Excusing islam from its consequences
Not only is BBC a disgusting institution in that it harbors exactly the same low moral as do the bankers, media people etc they choose to criticize. But while BBC presents itself as the servant of the public, the truth is something quite the contrary, i.e. a misleading propaganda institution to a large extent steered from some of the most despicable of islamofascist countries. This is why BBC so eagerly defends islam and puts brackets on islam for the purpose of sheltering islam from its own consequences - i.e. from the very origin and soul of itself.
Two recent and horrifying examples of BBC-s total lack of compassion for people while defending the world's by far most evil ideology throughout 1400 years:
Example 1: BBC tries to convince its listeners that islam is innocent in the case of muslim sex groomers (i.e. sex slavers - as you do know by now islam and its Koran clearly sanctions sex slavery as well as conventional slavery - in fact, the very essence of islam). BBC does this by presenting "findings" from a UK muslim women's organization (sic) which points out that also Pakistani girls were among the victims of the widespread sex enslavement of young girls in the UK.
Klevius slaughtering of this utterly pathetic, hypocritical and bigoted argument: According to islam, secularized* girls are no real muslims anymore! These girls had actually escaped islam (represented by their families, their imam and their "honor") and hence constituted a legitimate target for being made sex slaves "possessed by your right hand" as it's clearly stated in the Koran.
* How "secularized" may greatly vary among different muslim "communities" but one thing is certain - a muslim girl/woman can never be free and equal to a muslim man! A muslim girl/woman is denied Human Rights (compare OIC's Cairo declaration for all the world's muslims)!
And other excuses, such as "but muslims obey the laws of the country" are just forced temporal exceptions and equally pathetic and worth nothing in the light of how islamic Sharia sees girls' and women's Human Rights as defamatory against islam.
Read more about this disgusting sex segregation furthest down on this posting.
Klevius new word 'rapetivism' today got 34,900 hits on Google.
Example 2: BBC's extreme push for a violent attack on the Syrian people. I.e. BBC in the service of the Saudi Sunni islamofascists who want to commit genocide on the Shia community wherever it exists.
We are certainly used to see Kerry making a fool out of himself, not the least in his failed presidential campaign. And now he again slipped his mouth out of control thereby giving the Syrian people some respite to the US bombings.
The worst US "president" ever, muslim born (apostate?!) eagerly wants to hurt Syrian people so to please the SaudisNot the slightest evidence that the accused used chemical weapons - but a multitude of reports about Al-Qarda and its allies both having them and using them. How can you people by this war monger's lies. Are you the Germans of today?!
How many Jews, Christians, Shiites and Atheists in Arab muslim countries? Very few, and depends on when you ask - they are eradicated in the same pace as Obama prepares his slaughtering of non-Sunni Syrians!
What you now see is perhaps the most hypocritical deliberate and murderous planned use of Western fire power for the purpose of helping the most intolerant islamofascist country in its genocide of Shia muslims, Christians , Jews and non-believers.
How many mosque rats at Leicester University?
Sexist islam in UK universities
Leicester University is one of the world's most sexist universities. You may not believe me but the truth is (an other professor witnessed it) that a female professor there, when presented with criticism against islam's rejection of women's full Human Rights via Sharia, said "Why don't you want to let women lead their lives as they wish". Yes, you got it right. She saw the restriction of women's rights as a right! Moreover, she also blamed the messenger for not allowing women to NOT HAVE THEIR FULL RIGHTS!
I will go deeper into this and also name the professor in an upcoming post. Her female students need to know this, and as usual, it seems that Klevius is the only one daring to really address this ultimate sexism.
In the meantime, read this a decade old web writing by Klevius on the topic:
Sex segregation and rapetivism - the pillars of islam
Rapetivism and heterosexual attraction
HSA (heterosexual attracton) is biological attraction between two related forms with one part predestined as the receiver/reproducer. HSA can be one- or double-sided, i.e. both parts can actively search for each other (compare two magnets) or only one part (usually the male) has an inbuilt attraction towards the other sex.. Feminists use to confuse/deny this with cultural sex-segregation aimed to cover up short-comings in a manner not far from the confused and chaotic blend of erotics, friendship and misinterpreted projections that we used to call love..HSA can itself never be bi-sexual. Neither has HSA anything to do with rape/"rapetivism" (which is, in fact, a form of necrophilia). Although a man may experience HSA aesthetics where a woman doesn't, it hasn't necessarily anyhing to do with sexuality before a "mutual trigger" is released (and that hasn't even to be physically directly connected). And even then there is nothing preventing withdrawal at any point. If not, then we are talking something else. More on From Klevius without love
Sexuality (eroticism) is not solely connected to HSA because it is in no way limited to heterosexuality. In fact one cannot even evaluate its strength in terms of hetero- or homosexuality.
Sex segregation (modern) is the purported (i.e. deliberate) effort to bridge (and sometimes to cover incompetency, felt or real) socially, personally and politically an obvious lack of corresponding rights between the sexes - a phenomenon similar to that when individuals, classes and races that had "failed" were attributed biological explanations. Classic (not modern) sex-segregation, on the other hand, is the sex-division produced by practical circumstances. Hence the word modern should be understood as only partly related to what we conceive as the era of modernity.
Feminism and psychoanalysis are the means by which modern sex-segregation is upheld. Strivings for non-segrgation through equal rights (basic human rights: negative rights, i.e.the right not to be imposed segregational or other "rights" that oppress the individual in question, and positive rights, i.e. the right to an equal participation in the democratic society e.g. through the right to vote, to be elected, to perform or not to perform any act that does not violate the rights of others) thus does not count as feminism. Feminism is per definition always biological essentialism. Biologically implanted HSA (in the male) represents a possible, theoretical base for feminism because it targets the real and relational difference between the sexes. Whereas procreation (after conception) is not necessarily predestined to heterorelation of any kind HSA always is, no matter if there are two physical persons of opposite sex present or not. Only a certain part (HSA) of what we could title general hetero-pornography is totally dependent on the real or assumed presence of two sexes. If we are hungry and if we believe that a sandwich dummy is a real and good one then our behavior/longing is "biological" rather than "cultural". "Assumed" in this context should of course not be considered "cultural" but rather a tool for limiting conceptual confusion re. "cheating sexes", i.e.. for example, when a male "misinterprets" what he think is the female sex according to his own view on that sex..Non-essential sex-segregation is a logical paradox that excludes the possibility of equal feminism. Apart from the obvious biological essentialism that is embedded in the concept as such, it is impossible to defend an equal, "non-essentialist" feminist position other than as a transient stage. And if that is the case then this "transient stage" constitutes the framework on which life and death of feminism depends. Consequently there seems to be no other way of discriminating between progressive and reactionary actions than by assessing underlying motives.
Sharia sex segregation or Human Rights for girls/women?In every possible form of Sharia girls/women are forced to lead their lives in sex apartheid of varying degrees. But according to Human Rights every girl/woman has the right to decide herself what kind of life she wants to lead - incl. a sex segregated life if she so wishes.
In islam women and non-muslims are all "infidels", and the only thing that really distinguishes a woman as muslim is her "duty" towards islam to reproduce (physically and/or culturally) as many new muslims as possible. .
In John Peters Humprey's world view "infidels" didn't exist
John Peters Humphrey (peace be upon him and Human Rights) is the last prophet of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights - and he is utterly defamated by muslim Humanrightsophobes - yet all the Billions of Human Rights followers take it (too?) calmly.
John Peters Humphrey (who actually existed and who wasn't a pedophile or a murderous scumbag or a fanatic warlord or a terrorist) wrote the first draft of the Universal Human Rights Declaration (peace be upon him and Human Rights). Here's part of his profound and sacred original revelation:
"Subject to the laws governing slander and libel there shall be full freedom of speech and of expression by any means whatsoever, and there shall be reasonable access to all channels of communication. Censorship shall not be permitted"
Klevius comment: By 'libel' and 'slander' John Peters Humphrey of course meant something directed to an existing individual, not a totalitarian ideology!