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, July 29, 2013

Pope Francis: Gays are ok - women are not!


Klevius intellectual translation: Whereas (male) gays are seen as fully humans although sexually dysfunctional, women are seen as a different species. Therefore the Pope & Co can accept gay priests but not female priests.

Pope Francis: The Catholic door is closed for women priests and the decision is definitive!



As a background you may read Klevius' Sex and Gender Tutorial

The female patriarchy that keeps the Pope & Co and islam ticking


Klevius (sadly still the web's by far foremost expert on sex segregation/apartheid): While reading the Catholic horror from Brazil below please keep islam in mind! And, in an extension, think about general sex segregation, and you will start understanding what Klevius is ranting about...



Catholic nuns (O’Connor & Drury 1998) reporting from Brazil and the US:

"It's our culture and we can't change it,"




Clearly, the inhibiting environment of patriarchy and machismo is primar­ily to blame for the depressed condition of Brazilian women. But, from what the interviewees have shared, it is also clear that other factors play a significant part in women's oppression. The fatalistic attitude of many was startling. While complaining about their subjugation, women shrugged off their responsibility to do something about it. Many said, "it's our culture and we can't change it," or "the price is too high." Could the underlying reason for this reluctance to change be a fear of losing touch with the "self' that women know and with whom they have become comfortable? Their attitudes make it difficult for those who have the courage to confront their oppressors, be they clergy, macho men, or other women, to effect even a minimal change.

Fear of ridicule, change, and loss of security

A major reason women choose to maintain the status quo in the church, and want other women to do so, is their fear of ridicule, change, and loss of security. The clamor in the United States for a married clergy and women priests threatens "good women's" comfortable place in the church. These women appear to be more interested in retaining their image than in challeng­ing the injustices that face them daily.
Most Brazilian women are paralyzed by their machistic society and face total ostracism if they so much as address the topic of sexism in society or in the church. Frightened women from both countries, who have found their identity within the patriarchal church, become angry at women who promote equality because they fear losing their status, inferior as it is. In different yet similar ways, they indicate they benefit from the oppressive structure and often persecute other women who try to change the system.

An inherent need to put other women down


Among some women in both countries there seems to be an inherent need to put other women down. Women frequently do not help one another. They criticize each other, thereby working against solidarity. They tend to replicate the patriarchal model by using what little power they have to force other women into submission. By criticizing women who speak for equality and by reporting such "heretics" to the clergy or hierarchy, they marginalize those who have the courage to stand against the tide of clerical oppression.

Women act as tormentors both from the top down and from the bottom up. This was evidenced by an Episcopal woman priest in the United States who admitted she oppressed women because that was the only model she had ever seen in the church. Another example is, the sister in the diocesan office who, behind the scenes, forced the bishop's secretary to resign by overtly oppressing her. Similarly, the women in a Brazilian parish boycotted their Methodist min­ister simply because of her gender. In another Catholic parish the women
jeered and taunted a woman catechist because she gave a good homily and dis­tributed Communion, roles they felt belonged to men only.

Western liberation


Those communities who have European or North American members are likely to be in the forefront in liberating themselves from the burdens their patriarchal formation has placed upon them.
Certain women in each country can be found who, in their efforts to achieve change, burn with anger against the injustices they are experiencing both in society and in the church and who search for ways to confront these sins. 


Fear and jealousy


A group of women from a base community discussed the various aspects of fear in their dealings with one another.
We're afraid of leaving our own comfortable space. We give our rights to some­body else because we don't want to assume responsibility. We could be partic­ipating together and deciding together, but we don't. We bring something to be discussed but we don't say anything. Sometimes we're afraid of being criticized. Fear is the reason why women who want their space and when there is an opportunity to get it, don't use it. [Older Women in Favela, Sao Paulo]

Fear has a lot to do with it. Women don't have as much experience being active and speaking out, assuming responsibility in a wider reality. They assume responsibility in their own house, but when you ask them to do some­thing in the community they refuse. Fear is the problem with women. [Middle‑aged Woman in CEB, Petropolis]

Women are afraid that other women will talk about them if they are different, if they do things against the social customs. [Young Married Woman, Brasilia]
Acting behind another's back is a lot more common than open conflict. Sometimes if we say something, we're afraid we'll be given more work. We withdraw to protect ourselves, not to solve problems. [Middle‑aged Woman in CEB, ParanA]

For the most part, the women who were not afraid to challenge the status quo were sisters or economically independent women. A wealthy woman in the north noted:


Although fear is clearly a major contributor to the oppression of women by other women, another problem for women in the church is jealousy. "Everyone is looking for her place in the sun.,'3

Among the things that are destroying the work among women is jealousy It seems one wants to see the other fall. Women seem to thrive on seeing others make mistakes. They don't even give credit where credit is due. They can't even give a compliment, but criticize each other. They don't motivate or help each other to get better. They never praise work well done. This kills the work and the motivation. It drives competent women out of church ministry.

Patriarchy functions only with the cooperation of women


Women in both countries must take heed of Gerda Lerners warning that patriarchy functions only with the cooperation of women, through their con­tinued acceptance and embrace of a system we now know to be oppressive to all, women and men alike. Women must stop thinking of themselves only as "victims" and start examining their role as "perpetrators" of patriarchy (O’Connor Drury
Women in both countries must take heed of Gerda Lerners warning that patriarchy functions only with the cooperation of women, through their con­tinued acceptance and embrace of a system we now know to be oppressive to all, women and men alike. Women must stop thinking of themselves only as "victims" and start examining their role as "perpetrators" of patriarchy.

With naive consciousness they continue to promote what their mothers and grandmothers told them


In many groups the pros and cons of the type of education given to women were debated. The focus was on how education has been used as a weapon against women: teaching them that they have no worth, depriving some of ever discovering what it means to be a woman, exposing them to fragmented ideas so that with naive consciousness they continue to promote what their mothers and grandmothers told them; instructing them to he submissive and therefore incapable of independent thought or actions.


"It's not just culture we inherit in life. Women must face up to their histori­cal programming," noted Irma Passom, former religious and political activist. "Our grandmothers and mothers had a certain guilt, which they passed on.


Women are formed to hang their heads. I saw this in my own home. The


mother passes these ideas on in the family. There is no point in trying to
change this. Since our mothers inculcated this idea in us, so in religious life
when we encounter domination we allow ourselves to be dominated. It is a
vicious circle. The big responsibility is the mothers. If she isn't aware of what
she is doing then the children will carry it on. [Sister, Bahia]
A second sister offered a slightly different view "I also think that religious
life can wake women up to their own value." She explained that religious life
was neither the cause of women's oppression nor their awareness.
It comes from what they have been educated or raised to believe, The essen­
tial point is the family, the way you were raised. Formation either helps you
get more repressed or frees you more. It either reinforces what you had at
home or opens places for new ideas.
She seemed to answer her own question of why it is that the same formation
provides growth for some while crippling others.

Klevius: Add to this what Klevius has written about sex segregation, e.g. Sex or Gender and What is Sex Segregation. I rest my case.

















No comments: