Is the islamofascist Saudi dictator "prince" Mohammad bin Salman the world's most dangerous man?

Is the islamofascist Saudi dictator "prince" Mohammad bin Salman the world's most dangerous man?
Is the islamofascist Saudi dictator "prince" Mohammad bin Salman the world's most dangerous man?

The Viking phenomenon started with bilingual Finns raiding/trading sex slaves to Abbasid (ca 750)

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses while FEEding Lnd

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses while FEEding Lnd
The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses over you

How an organization of islamic crimes (OIC) violates Human Rights

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")!

Ask yourself, why can't racist islam (OIC) accept Human Rights? The answer reveals the difference between totalitarianism and freedom. And even if everyone converted to islam we'd still have Sharia sexism.
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.

We're all born unequal - that's why we need Human Rights, not islam!

Audi then built by Jewish slaves - today dangerous quality problems

Myth vs Truth

Japan's Hayabusa landed and returned to Earth many years before Europe's Rosetta failed to do so.

Monday, May 27, 2013

Is Sayeeda Warsi Britain's most dangerous extremist?


The mosque rat and the moderate mosque mouse




Sayeeda Warsi is the high priest of the "islamophobia" doctrine* in England. She is also an eager supporter of Saudi based OIC and their effort to implement Sharia all over the world via UN as well as criminalizing criticism against islam, the worst crime ever against humanity.

* The islamophobia doctrine uses the proportionally extremely few incidents against muslims by deranged individuals, as an excuse for their real target, namely those who defend Human Rights. This already fulfills the most important criterion for fascism!





A British islam defender on BBC Radio 4 reveals his extreme hypocrisy and bigotry by stating that only the belief in a "god" can protect from moral disintegration because secularism is based on human wills and interpretations.

Klevius: So what about the Bible and the Koran?! Who reads them without will and interpretation?! No, my dear idiot, it's just the other way round. Whereas negative Human Rights protects you from the wills and interpretations of others, the Koran imposes them on everyone involved. From muslim girls/women in marital sex slavery to non-muslims who have to tip-toe when encountering muslim racism.


Muslims use to say: "Killing of innocent people has no place in islam". However, they forget to mention that Sharia determines who is "innocent".


Clive Kessler, who is emeritus (of course, who else working professor would/could dare to speak out) professor of sociology and anthropology at the University of NSW: YES, following last week's horror in Woolwich it is correct to point out that there are Muslims and there is Islam. And that they are not always the same thing.

But it is no good to say such acts have nothing to do with Islam. It is an evasion to assert such acts are based on "extremist" misconceptions and deviations, not "true Islam", or are responses to "Islamophobia".

Nor will it do to say (as British Prime Minister David Cameron did) that such acts have no place or basis in Islam, that this act dishonours and misrepresents Islam, that it is "a betrayal of Islam".

"This was not just an attack on Britain - and on our British way of life. It was also a betrayal of Islam," he said. "There is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly dreadful act," he added.

True, there are Muslims and there is Islam, and they are not the same. But Muslims must acknowledge their ownership of Islamic history, cultivate what is good in it and take a clear stand against what is not.

Modern Muslims, especially in the West, must be prepared to clearly acknowledge from where the evils, such as last week's depravity, have come.

Klevius: "Muslims must acknowledge their ownership of Islamic history, cultivate what is good in it and take a clear stand against what is not." A terrible mistake, dear professor emeritus. This is precisely the kernel of the problem! There is no good whatsoever in islam. Good is replaced witd god!

However, Kessler falls short of fully understanding the inevitable logic in the early history of islam. I.e. the fact that it's precisely those now troublesome parts of the Koran that made it ticking.


Islam is Jihad


Robert Spencer: Nidal Malik Hasan the U.S. Army psychiatrist (sic) who murdered thirteen people at Fort Hood on November 5, 2009 in the name of Islam and jihad, is still be fighting his jihad.

In Islamic theology, jihad warfare is fard kifaya, an obligation of the community as a whole but not of every individual believer. Jihad becomes fard ayn, obligatory on every individual Muslim to aid in some way, when a Muslim land is attacked. Many Muslims around the world today consider that Muslim lands have indeed been attacked, because of the American presence in Afghanistan and the very existence of the State of Israel. The most serious and devout among them will see those attacks and making incumbent upon them the responsibility to wage jihad warfare against the Infidels.

A military judge ruled that Hasan could be forcibly shaved, and he most certainly would have been had he not been a Muslim. But he is a Muslim, and so his attorneys were able to charge that that judge was overcome by “Islamophobia” to the detriment of his duty when he ruled that Hasan be shaved, and was summarily removed from the case. The new judge, Colonel Tara Osborn, was more sensitive to the multicultural imperatives involved here, and ruled that Army regulations had to give way to Islamic law, and Hasan could keep his beard.

The fact that Hasan murdered thirteen people for the same reason he grew the beard -- because of his Islamic faith – doesn’t seem to have entered into her calculations.




 Not only that. The very core idea in original islam was to codify parasitism for the purpose of defending one's, even back then, evil acts by the help of racism (the infidel). And this original formula is inherent in islam and cannot be removed without completely altering islam itself to something else.


And here is the murderous racist and sexist root problem, Saudi Arabia, the "guardian of islam". This is the homeland of most of the bloodshed in the muslim world and elsewhere.

















No comments: