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?

Is Mrs Theresa May digging a miserable "British" sharia "empire" under the Brexit cliff?

Mrs May plays sharia with the islamofascist Saudi dictator family - skipping Human Rights. Right?

Saudi islamofascism attacks Buddhists - again and again - backed by Mrs May.

When will the world finally turn on the hateful Saudi dictator family - rather than on its victims?

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

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

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.

Thursday, March 28, 2013

The Passover of the Chosen Jews


Acknowledgement: Telling a less flattering truth about Germans is still ok. For example that one third of the Germans voted for National-socialism (often called Nazism for the purpose of hiding its direct socialist roots) and later on more than 90% of Germans approved of Hitler's politics and making him an elected dictator. But telling the truth about Judaism is considered "anti-semitic" and therefore "racist". So what to do? One way is to limit oneself to Jews who didn't speak a semitic language and who didn't belong to a certain Mideastern "semitic" genetics. Those criterion were fulfilled by most East- and Central-European Jews, i.e. Jews who by other Jews were called "so called Jews".

"Hatred" is usually used in definitions of anti-semitism. And it was racist hatred that caused the Holocaust and its victims of whom many were not Jews at all.

However, the search for facts and logic and their interpretation should not be fueled by hatred. Hatred against all those Nazis, i.e. Germans who supported National-socialism and Hitler has effectively hindered us from scientifically researching the topic. 


God told us, the chosen people, to enslave, rape and murder "infidels"!



The "monotheist" curse of Abraham that has contaminated and ruined the lives of billions - even outside "monotheist" religions (e.g. India etc)

Abraham was promised that his posterity would be as innumerable as the stars if they committed continuous rapetivism, i.e. the physical and cultural imprisonment of girls/women as reproducers of their own perpetrators. In this respect islam represents well the original idea in Judaism.

According to the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament), when God called forth his people out of slavery in Egypt and back to the land of their forefathers, he directed them to kill all the Canaanite clans who were living in the land (Deut. 7.1-2; 20.16-18). The destruction was to be complete: every man, woman, and child was to be killed. The book of Joshua tells the story of Israel’s carrying out God’s command in city after city throughout Canaan.




Klevius comment: Although it was the islamic branch of Judaism that completely drained Africa during 1400 years it must be remembered that the seed for the monotheist enslavement of Africa was set by pre-islamic Jews from southern Arabia.

Donate and Klevius will publish the whole story (A Roots Guide)!

So called Judaism is a tiny small and vanishing fraction today compared to the big OIC/Sharia bully islam. However, precisely because of the social capital residing in the Holocaust inertia many influential Jews tend to ally with islam, which then, in turn, can benefit in its strive to make islamofascism out of reach for normal moral etc scrutiny by imposing its Sharia blasphemy laws on the world via UN and weak politicians.


The only God you need to have a moral that gives you freedom while hindering you from being racist or sexist is (Negative) Human Rights! Read and grow up!


Klevius history lesson on Judaism 


Judaism is patriarchal and rests on sex apartheid. Therefore its first institution was circumcision.



Judaic bad conscience (for being "the chosen people" and for its slavery finance) has led to a considerable amount of work done to justify its own existence. However, the very basis has never been thoroughly scrutinized.

The central work in Judaism is, apart from the Torah, the 6,200 pages Talmud, which btw, according to other Jews, was written by “so called Jews”.

After Alexander the Great Jews became more divided in Hellenistic Diaspora Jews and other Jews.

After the Roman takeover some Jews begun worshiping Jesus as Christ.

This led to other Jews emphasizing matrilineality as proof of being a “true Jew”, i.e. what Klevius terms 'Vagina Jews'.

The uneconomical reproduction rate of Vagina Jews, later led to its opposite, i.e. what Klevius terms 'Penis Jews', i.e. what other use to call islam. Islam became soon the world's foremost slave master.

Islamic Judaism expanded via the Penis reproduction (rapetivism) of new muslims who were obliged to stay muslim under Sharia apostasy ban.

However, all branches of Judaism (except Christianity which despite itself being involved also was the only branch to actively ban slavery) have been connected throughout history by slavery as constituting the main financial basis.

And it was the shared interest in slavery that connected Jews and muslims in Al-Andalus as well as with the Ottoman slave empire. And both decayed when their slave finance was hindered! The only "tolerance" in those evil societies was that of profit from enslaving "infidels".

No wonder then that some Jews now try to question the purity of the Jewishness of the Jews who steered the most powerful ever Jewish state, Khazaria, which was one of the worst ever slave raiding/trading societies. To an extent that the very word 'slave' is the same as the people, i.e. Slavs.

Just like the comparably very few Finland-Swedish Goths half a Millennium earlier conquered most of Europe from the top down and via due alliances, the Jews ruled in Khazaria over Turkic-mongolic tribes.



Klevius bias example from Wikipedia

A 1999 study by Hammer et al., compared the Y chromosomes of Ashkenazi, Roman, North African, Kurdish, Near Eastern, Yemenite, and Ethiopian Jews with 16 non-Jewish groups from similar geographic locations. It found that "most Jewish populations were not significantly different from one another at the genetic level... The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora." According to Nicholas Wade, "the results accord with Jewish history and tradition and refute theories like those holding that Jewish communities consist mostly of converts from other faiths, or that they are descended from the Khazars, a medieval Turkish tribe that adopted Judaism.

Klevius comment: Did you see that?! These people brake their fingers in stumbling on their own illogic! "Converts" and "Khazars" are no real Jews because they don't have "Jewish" DNA!? And of course "most Jewish populations were not significantly different from one another at the genetic level. As long as you define a Jew as one that has "Jewish" DNA and one that's not a Khazar or something else!

Walking slaves who except for themselves also could carry other items and who could serve their masters during long trips constituted the ultimate product for Jewish commerce and, additionally, also the only commodity that satisfactorily explains the wealth of many Jews throughout Millenniums.




  Why do you think Shakespeare had a Jew demanding flesh?!




An ex-muslim flanked by two Slavs



And after having giving the topic a serious look it suffices to say that it rather looks like we all, even Klevius, have underestimated rather than exaggerated the role of slavery in Judaic based monotheisms. This is particularly true when it comes to the history of islam and can not in any sense be talked away by referring to "it was customary at the time".





Some other voices on Jewish slavery


The Jewish involvement in and sanctioning of slavery can be traced to the teachings of Moses, who was informed (by Yahweh) that “the Hebrews should buy their slaves from neighboring nations.” The restrictions for Jews involved the enslavement of their own people—which was not prohibited, but set within certain parameters: "No Hebrew bondsman was to serve, without his consent, for longer than 50 years."4 Both the Christian and Judaic text identified servitude with Canaan.5 But the justification for the enslavement of Black people came from the Jewish interpretation of the Hamitic Myth from "the Talmudic and Midrashic sources," which included: "Ham was smitten in his skin"; that Noah told Ham, "Your seed will be ugly and dark-skinned"; and that Ham was father "of Canaan who brought curses into the world, of Canaan who was cursed, of Canaan who darkened the faces of mankind, of Canaan the notorious world darkener."6 This interpretation came from the Babylonian Talmud, not the Jerusalem Talmud. The distinction is important, according to St. Clair Drake, who hypothesizes that "special conditions in Mesopotamia generated rabbinic stories associating Negroidness with excessive and aberrant sexuality and Noah's curse." Drake argues that the Mesopotamia Jews negatively encountered significant numbers of Africans called the Zanj. In fact, Drake insists that "some Jews had a stake in maintaining slavery. They were not just supervisors of slave labor; eventually, they became slave owners and dealers in the slave trade. 

 Klevius comment: Do note that already more than thousand years ago in what is now Iraq, some 500,000 African Zanj slaves started a rebellion against their muslim masters! It gives a hint of the scale of muslim slave finance - which is clearly also sanctioned in the Koran. In fact, it's the very root of islam!


It's truly scary to note a recent US poll that says 46% (mostly women) literally believe in this hateful mythology from the past!



.
 .

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Klevius to Amanda Knox: Forgive them because they don't know what they're doing!


The strange hate filled crusade against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito

A new turn in this judicial Italian mess - and hate mongering BBC's take on it



Italy's judicial system allows for two levels of appeals, and prosecutors can appeal acquittals, so the recent court ruling is not about guilt but to decide if the appellate trial was properly conducted.



This is what Klevius wrote more than three years ago. Nothing has changed since.

Sunday, December 06, 2009


It was probably islam, not Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito who murdered Meredith Kerchner





This is the most probable mastermind to the islamic (cutting the throat after raping her) murder. The murder happened in Perugia notorious for its extremist hate mongering islamic mosque with some 10,000 islamic visitors, among them islamic Al-Qaeda etc terrorists. Perugia has a large African population which is heavily influenced by islamic "infidel" racism. Abdullah committed the islamic rape of the infidel & due decapitation, as he usually does, via some lost African street jihadist (no one knows how many victims Abdullah's & Co racist islamic hate mongering has caused to date = see e.g. the case of Linda in Sweden, for a milder form of this islamic street jihadism made in Saudi Arabia & the Koran).

One may only speculate how much the stupid misinformation of islam has contributed to this horrible crime. Maybe the murder could have been avoided with a little more caution & information & less prejudices...

Klevius sex analysis: The case seems to really highlight the extreme sex tension that is building up between the moral crusts consisting of rigid no-sex (before/outside marriage) & the "as much sex as possible & whenever", continents. Meredith Kerchner became a victim of catholic innocence/naivity & islamic sex racism. Catholicism & islam merged into an evil inquisition against "secular promisquity".

The cast (as interpreted by Klevius today from a point of view that is extremely shallow & superficial, but based on his sex & islam analysis):

Meredith Kerchner, a nice girl who didn't want to have sex with the African boy she was, perhaps, too friendly/naive towards in the beginning.

Rudy Guede, the most probable murderer, a black African man (see how hot that phrase is "a black African") with a record of violence & "a taste for foreign ("white") women". He, most probably committed the crime alone (which doesn't exclude the possibility that the others were somewhere nearby, & under influence as well). However, to convict "a black African" while freeing whites seems to have been too difficult. His finger prints & his DNA connected to the murder.

Amanda Knox, a young American woman confused by sex segregation. Alcohol & drugs are the main paths to sex for women but not for men. She might have messed around (although we don't know how much this is exaggerated) but she was most probably not involved in the murder in any sense (yes, she might have been guilty of not reacting properly to what happened if she was nearby). She is a good footballer with a technique to take on attackers that earned her the name 'Foxy Knoxy' which has nothing to do with sex although media & the court sexed it. In fact, one may assume that what made her, as a girl, interested in football, was a healthy explorative curiosity that, when faced with the stunning sex segregation barrier of our time, made her use sex as a means for contact with the other sex. Drugs make such tricky (read perverse) communication smoother.

A main reason she is convicted is the notorious "monster of Florence" prosecutor, Giuliano Mignini (who used to trash justice in Italy's most costly & fruitless hunt for a sex fixated serial killer - maybe it was because he used the same senseless & biased reasoning as in the Kercher case).

Raffaele Sollecito, attracted by Amanda's heterosexual attraction (see From Klevius without love). Possibly even fell in love with her (as she with him) although the smear campaign against Amanda combined with the risk of being involved distanced him from her.

Islam has for long been the main hate mongerer for Africans despite the cruel fact that it was islam in the first place that crippled Africa through 1400 yrs of slave rading/trading, genocides, rapetivism, colonialism & islamic imperialism.

Arabic islam with it's rigid sex segregation & burqa confinement "chastity" (these same girls/women, however, are Sharia sex slaves within "marriage") has no problem of raping/abusing/assulting/murdering non-muslim infidel "whores". This serves as a tactics against the unbelieveres as well as a formula for spreading islam via sex jihadism. The latter was popular at Mohammed's time as well as now. And contrary to what many believe this kind of muslimhood doesn't need to follow conventional islamic forms. Just look at Nation of Islam (Mr X "president's" ideological background) & the Black Panthers in USA.


Acknowledgement: Someone might try to compromise Klevius by telling you he also has a master degree in criminology. However, it will hereby be certified that he hasn't let that disgrace in any sense influence his judgement.

Avoid desinformation & cure your bottomless & truly frightening ignorance abt islam!
Origin of islam


and here what Klevius wrote



Wednesday, October 05, 2011


Did islamic jihadism assist the rape, torture, murder and beheading of Meredith Kercher?

December 06, 2009 (when he learned about the case) Klevius wrote: "It was probably islam, not Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito, who murdered Meredith Kercher". It seems that this standpoint has become even stronger.

Amanda Knox is rightly freed but why is Guede's (with Kercher's blood on his hands and fingers in her vagina) sentence reduced to 16 years while the prosecutor demanded prolonged sentence (lifetime) for Knox who wasn't even there?! Was it PC, i.e. because Knox was a white American and Guede a black African?!

I was equally unsure about the court's capability as was Knox seconds before the verdict. This uncertainty and subsequent enormous relief we both shared although my only stake in it was that the story might have otherwise rotten, together with Knox herself, in an Italian prison.

The indicies against islam are overwhelming (although most of media also has a lot of Kercher's blood and suffering on its hands):
Perugia (some 160,000+ inhabitants) is a known muslim jihadist and islamic al-Qaeda center with the main mosque attracting some 10,0000+ visitors.

Perugia has a big community of Albanian muslims (one of the alleged murderers was Albanian).

Camorra has a strong Albanian muslim connection in Perugia.

Same year as Meredith was murdered a huge islamic jihadist plot was revealed in Perugia.

Meredith Kercher was not only raped (at least Guede's fingers had been in her vagina) and tortured but also almost beheaded. I.e. following a formula that seems to be rare in other similar criminal cases but common among islamic jihadist murderers (came to think about the CEO of US based islamic Bridges TV who stabbed his divorcing wife nine times and then beheaded her - the guy can be seen rewarded by CAIR leaders on the Obama pic). Btw, we have had a tsunami of similar cases in many muslim populated tourist etc spots around the world but sadly, no one told Meredith Kercher and Amanda Knox about it - unless, of course, they'd have happened to read Klevius.

Antonio Aviello, who, according to his brother Luciano (Camorra mafia connected), participated in the murdering of Meredith Kercher, did it together with an Albanian named Florio. If this is true then Guede, Aviello, and Florio together (morally and legally) gang raped, tortured, murdered and decapitated her in an islamic boosted hate crime scenario.


As islam constitutes the worst part of Judaism it should perhaps not surprise anyone that a Jewish Journal via a female "writer" takes the opportunity to spit on poor Amanda Knox in a racist/sexist manner:

Tamara Shayne Kagel ( a “writer” in Santa Monica, CA): "Foxy Knoxy is out. It used to be that being a pretty twenty-something American college student got you a free latte. Now, apparently, it gets you a pass on murder.
Being pretty, has always had its unfair advantages. But Foxy Knoxy seems to truly have expanded the limits of what being young and beautiful can get you. Amanda Knox has seemed to have opened the door for the underserved white educated class of beautiful women in this country.


If this had to happen to Foxy Knoxy, at least it happened in Italy where they don’t have the death penalty. She could have been sentenced to death in the States. But then again, when was the last time we executed someone beautiful on death row. For that matter, when was the last time we executed someone who wasn’t a poor black man

College degrees are overrated. Foxy Knoxy didn’t graduate from University of Washington but John Grisham is begging to co-author a book with her. She’s about to begin her career on the talk show circuit and compare million dollar deals to allow someone the privilege of telling her story.
If you’re pretty enough, you can get away with murder!
If all else fails, blame it on a black man. Knox got so confused during her interview with police, she told them her boss Patrick Lumumba must have done it. Although this black man had an airtight alibi, Knox luckily admitted to knowing another black Italian man, Rudy Guede and he has been convicted of the murder"

Klevius comment: Would you believe it! This nut job is really PC in a nutshell, isn't she cute! No wonder innocent white Meredith Kercher was murdered by a black man, possibly aided by a muslim, and a white innocent (i.e. both legally and socially) Amanda Knox would hav lost her life had it not been for some small details (video etc) that revealed huge mistakes (deliberate?!) in the process.


This is the Jewish woman who celebrates "Foxy Knoxy's" freedom by insinuating about sex, herpes, vibrators etc.












BBC should be prosecuted for their extremely biased and hostile presentation today about the case!


According to BBC today, Amanda Knox was probably guilty because she took a shower in sa blood stained bathroom after the murder. And BBC adds the usual hate mongering pc code: And the only one sentenced is a black man while the white go free.

However, here-s what really happedned:



November 2, 2007
The precise and detailed account that Amanda gave with regard to the morning of November 2, 2007 radically contradicts the assumed personality of a liar.  It completely contradicts those people who say differently, giving factually twisted information against her. In her detailed description,  Amanda discussed the fact that she gathered clean clothes from her bedroom and then took a shower.  She then discussed getting the mop to clean the floor in Raffaele’s kitchen. Amanda shows absolute spontaneity and truth in her behavior.  It seems hardly conceivable that a person that committed a murder just a few hours earlier would return to the scene of the murder given all the risks involved and then report details not known to anybody such as the open door, traces of blood in the sink and bidet, feces in the bathroom, Meredith’s bedroom door being closed etc.... These are a whole string of factors that a guilty person would not have interest to disclose.  A guilty person would have the instinct to keep silent, thus postponing to the latest possible time the discovery of these elements.  When the police arrive Amanda shows the Postal Police what she has seen.  This behavior is proof of the ordinary and usual conduct of a person in good faith.

So, Amanda returned to her flat and found the anomalies just mentioned, which first involved finding the front door of the cottage completely open.  She explained this actually struck her as strange because it was customary for everyone living in the cottage to always close the door using the key, because that is the only way to close it.  So she started calling the girls names aloud but received no reply.  At first she thought that perhaps one of the girls had gone outside to throw garbage into the bins, or was out at the neighbor’s home of the boys below.  She assumed someone had left temporarily to perhaps smoke a cigarette so they left the door unlocked and the door opened.  Amanda then said that she noticed drops of blood and a spot of blood on the mat outside the shower and other stains in the sink.  She explained that the blood in the sink was from her ear piercings a week prior, that were still bothering her more recently, while other blood could be menstrual from one of her roommates, that they just had not cleaned yet, although they usually did. 

This position underlines the absolute truth and good faith of Amanda.  Her reaction is immediate, natural and spontaneous.  After Amanda took her shower, she went to the other bathroom to borrow a hair dryer and noticed the water in the toilet was dirty with feces, as someone had forgotten to flush the toilet.  She said this made her feel strange but she had avoided doing so herself as stated in her declaration of November 02, 2007.   Amanda’s detailed account shows ordinary behavior and reaction.  Being the first to tell of these findings is clearly not the behavior of a murderer.  Amanda provided information voluntarily to the authorities.  Why would someone who is responsible for the murder do so? 

Amanda was concerned about the observations that she made at the cottage. She took the mop and returned to Raffaele’s apartment to discuss her concerns with him. Amanda then began calling Meredith’s mobile phone and then Filomena’s.  There were 7 phone calls within a short time frame.  Amanda and Raffaele decided to return to the cottage for a further investigation.  Once there, they then discovered broken glass and thus a possible burglary.  They called aloud for anybody in the cottage but received no answer.  Raffaele tried to open Meredith’s door with force but he was not successful. Amanda tried to see into Meredith’s room overlooking the terrace bathroom and they also looked through the keyhole on Meredith’s door.  Amanda checked to see if the boys below were home, but found they were gone.  At this point Amanda and Raffaele decided to call Raffaele’s sister who urged them to call the Carabinieri.  Raffaele then made two phone calls to the Carabinieri while Amanda had made a call to her mother in the USA to ask for advice.  Soon after the Postal Police arrived looking to locate the owner of one of two mobile phones that had been found in a garden near a road in Perugia.




read more about the original appeal









.

Sunday, March 24, 2013

Why so silent about hate crimes and trolls against "whites"? Allthough they're by far the most common!


What would have happened if the baby had been "black" or muslim and the murderer "white"?!

Was Antonio Santiago murdered because of his skin color and blue eyes?




Police have charged 17-year-old African-American De’Marquise Elkins, along with a 14-year-old suspect whose name has been withheld, with murder of a "white" baby. He allegedly shot the baby deliberately in the face in his stroller and the mother in her leg and ear.

The baby's father: "He was special. He had the bluest, bluest eyes".




Klevius comment: Indeed.


Btw, there's a busy Sharia campaign going on where this hate crime occurred.


Here's a comment found on the web:


Trigus
Posted on March 23, 2013 at 11:05am
Honestly, if a white guy would have done this to a black child in a stroller there would be riots in every major city across the country. Al, Jessie, Shabaazz, Jeremiah, Louis, Barry and the media are pushers of Hate that keep the Black man down and keep Racial Tension High.
Far to long these people have been preaching hate. they have been poisoning the minds of the youth and causing a great divide in this country. You must ask yourself why?
A divided Country is Easier to Control then a United Country. Why do you think this current Administration preaches Racial and Religious Hatred, and Class Warfare,
Blaze run a poll: Since Barry Obama has been elected President. How many people feel Racial Tension in the United States has been pushed back to the 1950s?
By using the Race card we play into the hands of those trying to destroy the United States.
This is a senseless act of violence, committed by this Animal, that should be dealt with quickly and publicly. To show that we will no longer Tolerate Animals preying on the weak.
“If he be guilty of murder he should die; if not, let him be punished according to the demerit of his crime; but for no offense but murder should he lose his life. Taking away the life of another is the highest offense that can be committed against the individual, and against society; and the highest punishment that a man can suffer for such a crime is the loss of his own Life.”




Here are some other blue eyed hate crime victims the media and politicians don't seem to bother about. And what about the black troll Ms Lucy Black? Is she arrested yet?! No! Why?









 .

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

Klevius on Minna Canth's Day: Paving the way for women's rights against religion

Minna Canth was a Finland-Swede just like Klevius

The bedrock of "monotheist" religions is sex apartheid - and worst of them is islam



Did you know that the word 'God' comes from the Finnish word for home which is far older than any of the Mideastern "monotheisms"?

The ancient Persian (which is extremely young compared to Uralic) word for god 'khoda' connects to the even more ancient Finnish 'koti' and Finno-Ugric/Uralic 'kota' (=home/house/seed vessel - see Klevius definition of religion and the Vagina gate), Saami 'goahti'. German Gott (god) and Swedish gott (good) as well as Gotland (pronounced Gottland), the island in the Baltic sea that constituted a (the?) main Viking* hub in their slave trade with Jews and muslims. This very same Gotland belonged before the Viking age to Kvenland under the half mythic (but less so than the entirely mythic Mohammed) Finnish King Fornjotr.

* see also The oldest textual use of the word 'Viking'



Linguistic sex apartheid


As Klevius has pointed out for decades, in Finnish (as in most other languages) there is no sex segregation. A person is 'hän' regardless of sex, not the stupid he/she apartheid Europe has inherited from sexist Mideastern "monotheisms".

Is this why Finland became the most progressive country in Europe more than a century ago? And do note that full (i.e. also electable etc) voting rights for women in Finland was the result of non-socialists. Partly social-democratic Sweden had to wait 14 years to achieve the same.

            
The bilingual Minna Canth street sign in Helsinki reflects not only 600 years as part of Sweden but, according to Klevius, perhaps even more so the time before, namely as Kvenland (Queenland) the home of the Goths and the Vikings.

Minna Canth, born Ulrika Wilhelmina Johnsson, 19 March 1844, Tampere/Finland - 12 May 1897, Kuopio/Finland) was a Finnish-Swedish writer (i.e. mother tongue Swedish*) and social activist who wrote her most important works against religion and the treatment of women in Finnish. She inspired the proposal 1997 in the Finnish Parliament (actually same year as she died).

 * in Finland both Swedish and Finnish are official languages since long ago (also see Kvenland/Kvinnoland/Queenland

Drawing (1979) and photo (2012) by Peter Klevius.








.




.

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

Klevius sex tutorial for the Pope and others: 'Gender' is what hinderrs women from accessing full Human Rights equality independent of sex

.

Klevius quest of the day: What's the difference between the Pope and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg*?

* The US Constitution still doesn't give women full equality although it has been very close sometimes. And Ruth definitely knows about it. 

Klevius hint: It's all about 'not sameness' and Human Rights! Human Rights IS 'sameness' stupid!


When God was created he was made like Adam.

When the basic idea of Universal Human Rights was created it was made like Adam AND Eve.

And for you who think heterosexual attraction, i.e. that women are sexier than men, could be (exc)used as a reason for depriving women of legal sameness. Please, do think again!And read Klevius Sex and Gender Tutorial below - if you can!




                           The Plan of God


A Cardinal, a Pope and a Justice "from medieval times"





Keith O'Brien has reiterated the Catholic Church's continued opposition to civil partnerships and suggested that there should be no laws that "facilitate" same-sex relationships, which he claimed were "harmful", arguing that “The empirical evidence is clear, same-sex relationships are demonstrably harmful to the medical, emotional and spiritual wellbeing of those involved, no compassionate society should ever enact legislation to facilitate or promote such relationships, we have failed those who struggle with same-sex attraction and wider society by our actions.”

Four male members of the Scottish Catholic clergy  allegedly claim that Keith O'Brien had abused his position as a member of the church hierarchy by making unwanted homosexual advances towards them in the 1980s.

Keith O'Brien criticized the concept of same-sex marriage saying it would shame the United Kingdom and that promoting such things would degenerate society further.


Pope Francis, aka Jorge Bergoglio: Same-sex is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God." He has also insisted that adoption by gay and lesbian people is a form of discrimination against children. This position received a rebuke from Argentine president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who said the church's tone was reminiscent of "medieval times and the Inquisition".




Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: 'Sex' is a dirty word, so let's use 'gender' instead!


Klevius: Let's not!


As previously and repeatedly pointed out by Klevius, the treacherous use of 'gender' instead of 'sex' is not only confusing but deliberately so. So when Jewish Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg proposed gender' as a synonyme for 'sex' (meaning biological sex) she also helped to shut the door for many a young girl's/woman's possibilities to climb outside the gender cage.

The Universal Human Rights declaration clearly states that your biological sex should not be referred to as an excuse for limiting your rights.







Islam (now represented by OIC and its Sharia declaration) is the worst and most dangerous form of sex segregation - no matter in how modern clothing it's presented!


Klevius Sex and Gender Tutorial

What is 'gender' anyway?


(text randomly extracted from some scientific writings by Klevius)



 It might be argued that it is the developing girl, not the grown up woman, who is the most receptive to new experience, but yet is also the most vulnerable. Therefore we need to address the analysis of the tyranny of gender before the point at where it's already too late.  I prefer to use the term ‘female’ instead of ‘woman’ so to include girls, when appropriate in this discussion. I also prefer not to define women in relation to men, i.e. in line with the word 'universal' in the Human Rights Declaration. In short, I propose 'gender blindness' equally as, for example, 'color blindness'. And keep in mind, this has nothing to do with biological differences.

According to Connell (2003:184), it is an old and disreputable habit to define women mainly on the basis of their relation to men. Moreover, this approach may also constitute a possible cause of confusion when compared to a definition of ‘gender’ which emphasizes social relations on the basis of ‘reproductive differences’.

To really grasp the absurdity of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's and others habit of confusing 'gender' with 'sex' one may consider that “normal” girls/women live in the same gender trap tyranny as do transsexuals.

The definition of ‘acquired gender’ is described in a guidance for/about transsexuals as:

Transsexual people have the deep conviction that the gender to which they were assigned at birth on the basis of their physical anatomy (referred to as their “birth gender”) is incorrect. That conviction will often lead them to take steps to present themselves to the world in the opposite gender. Often, transsexual people will undergo hormonal or surgical treatment to bring their physical identity into line with their preferred gender identity.

This evokes the extinction of the feminine or women as directly dependent on the existence of the masculine or men. Whereas the feminine cannot be defined without the masculine, the same applies to women who cannot be defined - only described - without men.

Female footballers, for example - as opposed to feminine footballers, both male and female - are, just like the target group of feminism, by definition distinguished by sex. Although this classification is a physical segregation – most often based on a delivery room assessment made official and not at all taking into account physical size, strength, skills etc. - other aspects of sex difference, now usually called ‘gender’, seem to be layered on top of this dichotomy. This review departs from the understanding that there are two main categories that distinguish females, i.e. the physical sex belonging, for example, that only biological women may participate in a certain competition, and the cultural sex determination, for example that some sports or sporters are less ‘feminine’ than others.

‘Gender’ is synonymous with sex segregation, given that the example of participation on the ground of one’s biological sex is simply a rule for a certain agreed activity and hence not sex segregation in the form of stipulated or assumed separatism. Such sex segregation is still common even in societies which have prescribed to notions of general human freedom regardless of sex and in accordance with Human Rights. This is because of a common consensus that sex segregation is ‘good’ although, as it is seen here, its effects are bad in the long run.

In Durkheim’s (1984: 142) view ‘organized despotism’ is where the individual and the collective consciousness are almost the same. Then sui generis, a new life may be added on to that of the main body. As a consequence, this freer and more independent state progresses and consolidates itself (Durkheim 1984: 284).

However, consensus may also rest on an imbalance that is upheld and may even strengthen precisely as an effect of the initial imbalance. In such a case ‘organized despotism’ becomes the means for conservation. As a consequence, the only alternative would be to ease restrictions, which is something fundamentally different from proposing how people should live their lives. ‘Organized despotism’ in this meaning may apply to gender and to sex segregation as well.

According to Connell (2003) whose confused view may be closer to that of Justice Ginsburg, gender is neither biology, nor a fixed dichotomy, but it has a special relation to the human body mirrored in a ‘general perception’. Cultural patterns do not only mirror bodily differences. Gender is ‘a structure’ of social relations/practices concentrated to ‘the reproductive arena’, and a series of due practices in social processes. That is, gender describes how society relates to the human body, and has due consequences for our private life and for the future of wo/mankind (Connell 2003:21-22). However, the main problem here involves how to talk without gender.

Sex should properly refer to the biological aspects of male and female existence. Sex differences should therefore only be used to refer to physiology, anatomy, genetics, hormones and so forth. Gender should properly be used to refer to all the non‑biological aspects of differences between males and females ‑ clothes, interests, attitudes, behaviors and aptitudes, for example ‑ which separate 'masculine' from 'feminine' life styles (Delamont 1980: 5 in Hargreaves 1994:146).

It seems that 'masculine' and 'feminine’ in this definition of gender is confusingly close to the ‘mystique about their being predetermined by biology’ when compared to the ‘reproductive arena’ and ‘reproductive differences’ in Connell’s definition of gender. However, although gender, according to Connell (2003: 96), may also be ‘removed’ the crucial issue is whether those who are segregated really want to de-sex segregate? As long as the benefits of a breakout are not clearly assessable, the possible negative effects may undermine such efforts.Hesitating to run out through an opened door to the unknown doesn't necessarily mean that you don't want to. Nor does it mean that you have to.

According to Connell (2003:20) the very key to the understanding of gender is not to focus on differences, but, instead, to focus on relations. In fact, this distinction is crucial here because relations, contrary to differences, are mutually dependent. Whatever difference existing between the sexes is meaningless unless it is connected via a relation. On the one hand, big male muscles can hardly be of relational use other than in cases of domestic violence, and on the other hand, wage gaps cannot be identified without a comparative relation to the other sex.

Biological determinism is influential in the general discourse of sports academia (Hargreaves 1994:8). However, what remains to analyze is whether ‘gender’ is really a successful concept for dealing with biological determinism?

‘To explain the cultural at the level of the biological encourages the exaggeration and approval of analyses based on distinctions between men and women, and masks the complex relationship between the biological and the cultural’ (Hargreaves 1994:8).

With another example: to explain the cultural (driver) at the level of the technical (type of car) encourages the exaggeration and approval of analyses based on distinctions between cars, and masks the complex relationship between the car and the driver. However, also the contrary seems to hold true;. that the cultural (driver/gender) gets tied to the technical/biological. The ‘complex relationship’ between the car and the driver is easily avoided by using similar1 cars, hence making the driver more visible. In a sex/gender setting the ‘complex relationship’ between sex and gender is easily avoided by distinguishing between sex and culture2, hence making culture more visible. The term ‘culture’, unlike the term ‘gender’ clearly tries to avoid the ‘complex relationship’ between biology and gender. The ‘complex relationship’ makes it, in fact, impossible to distinguish between them. On top of this comes the ‘gender relation’ confusion, which determines people to have ‘gender relations’, i.e. to be opposite or separate.

This kind of gender view is popular, perhaps because it may serve as a convenient way out from directly confronting the biology/culture distinction, and seems to be the prevalent trend, to the extent that ‘gender’ has conceptually replaced ‘sex’, leading to the consequence that the latter has become more or less self-evident and thus almost beyond scrutiny. In other words, by using ‘gender’ as a sign for ‘the complex relationship between the biological and the cultural’, biological determinism becomes more difficult to access analytically.

The distinction between sex and gender implied in these quotations, however, does not seem to resolve the issue, precisely because it fails to offer a tool for discriminating biological aspects of differences from non-biological ones, i.e. those that are cultural. This is also reflected in everyday life. ‘Folk’ categories of sex and gender often appear to be used as if they were the same thing. Although 'masculine' and 'feminine' are social realities, there is a mystique about their being predetermined by biology. Furthermore the very relational meaning of ‘gender’ seems to constitute a too obvious hiding place for a brand of essentialism based on sex. Apart from being ‘structure’, as noted above, gender is, according to Connell (2003:20), all about relations. However, if there are none - or if the relations are excluding - the concept of sex segregation may be even more useful.

In Connell’s analysis, gender may be removed (Connell 2003:96). In this respect and as a consequence, gender equals sex segregation. In fact it seems that the 'masculine' and 'feminine’, in the definition of gender above, are confusingly close to the ‘mystique about their being predetermined by biology’ when compared to the ‘reproductive arena’ and ‘reproductive differences’ in Connell’s (2003:21) definition of gender. The elusiveness of gender seems to reveal a point of focus rather than a thorough-going conceptualization. So, for example, in traditional Engels/Marx thinking the family’s mediating formation between class and state excludes the politics of gender (Haraway 1991: 131).


What's a Woman?


In What is a Woman? Moi (1999) attacks the concept of gender while still emphasizing the importance of the concept of the feminine and a strong self-conscious (female) subject that combines the personal and the theoretical within it. Moi (1999: 76), hence, seems to propose a loose sex/gender axis resting on a rigid womanhood based on women’s context bound, lived experience outside the realm of men’s experience.

Although I share Moi’s suggestion for abandoning the category of gender, her analysis seems to contribute to a certain confusion and to an almost incalculable theoretical abstraction in the sex/gender distinction because it keeps maintaining sex segregation without offering a convincing defence for it. Although gender, for example, is seen as a nature-culture distinction, something that essentializes non-essential differences between women and men, the same may be said about Moi’s approach if we understand her ‘woman’ as, mainly, the mainstream biological one usually classified (prematurely) in the delivery room. If the sexes live in separate spheres, as Moi’s analysis seems to imply, the lived, contextual experience of women appears as less suitable for pioneering on men’s territory.

This raises the question about whether the opening up of new frontiers for females may demand the lessening or even the absence of femininity (and masculinity). In fact, it is believed here that the ‘liminal state’ where social progression might best occur, is precisely that. Gender as an educated ‘facticity’ then, from this point of view, will inevitably enter into a state of world view that adds itself onto the ‘lived body’ as a constraint.

It is assumed here that we commonly conflate constructs of sex, gender, and sexuality. When sex is defined as the ‘biological’ aspects of male and female, then this conceptualization is here understood as purely descriptive. When gender is said to include social practices organized in relation to biological sex (Connell 1987), and when gender refers to context/time-specific and changeable socially constructed relationships of social attributes and opportunities learned through socialization processes, between women and men, this is also here understood as descriptive. However, when description of gender transforms into active construction of gender, e.g. through secrets about its analytical gain, it subsequently transforms into a compulsory necessity. Gendering hence may blindfold gender-blind opportunities.

In conclusion, if gender is here understood as a social construct, then it is not coupled to sex but to context, and dependent on time. Also it is here understood that every person may possess not only one but a variety of genders. Even if we consider gender to be locked together with the life history of a single individual the above conceptualization makes a single, personal gender impossible, longitudinally as well as contemporaneously. Whereas gender is constructive and deterministic, sex is descriptive and non-deterministic. In this sense, gender as an analytical tool leaves little room for the Tomboy.


The Tomboy - a threat to "femininity"


Noncompliance with what is assumed ‘feminine’ threatens established or presumed sex segregation. What is perceived as ‘masculinity’ or ‘maleness’ in women, as a consequence, may only in second place, target homosexuality. In accordance with this line of thought, the Tomboy embodies both the threat and the possibilities for gendered respectively gender-blind opportunity structures.

The Tomboy is the loophole out of gender relations. Desires revealed through sport may have been with females under the guise of a different identity, such as that of the Tomboy (Kotarba & Held 2007: 163). Girls throw balls ‘like girls’ and do not tackle like boys because of a female perception of their bodies as objects of action (Young 2000:150 cited in Kotarba & Held 2007: 155).

However, when women lacking experience of how to act in an effective manner in sport are taught about how to do, they have no problem performing, quite contrary to explaining shortcomings as due to innate causes (Kotarba & Held 2007: 157). This is also opposite to the experiences of male-to-female transsexuals who through thorough exercise learn how to feminize their movements (Schrock & Boyd 2006:53-55). Although, according to Hargreaves (1994), most separatist sports philosophies have been a reaction to dominant ideas about the biological and psychological predispositions of men and women, supposedly rendering men 'naturally suited to sports, and women, by comparison, essentially less suited (Hargreaves 1994:29-30), the opposite may also hold true. Separatism per definition needs to separate and this separation is often based on biological differences, be it skin colour, sex or something else.

From this perspective, the Tomboy would constitute a theoretical anomaly in a feminine separatist setting. Although her physical body would possibly qualify as feminine, what makes her a Tomboy would not.

The observation that in mixed playgrounds, and in other areas of the school environment, boys monopolize the physical space (Hargreaves 1994:151) may lack the additional notion that certain boys dominate and certain boys do not. Sports feminists have 'politicized' these kinds of experience by drawing connections between ideas and practice (Hargreaves 1994:3) but because of a separatist approach may exclude similar experience among parts of the boys. Moreover, a separatist approach is never waterproof and may hence leak Tomboy girls without a notion.


Femininity and feminism


Feminism and psychoanalysis as oppressors

According to Collier and Yanagisako (1987), Henrietta Moore (1994) and other feminist anthropologists, patriarchal dominance is an inseparable socially inherited part of the conventional family system. This implicit suggestion of radical surgery does not, however, count on unwanted secondary effects neither on the problem with segregated or non-segregated sex-worlds. If, in other words, oppression is related to gender segregation rather than patriarchy, or perhaps that patriarchy is a product of sex segregation, then there seems to be a serious problem of intellectual survival facing feminists themselves (Klevius in Angels of Antichrist 1996). If feminism1 is to be understood as an approach and/or analytical tool for separatism2, those feminists and others who propose not only analytical segregation but also practical segregation, face the problem of possible oppression inherent in this very segregation (Klevius 1994, 1996). In this sense oppression is related to sex segregation in two ways:

1. As a means for naming it (feminism) for an analytical purpose.
2. As a social consequence or political strategy (e.g. negative bias against, for example, female football or a separatist strategy for female football).

It is notable that the psychoanalytic movement has not only been contemporary with feminism, but it has also followed (or led) the same pattern of concern and proposed warnings and corrections that has marked the history of ‘feminism’ in the 20th century. According to S. Freud, the essence of the analytic profession is feminine and the psychoanalyst ‘a woman in love’ (L. Appignanesi & J. Forrester 1992:189). But psychoanalytically speaking, formalized sex and sex segregation also seem to have been troublesome components in the lives of female psychoanalysts struggling under a variety of assumed, but irreconcilable femininities and professional expectations.

In studying the history of feminism one inevitable encounters what is called ‘the women’s movement’. While there is a variety of different feminisms, and because the borders between them, as well as to what is interpreted as the women’s rights movement, some historians, incl. Klevius, question the distinction and/or methods in use for this distinction.

However, it could also be argued that whereas the women’s rights movement may be distinguished by its lack of active separatism within the proposed objectives of the movement, feminism ought to be distinguished as a multifaceted separatist movement based on what is considered feminine values, i.e. what is implied by the very word ‘feminism’3. From this perspective the use of the term ‘feminism’ before the last decades of the 19th century has to be re-evaluated, as has every such usage that does not take into account the separatist nature underpinning all feminisms worth carrying the name. Here it is understood that the concept ‘feminism’, and its derivatives, in every usage implies a distinction based on separating the sexes - e.g. addressing inequality or inequity - between male and female (see discussion above). So although ’feminism’ and ‘feminisms’ would be meaningless without such a separation, the ‘women’s rights movement’, seen as based on a distinct aim for equality with men in certain legal respects, e.g. the right to vote, could be described as the opposite, i.e. de-sex segregation, ‘gender blindness’ etc.

As a consequence the use of the word feminism in a context where it seems inappropriate is here excepted when the authors referred to have decided to do so. The feminist movement went back to Mary Wollstonecraft and to some French revolutionaries of the end of the eighteenth century, but it had developed slowly. In the period 1880 to 1900, however, the struggle was taken up again with renewed vigour, even though most contemporaries viewed it as idealistic and hopeless. Nevertheless, it resulted in ideological discussions about the natural equality or non-equality of the sexes, and the psychology of women. (Ellenberger 1970: 291-292).

Not only feminist gynocentrists, but also anti-feminist misogynists contributed with their own pronouncements on the woman issue. In 1901, for example, the German psychiatrist Moebius published a treatise, On the Physiological Imbecility of Woman, according to which, woman is physically and mentally intermediate between the child and man (see Ellenberger 1970:292). However, according to the underlying presumption of this thesis, i.e. that the borders between gynocentrism and misogyny are not well understood, these two approaches are seen as more or less synonymous. Such a view also confirms with a multitude of points in common between psychoanalysis and feminism. As was argued earlier, the main quality of separatism and ‘complementarism’ is an insurmountable border, sometimes contained under the titles: love, desire etc.

.



 .

Scandinavia's biggest newspaper is racist against all Japanese but supports all of islamofascism



 Aftonbladet today:


The Dreamliner flies - with new battery


Klevius correction: Aftonbladet lies you straight up your face. But why?!

 CNN: Raymond Conner, executive vice president of Boeing and head of commercial aeroplanes, said that they would not abandon the lithium-ion batteries used in the planes which are at the centre of a worldwide safety probe.
He also denied reports that the planemaker was at odds with its battery supplier over how to fix the troubles, saying "we are great partners."
The next generation 787 was ordered out of the skies in January following a series of incidents.

"It is not an interim solution. This is a permanent solution," Conner told reporters after meeting with Japanese transport minister Akihiro Ota to discuss problems that caused one battery to catch fire and another to emit smoke.

Asked if Boeing was considering ditching the Japanese-made lithium-ion batteries from the 787, Conner said: "I see nothing in this technology that would tell us it's the appropriate thing to do."

Klevius comment: Fact is that the Japanese are the only ones capable of producing these kind of high quality and powerful lightweight batteries - just as in so many other areas. Compare for example Toyota Prius and Honda Insight hybrid cars available a decade before BMW (with the help of the Japanese) and others could do the same but to a lesser quality standard. Or after the Kobe eartquake when the production of Ferraris and other European sport cars stopped due to lack of Japanese engine technology made in Kobe.

CNN: Conner did not give any details of the curative package for the Dreamliner, saying only that he was "confident" in the plan.

"The solution set that we have put in place provides three layers of protection and we feel that this solution takes into account any possible event that could occur, any causal factor that could cause an event.

Klevius' qualified guess: Such a "causal factor" could well be the huge amount of less reliable non-Japanese technology affecting (overloading/overcharging etc) the Japanese Yuasa batteries. Such as, for example, the French made electronic system - actually from the same manufacturer (Thales) who supplies Eurobus (incl. Flight 447 from Brazil which came down due to French poor quality technology) and who is partly owned by the white collar Saudi islamofascist Alwaleed bin Talal steered oil money based Kingdom Holding.

.

 Here's what Klevius wrote

Friday, January 18, 2013

Does Dreamliner suffer the same problem as Flight 447?


The real culprits causing the victims and troubles in Africa and elsewhere


This appalling, rape accused, guy is part of the Saudi family that, together with OIC and Obama, terrorize Africa with islam and islam schools teaching religious hatred (this phenomenon really accelerated after the fall of Gaddafi)!


The spider in the Saudi islamofascist net, Billionaire Alwleed bin Talal (Kingdom Holding etc), is owner of French Thales which makes weapon affairs with the Saudi islamofascists.!

A long time ago France used to be good at technology etc.  Did islam destroy this reputation?

There's a reason why French cars are constantly at the bottom of reliability, safety (see list of car fires) and quality surveys (just before British Land Rover and Range Rover which are usually last) and why Japanese cars are constantly at the top.


Therefore Klevius thinks it's not Japanese high quality Yuasa and their powerful and technologically advanced batteries (which are part of what made Dreamliner possible) but the usual French low-quality from Thales of France that is behind the problems. Just as it was when Airbus A330 plane Flight 447 from Brazil crashed into the Atlantic ocean.

According to Aviation Weekly (2009) for at least two years before the Flight 447 disaster officials at the European Aviation Safety Agency, EASA, knew there were serious problems with equipment installed on many Air France A330s, made by the French aerospace conglomerate Thales. EASA had reports of a “significant number of events.”

Klevius comment: Thales is the supplier of equipment directly connected to the powerful and advanced Yuasa batteries on the Dreamliner!

Klevius nostalgia: When I, who was used to Finnish and Swedish batteries, got my first Yuasa car battery I couldn't believe the difference it made for cold starts, charging, power reserve, recovery time and how long it lasted etc. It was a similar experience as when I went from my unreliable SAAB and VW to a bullet proof Mazda. And after having driven an old used Mazda (with some 200,000 km on the meter already at purchase) more than 100,000 km without any repair the question was obvious: Why doesn't everyone drive such a beautiful and reliable car? The racist answer: But it's a Japanese rice-cup!


Klevius serious advice to individuals, nations and companies etc: Keep away from Sharia compliant fascism!



.




 .

Monday, March 11, 2013

Our God told us that those without a God and all women are less worthy


Lal on muslim terror in India 1,000 years ago: In every campaign of Mahmud large-scale massacres preceded enslavement. The sight of horrendous killing completely unnerved the captives. Not only were the captives physically tortured, they were also morally shattered.

The tyranny of monotheism(s)


From a recent survey: People in bottom income groups are 17% more religious than those in top income groups. It is interesting that Religiosity declines as worldly prosperity of individuals rises. While the results for nations as a whole are mixed, individual respondents within a country show a revealing pattern. If citizens of each of the 57 countries are grouped into five groups, from the relatively poor to relatively rich in their own countries, the richer you get, the less religious you define yourself.


While the people of the world are turning their back to monotheist religions (see stats) the evil racist/sexist fascist organizations representing them (OIC, the Papacy etc) are growing in power and influence.

And although Mohammedanism (also called, Mahometanism, Saraceism, islam etc) is historically the by far worst evil ideological perpetrator, the root from which it emerged, Jesuism (Jews believing in Jesus) is the second worst. And yes, one may argue (as has Klevius argued since long ago) that the main bulk of Christian evil emerged as a response to islam's evilness.



Monotheism sprung out of slavery as "the chosen people" whose God told them to subjugate and enslave others. And it's only a question of definition how you draw the lines between the "Abrahamic faiths". Enslavement and rapetivism have been their constant followers.




Women in monotheist religion are kept unequal under the  sex apartheid motto 'equality but not sameness'


Not even female priests, bishops, imams etc. in monotheist religions alter the sex apartheid that constititutes the very origin and backbone of monotheism. This is because of women seen as sexual objects and physical and cultural reproducers of more monotheisms.


Female patriarchy in monotheism


Some examples from Catholic women in Brazil: 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. (O’Connor & Drury 1998:111).

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.
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
The effects of patriarchal conditioning on the formation of women are evi­dent in both countries and affect the relationship between sisters and lay­women even today Their status as sisters, emanating from a male, militaristic formation, elevated those in the religious orders a step above the laity, and many do not want to "descend" to the level of other women. These sisters con­tinue to contribute to inequality in the church by hanging on to privileges and perks denied to other women. Historically, some teaching sisters have influ­enced women to believe they are secondary and subordinate, not only to the clergy and other men, but to sisters as well (O’Connor & Drury 1998:127-128).


Klevius verdict: There seems to be only two options for women. Either isolation in the nun-tradition (this includes becoming female priests, bishops etc) or abandoning monotheism altogether.



Monotheist fanatics just blink (or despise) the historical and contemporary fact that most people on earth never were or became monotheists


Pompous, high and mighty, self important racist/sexist "monotheisms" against the majority of the world's population who don't approve of political etc systems based on evil "God told us" religions.

Dear reader, isn't it quite telling that monotheist Mideast (and islamized India - the Hindu system transformed in accordance to much Arab/islamic influence after the bloody muslim attacks on India*) has constantly been the worst place for women and the world center for never ending civil wars?!

* During the Arab invasion of Sindh (712 C.E.), Muhammad bin Qasim first attacked Debal, a word derived from Deval meaning temple. It was situated on the sea-coast not far from modern Karachi. It was garrisoned by 4000 Kshatriya soldiers and served by 3000 Brahmans. All males of the age of seventeen and upwards were put to the sword and their women and children were enslaved.1 700 beautiful females, who were under the protection of Budh (that is, had taken shelter in the temple), were all captured with their valuable ornaments, and clothes adorned with jewels.Muhammad despatched one-fifth of the legal spoil to Hajjaj which included seventy-five damsels, the rest four-fifths were distributed among the soldiers.3 Thereafter whichever places he attacked like Rawar, Sehwan, Dhalila, Brahmanabad and Multan, Hindu soldiers and men with arms were slain, the common people fled, or, if flight was not possible, accepted Islam, or paid the poll tax, or died with their religion. Many women of the higher class immolated themselves in Jauhar, most others became prize of the victors. These women and children were enslaved and converted, and batches of them were des-patched to the Caliph in regular installments. For example, after Rawar was taken Muhammad Qasim halted there for three days during which he massacred 6000 (men). Their followers and dependents, as well as their women and children were taken prisoner. Later on the slaves were counted, and their number came to 60,000 (of both sexes?). Out of these, 30 were young ladies of the royal blood Muhammad Qasim sent all these to Hajjaj who forwarded them to Walid the Khalifa. He sold some of these female slaves of royal birth, and some he presented to others. Selling of slaves was a common practice. From the seventh century onwards and with a peak during Muhammad al-Qasim's campaigns in 712-13, writes Andre Wink, a considerable number of Jats was captured as prisoners of war and deported to Iraq and elsewhere as slaves. Jats here is obviously used as a general word for all Hindus. In Brahmanabad, it is said that about six thousand fighting men were slain, but according to others sixteen thousand were killed, and their families enslaved.6 The garrison in the fort-city of Multan was put to the sword, and families of the chiefs and warriors of Multan, numbering about six thousand, were enslaved.

In Sindh female slaves captured after every campaign of the marching army, were converted and married to Arab soldiers who settled down in colonies established in places like Mansura, Kuzdar, Mahfuza and Multan. The standing instructions of Hajjaj to Muhammad bin Qasim were to give no quarter to infidels, but to cut their throats, and take the women and children as captives. In the final stages of the conquest of Sindh, when the plunder and the prisoners of war were brought before Qasim one-fifth of all the prisoners were chosen and set aside; they were counted as amounting to twenty thousand in number (they belonged to high families) and veils were put on their faces, and the rest were given to the soldiers. Obviously a few (K. Lal).



Raiding and trading for slaves


The main lineage in Jewish/islamic ideology has been parasitism finance with the main currency consisting of slaves. Wealthy Jews (some of them believers in Jesus) ruled most of the pre-islamic slave trade routes through which evil islam later came to spread by the help of Jewish collaborators. The Arabs would never have been able to conquer anything bigger than a caravan or power empty spaces where they could slaughter/rape defenseless civilians. Every serious historian knows that the Arabs were really lousy (but sly) and technically backward soldiers. This is also why islam never has achieved anything in science and technology. Islam's primary interest has always been parasitism. Whereas Jews occupied the financial/commercial interface between power blocks, hence also slipping into science and technology, islam due to its totalitarian parasitic mass movement/conversions/genocides never reached that far. Every scientist etc you may find in the history books named muslim is in fact a converted scientist etc! This is why islam without slaves or oil is a total looser and has left clear traits of this in history.

Islam has by far been the worst slave raider/trader in history. The role of slavery in monotheist "religions" (although in Christianity to a much lesser extent*) goes hand in hand with sex segregated rapetivism (i.e. ideological rape). In fact, it may be argued that the slaves was the main currency and basis for finance until Capitalism** freed most of them. Also consider that Columbus was a Jew who was imprisoned when he tried to bring slaves from America to Europe! And that most so called "European" slave traders were in fact deported Jews! Deported because of their involvement in slavery, i.e. the same reason why Shakespeare via his Renaissance informants created the disgusting (Jewish) merchant in Venice!

  * Christianity emerged as an anti-sex protest movement before the "Church fathers" disciplined it. And although Christianity managed to corrupt the Roman empire from within, it was only after islam's attacks on Europe that Christianity became a defense ideology and established itself as the major power center in Europe.

** Capitalism is based on and feeds from technology, not slaves (no dude, cheating with assets isn't Capitalism!). Consequently, it's no surprise that Capitalism followed by Abolitionism (anti-slavery) both emerged in England.


The Indian caste system was a product of islam

Helen E. Hagan, anthropologist: "It is known that the caste system existing in that area is not so much directly related to the caravan trade as it is to the importation on an ideology – Islam.


Klevius brief philosophy lesson re. religion



Klevius criticism against islam is restricted precisely to what islam itself disfavors or shows hostility towards., for example those basic Human Rights that islam has always abandoned in line with its own evil origin and now through islam's main earthly representation, i.e. Saudi based OIC and its fanatic Fuhrer, Ihsanoglu, the main fascist movement of today




The concept of (Negative) Human Rights is a moral conscience above egoism and hence the only true God. But this God is not offered by "monotheist" religion. On the contrary, she is actively excluded and the exclusion excused. 

Moreover, human weakness is not only used as an excuse for monotheist atrocities but also as a reason to stay within monotheism for the purpose of shoveling over these sins to God.

Negative Human Rights clearly out-rules such such speculations in evilness.

In schools islam leaves out studies of Paganism, Buddhism, Shinto,  or purely atheistic philosophies such as Atheism and secular Humanism. If there are classes concerning religious studies in the public school system, they should be comparative religious studies, inclusive of the world's major faiths and compared to Atheism and Human Rights based on equality without strange, sleazy and treacherous references to 'equality but not sameness' where this 'not sameness' is then made an excuse for limiting Human Rights. You'd never hear someone arguing that a disabled person should have less Human Rights than non-disabled.

On the contrary, the whole idea about Human Rights equality is that a condition of whatever sort shouldn't restrict Human Rights.

Don't allow the door of science to be open to nonscientific, theocratic teachings under the oxymoron “islamic scholars”.



1400 years of slavery and racism






genocides








 The Catholic patriarchy - and the female patriarchy supporting it


.


Monotheist genital mutilation





Islamofascism applauding and supporting muslim born (apostate?!) Mr "president" Barry Barakeh Hussain Obama Dunham Soetoro (or whatever)



 .

Friday, March 08, 2013

Klevius on women's day: The worst ever "president" paves the way for OIC/Sharia in a US where women still have less rights than former male slaves had long ago!


US' women locked in inequality* - and a "president" whose Shariagate may keep them there forever

* No,the US Constitution still doesn't guarantee women equal rights with men, although most women are quite unaware of it.



Jane Fonda: Stop violence against women!

Klevius: Islam is (and has been for some 1400 years) the worst institution for violence/rapetivism against girls/women!


Will US adopt Sharia before/instead of an Equal Rights Amendment?



US is one of very few civilized countries were women are still not equal to men. Just as they were among the very last to get the right to vote. Compare this to Finland (the land where both men and women are 'hän'*) which was first in the world to give its ladies full franchise.

* Sweden has also proposed to use a unisex pronoun instead of 'han'/'hon' (he/she) but why on Earth have they settled for stupid 'hen' when it would have been much more natural to use the Finnish 'hän', especially considering that the Finnish language is also part of Sweden's history (see Kvenland/Queenland, the home of the Goths). And the vowel ä is used in both languages! 



The reason for the US' backwardness is of course religious sex segregation. And with muslim born (apostate?!) Mr X "president" Barry Barakeh Barack Hussain Obama Dunham Soetoro (or whatever) applauding islamofascism and with a majority of the Supreme Court being Catholics, and with the administration full of Sharia enthusiasts, the future for US girls/women seems equally dark as for truly free women in Hollywood productions.





The weird formula behind the denial of islam's crystal clear evilness explained by Klevius


First of all, never trust a religious "scholar". Then consider the following nonsense, which is actually quite racist:

'Muslims and islamic countries may be evil or backward but islam is always good'.

'Let's not look at evilness in islam but rather focus on what we may share'.


Klevius comment: Reminds me of my former friend Max Scharnberg (when he hinted he'd be a suicide bomber if he only had the courage to do it, I immediately finished our friendship) to whom I presented Hitler's Nationalsocialist party program after having erased the mentioning of Jews and some few too revealing words. After having read the text Max Scharnberg thought it was a Social-democratic party program.

In other words, if assessed with the same tools as islam, the Nazi program would have easily found lots of points for "mutual understanding" and "tolerance".



Klevius suggestion: Only focus on the evil parts of islam, i.e. those parts which collide with Human Rights and which constituted the only reason why the most powerfyl muslim world organization, Saudi based OIC, replaced them with Sharia (the so called Cairo declaration).  

There is no future for islam because the very essence of islam is precisely those parts were it differs from basic Human Rights (the so called negative Human Rights). And an imaginary "reformed" islam castrated from politics and legislation etc would be of no interest neither for Klevius or for true (Sharia) muslims.

Read Klevius - your intellectual bedrock in a confused world!




 the