without restrictions to race, sex or religion/non-religion. EU is a sham in this respect as it was regarding Afganistan and Iraq, not to mention Darfur. (also see Klevius' AIQ net and World Values Survey)
And Racist/sexist Hip Hoppers prefer Euro-vulgo in front of sophisticated Japanese high tech
Posted by klevius at 4:02 AM 0 comments Email This
Males, females and "infidels" - firework terror killed and injured many in Scandinavia
Tuesday, January 04, 2005
Males, females and "infidels" - firework terror killed and injured many in Scandinavia
Are we breeding terror youth in the West instead of helping them learning respect for others? How many firework terror bombs and other atrocities are right now under construction in the racist/sexist religious shadows protected by human rights of the "infidels" and often aided by tax payers' money? The naive, careless and un-attached "welfare" state approach on criminal youth (and what about their parents? Assistant murderers? Are they supporters of Islamic terror on "infidels", or what's going on behind the curtains? And are there perhaps parents who blame non-Muslims for "racism" while despising "infidels" in front of their kids? The very racist concept "infidels" is, by the way, essential for Islam as a coherent religion) terrorists (and others) committing atrocities, is well revealed when the Nordic countries now count their many deads and injured after massive firework attacks during Christmas and New Year (of course it will continue and even worsen if no one stops it). Some examples:
A 16 year old (by the way a common age among terrorists although I don't know anything about this particular guy because media tend to cover these kind of info) targets people and hit and kill a two year old. The poor child was hit with something (according to a police report a small but very powerful one) that exploded into the heart. The murderer (he really aimed, i.e. tried to kill/badly injure sommeone!) was freed after a short chat on the police station. The firework may have been construed for the purpose of violating/killing humans! At least it was used in that way.
A gang targeted a balcony with fireworks and when a 17 year old boy was bypassing they aimed at him and exploded a rocket into his head so he lost his eye and was badly injured.
A firework (possibly homemade) rocket was deliberately shot into a church where it created many fires and hence destroyed much of the church.
Read about the psycho and social state on Angels of Antichrist - social state vs. kinship and other links on Klevius' AIQ net and World Values Survey
And the police don't even care anymore because there is nothing they can do as long as the system works in such a stupid manner as it really does. Furthermore the police is made busy to chase people who are suspected of not paying enough taxes to the country (Sweden) with the highest taxes and the lowest quality of education and care(within OECD).
It's illegal for children and youth under 18 to handle fireworks. Who uses fireworks? Right, mainly children and youth under 18. It's equally "illegal" to punish or sentence someone under 18 (at least in most cases and if the EU's Barnombudsmans get it as they like everyone under 18 can do whatever he/she likes without facing serious consequenses).
What have Sweden, UK, and Holland in common? They are all profiled and long term "welfare" states and they all have leading positions in the world's crime rate statistics!
A criminal behavior that now seems more and more pronounced is the rise of atrocities committed by children and youth who are not mentally ill but wayward in the meaning that they lack proper attachment, possibly sometimes even spiced with racist/sexist religious boosting from others in their environment or via different outside channels (compare Young Muslims etc organizations) and influences.
Although islam is the world's most disgusting ideology we aren't supposed to mention it. Why?!!!
Tuesday, May 08, 2012
UK muslim Pakistani/Afgan pedophiles used white femle children as sex slaves in accordance with islam, Koran and Sharia
UK muslim grooming gang found guilty, but the court missed the most essential, namely that these were hate crimes sanctioned by islam/Koran/Sharia
Nine men sexually abused girls aged 13 to 15 for sex and raped one up to twenty times a day Five girls aged between 13 and 15 were shared by men in the islamized Rochdale area. These children were targeted by muslim pedophiles because they were vulnerable and from broken homes, i.e. they were abducted by the social state and if you have read your Klevius (Angels of Antichrist) you know that state care according to all research usually ends up in disaster. According to the police one child was forced to have sex with 20 adult (and "respected") muslim men in one night. The muslim gang used a white girl, 15, known as 'The Honey Monster' to recruit victims Girls picked up where young people congregate, such as outside takeaways etc. Attackers range in age from 22 to 59 - all are from Pakistan, apart from one from Afghanistan.
while a search on 'klevius' only gave 3,360 reults. How come?
Interestingly, the by far most popular of Klevius' writings, i.e. 'Origin of islam, the worst racist hate crime ever against humanity' is completely missing!
Except for "Western" oil money there's an even more important factor underpinning islamofascism, namely sex segregation (sex apartheid). Klevius will shortly publish an explosive "sex tutorial" on this blog. However, in the meantime prepare yourself with:
What is sexsegregation?