Is the Swedish socialist government repeating Red Ed's mistake by shooting itself with the "islamophobia" gun instead of listening to the Swedes?

Swedish Social Democratic Party, (Swedish: Sveriges socialdemokratiska arbetareparti, SAP; literally, "Social Democratic Workers' Party of Sweden" - compare what Klevius wrote about its relation to The National Socialist German Workers' Party, an other ally with islamofascism) now again rules Sweden.

Swedish Minister for Finance, Magdalena Andersson calls sharia islam "other religions"!?

Klevius doesn't know about any main "hateful" opposition against Buddhists, Shintoists, Hinduists, Jews etc. among non-muslim Swedes. Only sharia muslims are criticized for not adhering to basic Human Rights.

 Magdalena Andersson's hard stance against "the hate". 

However, a Google search on 'sharia magdalena andersson' indicates no understanding of islam. The most central word to criticism of islam is  'sharia' but is missing on Magdalena Andersson's web appearance!

.Eva Magdalena Andersson is a Swedish economist who has been Minister for Finance in the Swedish Government since 2014. A member of the Swedish Social Democratic Party, she has been the party's economic policy spokesperson since February 2012.

Andersson was educated at Stockholm School of Economics and pursued graduate studies there from 1992 to 1995. From January 1995 to June 1995, she took a course at Harvard University.

She was employed in the Prime Minister's Office as political advisor from 1996 to 1998 and as director of planning from 1998 to 2004. She was state secretary in the Ministry of Finance 2004–2006 and domestic policy adviser to party leader Mona Sahlin from 2007 to 2009. From 2009 to 2012, she was Chief Director of the Swedish Tax Agency after being appointed to that position by the right wing Reinfeldt Cabinet.

Sweden's third biggest party is left without influence - just like UKIP in UK

The only winners in the last election were the islam critical Sweden Democrats, who doubled their vote to become the third largest party.

"The Sweden Democrats are totally prepared to vote 'no' again, even to a different budget if we are not given influence or if immigration policy is allowed to continue in the current direction," economic policy spokesman Oscar Sjostedt said.

Costs for asylum seekers including housing, language lessons and welfare allowances totalled 1.5 percent of the country's 2013 budget, with Sweden the biggest per-capita recipient of asylum seekers and refugees last year, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.


Klevius wrote:

Sunday, May 10, 2015

Red Ed lost because he mentioned the elephant in the election boot

Britain's biggest political problem, islam, was never touched upon. No one dared to - except stupid Red Ed who threatened to outlaw "islamophobia".

And that was a shot straight in Labour's foot because the number of Labour voters who suffer from "islamophobia" seems to approximately correlate with UKIP's gain. Contrary to pre-election beliefs UKIP didn't get many voters from the Tories precisely because of Theresa May's "islamophobic" statements before the election and the fact that Cameron already had promised an EU referendum. Likewise the Liberals had also hinted "islamophobia" policy. So the only reasonable explanation is that desperate Labour voters - who otherwise are extremely loyal - went to UKIP covered by the anonymity of the voting boot. They could actually have stayed at home because of UK's sick election system all their votes were for nothing. UKIP came third and got 13% of the votes but only one seat out of 650! However, Klevius assume they got some personal outlet for their anger.



Before the UK election Klevius wrote a couple of warnings  against Ed Miliband's threat to 'outlaw "islamophobia"'. Here's one:

Wednesday, May 06, 2015

Some "islamophobia" before Ed Milliband introduces sharia compliant "blasphemy" laws against the Brits' Human Rights as in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan

Are the Brits shooting themselves in the foot - again?

Politicians in bed with islamofascism is a disaster for Human Rights

Does it really help Jews to cooperate with the ideology that started with the genocidal slaughtering of all the Jews in Medina?

A vote for Ed Milliband is a vote against children's rights

Ed Miliband is the son of Polish immigrant parents. His mother, Marion Kozak, is a Polish Jew who survived the Holocaust thanks to being protected by Poles. His father, Ralph Miliband, was a Belgian-born Polish Jewish Marxist academic who fled with his father to England during World War II.

Rochdale is notorious for its muslim sex predators abusing white British girls taken into "care" by the social state.

Rochdale Labour councillor Shakil Ahmed is the dad of now freed(?!) terrorist suspect Waheed Ahmed who was arrested and accused of trying to go to Syria with eight of his relatives.

Some voices about Ed Milliband's sharia association

Leo McKinstry: Ed Milliband is far more dangerous than his awkward image suggests. An unprincipled, ruthless, opportunistic left-wing ideologue, he represents a serious menace to Britain’s future. Backed by the ScotsNats and Labour’s trade union paymasters, his regime would be one of debts, bureaucracy, mass immigration and constitutional chaos.

But now an even more sinister aspect to his leadership has emerged, one that threatens our essential freedoms. Miliband says he will make Islamophobia a serious crime to be prosecuted by the full might of the state. Flushed with self-righteous zeal, Miliband wants to ensure that the offence “is marked on people’s records with the police to make sure they root out Islamophobia as a hate crime.”

Anyone who believes in liberty will be truly alarmed. Miliband’s proposal goes against the entire tradition of western democracy, which holds that people should be punished only for their deeds, not their opinions.

In the name of tolerance, Labour wants to impose a form of totalitarianism, making a mockery of the concept of free speech. Like so many socialist policies, Miliband’s plan conjures up the dark, Orwellian world of the Thought Police, where all citizens are required to obey the ruling orthodoxy. I n January Miliband echoed the global outrage at the Charlie Hebdo massacre by Muslim terrorists in Paris, even joining other political leaders in the French capital’s official protest march. But his call for a British law against Islamophobia exposes the hollowness of his indignation.

Under his proposal, most of the Charlie Hebdo staff would have been in prison over their satirical cartoons.
Related articles

    Why aren’t the English allowed to be nationalists? asks LEO MCKINSTRY
    Ed Miliband and Nicola Sturgeon are the George and Mildred of politics says LEO MCKINSTRY
    End to hated inheritance tax that hurts middle income families, says LEO MCKINSTRY

Indeed Winston Churchill, Britain’s greatest statesman, would have ended up behind bars if Miliband’s law had been enacted during his life. In his 1899 book The River War, Churchill wrote that “no stronger retrograde force exists in the world” than the “militant and proselytising faith” of Islam. At a time when the police and courts seem incapable of tackling real lawbreakers effectively, Miliband’s proposal will waste huge resources by creating a whole new class of criminals whose only offence will have been to challenge an ideology that is being used to spread violence and misery across the world. In the new climate of censorship created by Labour, too many Muslims, including extremists, corrupt politicians and predatory paedophiles, will be able to silence their critics or halt investigations just by screeching the word “Islamophobia.”

In fact, that is already happening on an epic scale. Until his trial which concluded on Friday, no action was taken against Lutfur Rahman, the spectacularly corrupt Muslim Mayor of Tower Hamlets in east London, as he maintained his grip on power by constantly playing the race and religious card. In the same way, fears about accusations of Islamophobia meant that the authorities in Labour-run Rotherham did nothing about Pakistani sex gangs who systematically abused around 1,400 vulnerable white girls.

A similar spirit of collusion and cowardice has stopped the state dealing robustly with other Muslim abuses, like forced marriages, female genital mutilation, ballot box fraud or extremism in schools. Miliband’s whole scheme is based on a monstrous fraud.

So-called Islamophobia is not an irrational fear or prejudice but an understandable response to the horrors we see all around us perpetrated in the name of Allah, from the savage persecution of Christians in the Middle East to the beheading of Drummer Lee Rigby and the London bombings at home. As the great radical writer Christopher Hitchens once put it, Islamophobia “is a word created by fascists and used by cowards to manipulate morons.”

    Labour plan will fuel Muslim victimhood

    Leo McKinstry

It is outrageous that the Labour Party, while blathering about the fight against discrimination, effectively wants to shut down any debate about a theocratic doctrine that has provoked such a worldwide, blood-soaked catalogue of tyranny, oppression, terrorism, misogyny, anti-Semitism and homophobia.

In practice, what Miliband really proposes is the introduction of Muslim blasphemy laws, such as exist in the barbaric, failed Islamic-led states of the Middle East and Asia. In Miliband’s Britain, it will become impossible to criticise any aspect of Islamic culture, whether it be the spread of the burka or the establishment of sharia courts or the construction of colossal new mosques. We already live in a society where Mohammed is now the most popular boy’s name and where a child born in Birmingham is more likely to be a Muslim than a Christian. If he wins, Miliband will ensure that the accelerating Islamification of our country will go unchallenged.

He wants to act as the Witchfinder-General in the new Islamic order, hunting down heretics as he is cheered on by his Muslim allies. Driven by his desire for power, he is pandering to identity politics of the worst kind, seeking to gain support in the three million-strong Muslim population to prop up Labour’s urban vote. But such an approach is disastrous, for it fuels social division and Muslim victimhood.

If Miliband were a true leader, he would push for real integration by demanding that all Muslims face up to their responsibilities, accept western democratic values, stop trying to build replicas of Bangladesh and Pakistan here and drop their collusion with violence.

But that would require courage, maturity and patriotism, qualities that he so conspicuously lacks. Instead, at a terrible potential cost to Britain, he aims to give protection to alien bigotry.





Soeren Kern: “In Miliband’s Britain, it will become impossible to criticise any aspect of Islamic culture, whether it be the spread of the burka or the establishment of Sharia courts or the construction of colossal new mosques. … If he wins, Miliband will ensure that the accelerating Islamification of our country will go unchallenged.” — Leo McKinstry, British commentator.

    The report shows that Britain’s Muslim population is overwhelmingly young and will exert increasing political influence as time goes on. The median age of the Muslim population in Britain is 25 years, compared to the overall population’s median age of 40 years.

The leader of Britain’s Labour Party, Ed Miliband, has vowed, if he becomes the next prime minister in general elections on May 7, to outlaw “Islamophobia.”

The move — which one observer has called “utterly frightening” because of its implications for free speech in Britain — is part of an effort by Miliband to pander to Muslim voters in a race that he has described as “the tightest general election for a generation.”

With the ruling Conservatives and the opposition Labour running neck and neck in the polls just days before voters cast their ballots, British Muslims — who voted overwhelmingly for Labour in the 2010 general election — could indeed determine who will be the next prime minister.

In an interview with The Muslim News, Miliband said:

    “We are going to make it [Islamophobia] an aggravated crime. We are going to make sure it is marked on people’s records with the police to make sure they root out Islamophobia as a hate crime.

    “We are going to change the law on this so we make it absolutely clear of our abhorrence of hate crime and Islamophobia. It will be the first time that the police will record Islamophobic attacks right across the country.”

Miliband appears to be trying to reopen a long-running debate in Britain over so-called religious hatred. Between 2001 and 2005, the then-Labour government, led by Prime Minister Tony Blair, made two attempts (here and here) to amend Part 3 of the Public Order Act 1986, to extend existing provisions on incitement to racial hatred to cover incitement to religious hatred.

Those efforts ran into opposition from critics who said the measures were too far-reaching and threatened the freedom of speech. At the time, critics argued that the scope of the Labour government’s definition of “religious hatred” was so draconian that it would have made any criticism of Islam a crime.

In January 2006, the House of Lords approved the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, after amending the text so that the law would be limited to banning only “threatening” words and not those that are merely abusive or insulting. Lawmakers also said that the offense would require the intention — not just the possibility — of stirring up religious hatred. They added that proselytizing, discussion, criticism, abuse and ridicule of religion, belief or religious practice would not be an offense.

Miliband’s renewed promise to make “Islamophobia” (a term he has not defined) an “aggravated crime” may signal an attempt to turn the 2006 Act — which already stipulates a maximum penalty of seven years in prison for stirring up religious hatred — into a full-blown Muslim blasphemy law.

According to British commentator Leo McKinstry, “Miliband’s proposal goes against the entire tradition of Western democracy, which holds that people should be punished only for their deeds, not their opinions.” In an opinion article, he added:

    “In Miliband’s Britain, it will become impossible to criticise any aspect of Islamic culture, whether it be the spread of the burka or the establishment of Sharia courts or the construction of colossal new mosques. We already live in a society where Mohammed is now the most popular boy’s name and where a child born in Birmingham is more likely to be a Muslim than a Christian. If he wins, Miliband will ensure that the accelerating Islamification of our country will go unchallenged.”

McKinstry says Miliband is currying favor with Britain’s three million-strong Muslim community to “prop up Labour’s urban vote.”

Muslims are emerging as a key voting bloc in British politics and are already poised to determine the outcome of local elections in many parts of the country, according to a report by the Muslim Council of Britain, an umbrella group.

image: http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/wp-content/uploads/useful_banner_manager_banners/142-JewishShepard-600WIDE.jpg

The report shows that Britain’s Muslim population is overwhelmingly young and will exert increasing political influence as time goes on. The median age of the Muslim population in Britain is 25 years, compared to the overall population’s median age of 40 years.

An extrapolation of the available data indicates that one million British Muslims aged 18 and above will be eligible to vote in this year’s election. According to one study, Muslims could determine the outcome of up to 25% of the 573 Parliamentary seats in England and Wales.

Others say that although Britain’s Muslim community is growing, it is also ethnically diverse and unlikely to vote as a single group. One analyst has argued that the potential for Muslim influence in this year’s election “will remain unrealized because the Muslim vote is not organized in any meaningful way on a national level.”

A study produced by Theos, a London-based religious think tank, found that although Muslims consistently vote Labour, they do so based on class and economic considerations, not out of religious motives.

Indeed, a poll conducted by the BBC on April 17 found that nearly one-quarter of “Asian” voters still do not know which party they will support at the general election. Some of those interviewed by the BBC said that economic issues would determine whom they vote for.

In any event, Muslim influence in the 2015 vote will be largely determined by Muslim voter turnout, which has been notoriously low in past elections: Only 47% of British Muslims were estimated to have voted in 2010.

Since then, several grassroots campaigns have been established to encourage British Muslims to go to the polls in 2015, including Get Out & Vote, Muslim Vote and Operation Black Vote. Another group, YouElect, states:

    “A staggering 53% of British Muslims did not vote in the 2010 General Election, such a high figure of Muslim non-voters indicates that many Muslims feel ignored by politicians and disillusioned by the political process.

    “With the rise of Islamophobic rhetoric in politics and an ever increasing amount of anti-terror legislation which specifically targets Muslims, it is now more important than ever that Muslims use the vote to send a message to politicians that their attitudes and policies must change.

    “YouElect wants to get the message across that there is something you can do about the issues you care about. We have launched a new campaign using the hashtag #SortItOut, which calls on Muslims to use the political process to address the issues that concern them most.

    “With 100,000 new young Muslims eligible to vote this year and 26 parliamentary constituencies with a Muslim population of over 20%, the Muslim community has a very real opportunity to make an impact on British politics.”

Not all Muslims agree. The British-born Islamist preacher Anjem Choudary is actively discouraging Muslims from voting. In a stream of Twitter messages using the#StayMuslimDontVote hashtag, Choudary has argued that voting is a “sin” against Islam because Allah is “the only legislator.” He has also said that Muslims who vote or run for public office are “apostates.”

Despite several grassroots campaigns to encourage British Muslims to vote in greater numbers, some prominent Islamists in the UK claim that voting is a “sin.”

Other British Islamists are following Choudary’s lead. Bright yellow posters claiming that democracy “violates the right of Allah” have been spotted in Cardiff, the capital of Wales, and Leicester, as part of a grassroots campaign called #DontVote4ManMadeLaw.

One such poster stated:

    “Democracy is a system whereby man violates the right of Allah and decides what is permissible or impermissible for mankind, based solely on their whims and desires.

    “Islam is the only real, working solution for the UK. It is a comprehensive system of governance where the laws of Allah are implemented and justice is observed.”

A vote for Ed Milliband won't help victims of muslim sexual predators in accordance with the Koran

The social state is much more devastating to children than any private company - and waste much more money!

A UK mother who found 125 names of potential (most/all muslims?) sex abusers on her daughter’s mobile phone claims she was told by police in Rotherham it would be a "breach of the girl’s human rights" if they investigated.

Klevius translation: Note that we are talking about underage girls who would have no Human Rights protection against social state interventions (aided by the police) whatsoever (to understand this and the tiltle see Angels of Antichrist and Pathological Symbiosis). What they really meant was that it would be a breach of the muslims' human rights (read "diversity policy") if they investigated. And this is the dilemma - Human Rights cover all, including muslims, whereas sharia opposes Human Rights - which fact doesn't hinder muslims (and their supporters) from abusing Human Rights when it serves themselves.!

The parasitic social state that feeds itself on behalf of the taxpayers and children while giving a s--t to non-muslim girls abused by muslims. Don't approve a penny before getting rid of the parasites residing in the social state! And one thing is definitive: Ed Milliband will continue supporting these parasites.

Rotherham has been totally dominated by Labour since World War 2. Compare the total dominance of the Swedish social democrats who created the disastrous Swedish social state all the way from Gunnar and Alva Myral's "social hygiene"  in the 1930s and due eugenics to the explosive tax injection in the 1970s and due birth of the modern social state. Some results: The Swedish "girl problem" (which Klevius has written about since 1993), high child/youth criminality, and a school system that 2015 is classified among the worst within OECD and heavily criticized in a recent OECD report. Yet Sweden has compulsory school attendance and doesn't admit homeschooling at all for normal children (alone in Europe together with Germany whose Hitler imposed law is still in power).

Learn more on Angels of Antichrist and Pathological Symbiosis

Joyce Thacker has been a central figure in the responsibility for letting children be abused and even murdered. How much does she get from your tax money, and will she be rewarded in the usual way for defending islam while not defending children.

Islam is the only remaining legal excuse for hateful racism and sexism. If you are a racist or sexist then your only non-criminal option is islam.

Where others have to adapt to goodness (Human Rights) muslims can continue being evil (sharia) because of islam's status as a "religion".

But the troublesome fact remains that islam isn't only incapable of approving of the most basic of Human Rights, islam is also guilty of 1400 years of constant murdering, genocides, slavery and rapetivism. Islam is a Pandora's box and the only hope is the extinction of its main evil message.

BBC's diversion tactics for the purpose of belittling islamic slavery genocides - the worst ideological crime ever against humanity

BBC's aim seems to be to make people believe that "sex slavery was/is all over the place" - i.e. not only islam.

Today islam is the only allowed ideology that approves of sexual violence/rapetivism.

Sexual violence is a weapon and a strategy that is approved by islam and therefore used by muslims to "justify" it. In other words, when non-muslim traffickers know they are criminals, muslim criminals just point to the Koran, hadiths and Muhammad.

As an exemplifying consequence, out of 585 peace treaties since 1990 only 17 mention sexual violence/rape. And out of 300 ceasefire deals only 6 consider such kind of sexual violence a violation of the deal.

Islam started with Muhammad's genocide of all the Jews in Medina 1400 years ago and continued its violent attacks until today. Islam's victims throughout all these years are more than any other evil ideology. What we call Judaism also started with genocide (the slaughtering of the Canaanites) but due to mainly matrilineality  never managed to produce numbers comparable with islam. This is what Klevius calls the Vagina/Penis divide, i.e. that a man can have more "offspring" than a woman. A muslim man makes a muslim - not a "muslim" woman.A "muslim" woman is an "inferior" being according to Muhammad and islam.

The main body of those who today call themselves muslims consists of people whose female ancestors had been enslaved by muslim males thanks to Human Rights violating sharia which makes the muslim man the determinant for muslimhood while apostasy ban makes it impossible to leave islam. A woman married to a muslim man is, according to islamic sharia forced to reproduce only muslims.

BBC has slowly started understanding that islam isn't just a "religion" but a pure sex slave "religion" and in their programs is now busy pushing out whatever they can find of non-muslim examples of slavery and sex abuse for the simple purpose of thereby trying to dilute islam's horrifying ideological essence and history - and islam's contemporary and continuing sex slavery ideology.

Yes, there has been slavery in different forms even before islam. However, only islam made slavery (parasitism) its main ideology, inscribed it in its main book and violently expanded through slavery, and finally always declined  into the deepest misery when the supply was limited - as was the case when the West in the 19th century toppled the Ottoman slave "empire" which was itself created through islamic slavery. Or more than thousand years ago when some half a million black slaves in what is now Iraq revolted against their Sunni muslim slave "owners". Islam's "golden ages" have all rested on unlimited supply of slaves through human trafficking, slave raids etc.


Klevius: OIC, the Islamic State, muslim sharia racism/sexism etc are all around us, indeed. So why do you contribute to this evil?! 

Saudi based OIC - and its islamofascist Saudi sharia Fuhrer Iyad Madani - constitutes islam today, and it's against the most basic of Human Rights!

Klevius question: Why aren't muslims ashamed of their slave raiding/trading/owning past? And of the Koranic ideology that "justifies" it - instead of excusing islam with cherry picked "new interpretations"

Muslim hypocrisy like the one expressed by BBC's Mishal Husain could be just a laugh - were it not for its connection to islamic evil. Islam has only one authority and that is muslimhood. So declaring yourself a muslim automatically adds to the "democratic" support of islamic evil.

Mishal Husain: “I don’t think my way of life is under any kind of threat."


Klevius: Well, that's because of Western Human Rights rather than islamic sharia, isn't it!

BBC-s sharia presenter Mishal Husain with her islamofascist muslim pals who share almost identical values with the Islamic State.

British muslim jihadists: Samantha Lewthwaite, Mishal Husain and Michael Adebolajo

The nearest to a global authority of muslimhood is Saudi based and Saudi steered OIC with its global sharia proclamation via UN against that very Human Rights declaration of 1948 that was supposed to protect us against such evil!

OIC Secretary-General Iyad Amin Madani stressed that the "Saudi governing system is based on islam, which fosters values of justice, compassion, equality, and tolerance."

Klevius: These words from this human scumbag must be some of the most hypocritical ever uttered. According to historical facts islam has been the by far worst crime against humanity throughout 1400 years. And today islam's "guardian" Saudi Arabia is the most intolerant of the world's countries and has even criminalized Human Rights.Moreover. the Saudi regime is the hate mongering mastermind behind islamic terror around the world. And while most people point to islamic "scholars" (aka clerics, imams, etc) as the driving force, Mishal Husain asks these muslim "scholars" to contribute even more.

Ask your muslim friend if s/he supports Saudi based OIC and its Sharia against Human Rights!  If s/he doesn't then s/he is an apostate (i.e. committing the worst "crime" known to islam) and ought to be welcomed by every non-muslim

Sharia is the religious password for racism and sexism

.

Klevius diagnosis of feminism: Bipolar self goal

 .

 In 1921 England had the world's best female football team. However, due to feminist resistance against females playing football FA banned them from its grounds. The decision was based on a female feminist physician's expert statement that "...the game of football is quite unsuitable for females and ought not to be encouraged."

In Sweden, from the late 1960's for about about a decade feminists (the communist Grupp 8 - Sweden's main feminist movement) very actively opposed female football. Later on Swedish feminists still oppose female football although more under cover and in the form of spitting at penis equipped football experts dealing with female football as "patriarchal domination" when in reality it's been the lack of female ones that has been the problem. And this lack is of course to a large extent to be connected to the active female dismissal of female football. Which fact doesn't exclude the "religious" renaissance for sexist men, not the least via islam. As Klevius has always pointed out: Chauvinism and feminism are married!

Women's World Cup starts next Saturday - how many girls know about it, can follow it, and are made interested in the world's most challenging and popular sport? 

It was extremely close that we could have ended up with a sharia muslim ("prince Ali) leading FIFA. A sharia muslim whose main work for women's football so far has been to open up for a veil demand on female muslim players around the world by lifting the ban on the veil (presented as something positive by BBC). 

Klevius is no fan of Blatter's suggestion about improving the interest in women's football by introducing "hot-pants"* on the pitch, but thinks it would be even less helpful for girls/women to have a sharia muslim at the top.

* No offense to "hot-pants" - but they would just cover up the real problem of sex segregation/apartheid. Football isn't beach volley.

 
Acknowledgement to Americans from the US: In the following the word 'football' really means FOOTBALL - not any form of rugby! In football a player isn't allowed to touch the ball with her/his hands inside the pitch - in American "football" players use only their hands during normal play.

In Cannes women are forced to wear high heels - in London they aren't allowed to drive! Sanctioned by feminism and religion.

Chasidic Jews in Stamford Hill, London, ban women drivers due to "modesty" and "dignity".

Rabbi Yissachar Dov Rokeach, has advised them to introduce a policy of not allowing pupils to come to their schools if their mothers drive. From August 2015 children would be barred from their schools if their mothers drove them there.

In an interview with a woman who had been a member of the Belz community for ten years until she divorced her husband, said that she didn't see the religious rules as problematic because she was "normalized" into them.

Klevius comment: Like muslim women. Those rules are based on Talmud, a 73 volume early medieval haystack full of cherries ready to pick for almost whatever reason. Talmud is a Jewish "effort" to discuss and guess what "God" could possibly have meant with cryptic paragraphs inscribed by early "prophets" in the pre-medieval Torah.

Feminism and religion

 Klevius, the world's foremost expert on sex segregation (no competition there - sad isn't it), has for more than three decades fought practically (personal life, educator, coach, etc) and theoretically (books, articles, academic thesis, TV, radio, media production, web sites and blogs, etc) for girls'/women's rights. However, although there are many stunning girls/women out there, they have almost no power against that power patriarchy that most women have let themselves lured into defending.

The original meaning of 'feminism' was to keep women segregated from men via their 'femininity'. That's why early feminists even opposed the vote.

The first definition of 'feminism' you get when googling it is:

the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.
synonyms:  the women's movement, the feminist movement, women's liberation, female emancipation, women's rights; informal women's lib
"a longtime advocate of feminism"

In other words exactly what Kleviushas worked for - except for the word 'feminis-m/t'. How could Klevius possibly call himself a 'feminist' if sharia (OIC) supporting muslims call themselves the same?!

Japan is the reigning world champion in women's football. They also took silver in the last Olympics. How come? Football is a tiny sport in Japan which was left contaminated not only by the horror and radioactivity from two US atom bombs but also by the US form of rugby (aka "American football") and base ball. The answer is that Japan didn't become contaminated with Western religions which are all based on sex segregation/apartheid*. In Judaic religions Eve was made out of a bone (a rib) that Adam could live without. She was made to entertain Adam (heterosexual attraction) and considered inferior to him so that he could be her guardian (sex segregation/apartheid).

* When Klevius compared Western and Japanese women's movements of the late 19th century he made an interesting observation. Whereas Western sources mostly discussed "women's sexual liberation" the Japanese sources were more interested in the opposite, namely how to protect themselves from unwanted sexual impositions. This could then be connected to Murasaki Shikibu's thousand years old novel (the world's first) Genji Monogatari which describes a woman trying to make sense of her experience of the heterosexual attraction (read Klevius more than decade old unchanged website if you don't know what it is - you'll have a hard time find it anywhere else on the Google web) that her body causes in male brains and how she should deal with it while not loosing herself in it. It's possibly the best book ever written (analyzed in Klevius 1992). 

However, today when we have 1) Human Rights, and 2) six decades of seeing revealed female forms everywhere, we (most of us) have learned: 1) Women are fully humans and should therefore have the same Human Rights as men, and
2) we (most of us) feel no urge whatsoever to sexually assault or rape a woman no matter how sexy we might think her body looks like. Even the very thought makes us (most of us) uncomfortable*. Biological heterosexual attraction is a one way affair but hetero erotics needs not only the woman's body but also her full will to participate or show up. Even pornography needs to convince the viewer that the woman wants to be sexy. Rapography and other erotics without some form of consent is simply necrophilia.

* Could this be the reason why some rapetivist cultures need to sexually dehumanize girls/women.

Here two responses to the article above that really shows the polarized world of women today: 

Tigger 9 days ago   

High heels are the western equivalent of 19th century Chinese foot-binding. I've never understood why women should wish this torture on themselves - even paying astronomical sums for the dubious 'privilege'.
flag / like / reply

    sszorin 9 days ago   

    @Tigger The fight against high heels is a waste of time and effort because most women prefer them. The answer is - design and make comfortable high heel shoes, physical pain should not accompany elegance. This said, 6in minimum is over the top. 3in is high enough for official engagements.
    flag / like / reply
    sszorin 9 days ago    


Klevius comment:  "Because most women prefer high heels"!? One might truly question the solidity of this latter statement. It's like saying "most women in Saudi Arabia prefer to wear a black burqa in 40 degree Celsius". However, more importantly, by saying so you impose the rule of "most" on those who might disagree. Just like sharia women want to impose restrictions on other girls/women.



Klevius wrote:

Saturday, July 09, 2011

Japan women beat Germany in the world's hardest* sport

* The combination of no hands allowed, extreme individual freedom, 1.5-2 hours play on a 100 m long and 50 m wide pitch. This is also why the rest of the world can't stop laughing when Americans call their rugby "football"! Moreover, there's no difference in rules and gears (except for sport bras of course) whatsoever between women and men (although islam wants to change that of course). You can be a good football player no matter of your size or constitution. The world's best male player, Lionel Messi, is 170 cm (no 2 Christiano Ronaldo is 186 cm)  and the world's best female player, Marta da Silva, is 163 cm (no 2 Birgit Prinz is 179 cm)!

Karima Maruyama's World Cup goal was a real classic when it comes to football technique. Running at high speed towards the side of the goal and then, at the right microsecond,directing a kick just outside the opposite goalpost makes the forward inertia in the ball curving it enough to be out of reach for the goalkeeper while still making its way to the inside of the post.

Klevius question: Is this the real reason why football is by far the most controversial of sports when it comes to female participation? Check out: Did feminists kill the World's best female football team in 1921?


Sexist BBC

While some of the most exciting matches are played in Women's World Cup BBC decides to neglect it all together and instead offers EIGHT HOURS OF F1 RACING added by some golf etc!!! No wonder British girls/women in general don't have a clue about football and are among the most sex segregated in the world. This is then reflected in British men's due attitude towards women. According to many of my Finnish and Swedish female friends who have experienced Britain British men are the most sexist they have ever encountered in the West!

Of all sports a girl can use (many girls don't use any sport at all) to sculpture her future physicsfootball is by far the best.



Klevius wrote:

Monday, November 17, 2014

A woman scored the goal of the year - but will it be dismissed because of sex segregation?

Some heroic Saudi women challenging (?) islamic sharia* and

 Stephanie Roche who scored the goal of the year

Stephanie Roche began playing football with the boys on the streets of her native Shankill (compare Pia Sundhage in Klevius PhD thesis). After a brief spell with Valeview FC was curtailed by rules against mixed–sex football she started playing only with girls/women.

See some other beautiful female goals further down.

Btw, this website is already banned by FIFA!

Wonder why. Is it because it, contrary to sharia, defends ALL people's Human Rights or is it because it supports female football - or both?

* Some stupid brainwashed (or deliberately evil) people might try to argue that there are many islams (just like feminists used to say there are 'many feminisms' before Klevius intellectually made it an illogical joke back in the 1990s). However, it all works like this. Saudi initiated, Saudi based and Saudi steered OIC has (via UN) declared not only that sharia should apply to all muslims but also that every muslim country can decide by itself what their particular sharia version means. Moreover, OIC's own global "reference sharia" (the so called Cairo declaration on "human rights in islam") openly declares that sharia always tops Human Rights - hence making the latter a criminal offence against sharia.  

Islam is a dictatorship - even in sports

The extreme stupidity of normative* islam

* Saudi Arabia is not only the Guardian of islam but also the most powerful force behind all the world's muslims world organization OIC which is not only initiated by Saudi Arabia but also based in Saudi Arabia/Jeddah and led by an islamofascist from the Saudi dictator family.
What is the difference between muslim Ottoman harems and the organized and widespread child sex abuse among muslims in the West (compare the Rochdale case and many other similar cases in UK etc). The vulnerable girls were already taken as Ottoman slaves or as the target for insensitive and basically purely commercial state interventions not in the best interest of the child (see the most important sociological paper from the last century, Angels of Antichrist - kinship vs social state) before they were abused. However, just as in the islamic muslim sex slave harems, the abused Rochdale girls themselves often denied being abused because of some futile favors they first seemed to get.

So next time you see a wealthy Saudi woman "defending" islam/sharia, please consider the extremely simple fact that under Human Rights women can do what they like with their bodies, but under sharia there is always impositions and limitations! So why choose sharia when it means imposing your life choice on others, including vulnerable girls?!

There seems to be an almost total lack of sociologist challenging sex segregation. A possible exception is Pierre Bourdieu's cautious and defensive Masculine Domination which, by the way, may well be his thinnest book. Already the title seems to try avoiding a closer look on feminine domination (of females).

According to Bourdieu. the effects of social position may in some cases reinforce the effects of gender, or in other cases attenuate them, without, it seems, ever eliminating them. By contrast, intensive practice of a sport leads to a profound transformation of the subjective and objective experience of the  body. It no longer exists only for others or, it is no longer merely a thing that is made to be looked at or which one has to look at in order to prepare it to be looked at.
Instead of being a body for others it becomes a body for oneself; the passive body becomes an active and acting body. In the eyes of men, however, those women who break the tacit relation of availability and in a sense re-appropriate their body image, and with it their body, appear as 'unfeminine', even lesbian (Bourdieu 2001:67-68).

In this respect Bourdieu seems to echo Tertullian who, in the early years of Christianity, labeled women's wish to free themselves from the male gaze (heterosexual attraction) as a 'sport of Nature'. Bourdieu continues:

If the old structures of the sexual division seem still to deter-
mine the very direction and form of these changes, this is
because as well as being objectified in disciplines, careers and
jobs that are more or less strongly characterized sexually, they
act through three practical principles which women, and also
their social circles, apply in their choices. The first is that the
functions appropriate to women are an extension of their
domestic functions - education, care and service. The second
is that a woman cannot have authority over men, and, other
things being equal, therefore has every likelihood of being
passed over in favour of a man for a position of authority and
of being confined to subordinate and ancillary functions. The
third principle gives men the monopoly of the handling of tech-
nical objects and machines (Bourdieu 2001).

However, sex segregation is much deeper and multi faceted. Heterosexual attraction need not be a problem neither for women nor men - this has been showed by the West since the 1960s (yes, many men used the time for abuse but most didn't) - but it can easily be used in a confusing/self-confusing manner which opens up for totalitarian sex segregation.

Sex segregation - could also be defined as unnecessary limitations connected to physical differences that has nothing to do with these limitations. However, what is needed in sex segregation studies is the most natural follow up questions. Who questions 'femininity' and 'sexual orientation' and why?

When you pull up that net Klevius wouldn't be surprised to see some (most?) women as well.



What klevius said/showed

Sunday, December 27, 2009

Islamic OIC is an evil dead end of sex segregation whereas football is freedom

Do you see the evil cloud on the map? It's sex segregation: OIC consists of 57 racist/sexist islamic nations which have agreed to violate the negative human rights, i.e. the basis for freedom & democracy!
WHAT A MEDIA HYPOCRISY WHEN THE MUSLIM NIGERIAN TERRORIST IS DESCRIBED AS "EXTREMIST" WHILE HIS TALIBAN LIKE SHARIA ISLAMIC HOME TOWN (stonings, mutilations, corrupt "Sharia banking" etc) IS DESCRIBED AS "MODERATE"! North Nigeria is a disgusting reminder of islamic slavery & islam's devastating effects on Africa through 1400 yrs! AND CONSIDER THAT KLEVIUS HAS FOR LONG BEEN YOUR ONLY TRUE, INTELLIGENT & WELL INFORMED NEUTRAL (yes!) VOICE AGAINST EVILSEX SEGREGATION ON THE NET (the link is abt women's football as well)!




 





Did Germany's Birgit Prinz, score the best ever goal (incl. those of men) in 2009?

The video is here

Klevius motivation:

1 The attack (from an in-throw) was as clean as it gets. Check out the video & consider how Simone Laudehr's extremely well placed pass (into an open but crucial area) is taken by Inka Grings who was initially further from the ball than Prinz, who runs in the opposite direction.

2 Inka Grings then does just the opposite to what one would have expected. Instead of running with the ball into the empty space from where she could have tried a cross to Birgit Prinz, she turns against & between two defenders and quickly squares the ball across the penalty area just before Birgit Prinz encounters the defenders.

3 Birgit Prinz accelerates strongly & manages not only to reach the ball before a defender crashes into her, but also to cheat the goalkeeper (see how the keeper moves to the wrong direction) while then perfectly turning her foot in the last fraction of a second to give the ball ultimate precision, before she is smashed to the ground by the flying defender.

Who said women's football is boring?


Size doesn't matter in football
However, although Birgit Prinz is a six footer (179 cm), in footbal you can be any size & still world class. Lionel Messi, the world's best male player 2009 is 169 cm/67 kg, while the next best (Xavi) is 170 cm/69 kg! Third place Ronaldo is 185 cm. Among women Marta da Silva (162 cm/57 kg) is the world's best player for the fourth year in a row, with Birgit Prinz right behind!

Football is the most emancipating sport in the world

This goal hasn’t even been mentioned among the best, perhaps because women’s football is hardly mentioned at all in the media. And the reason for this is the same as with evil islam, namely that so many women participate in directing girls into the sex segregation trap of their own *starting physically with Indonesian muslim women who mutilate every female child, to Western glamour feminists who push their daughters into the time consuming trap of empty & pointless artificial "feminization".

As Otto Weininger put it a century ago: "The main obstacle for women's emancipation is the Woman".
Klevius doesn't in any sense want to point out how women should behave, quite the contrary. He couldn't call himself intelligent if he would, could he! However, what Klevius does want to do is to help minimizing the number of girls who limit themselves or commit self rape becaudse of cultural sexism. In this Klevius stands in the deapest oppositition to islam, while Mr X US "president" says he "respect" islam (and no wonder, look at his islamofascist pals)!

Origin of islam & its evil parasitic booty/sex/slavery/reproduction formula
Btw, a professor friend (sociology) thinks I “uber-emphasize” sex segregation. My question then to him & to all of you is: How can one ever “uber-emphasize” something that affects negatively & directly HALF of the world population, & indirectly the WHOLE of the world population, & which is upheld on no logical grounds at all?! And which constitutes the cornerstone for the evil interface between islam & the rest of the world! And which constitutes the main difference in OIC's Cairo Declaration which (initiated by Saudi islamic theocracy) aims for the destruction of UN's 1948 Human Rights Declaration, combined with a global effort (via UN) to criminalize criticism of islam! Read more from Klevius (e.g. From Freud to bin Laden or What is sex segregation?) to understand why islam & feminism share so much & why the first feminists didn't support votes for women! And why feminists can't agree if Mary Wollstonecraft was a feminist or an anti-feminist!

Or perhaps Klevius Marriage, kinship & friendship

Or even better, the most important sociological paper from the last century: Angels of Antichrist - kinship vs social state






















.

FIFA: Out with Russia 2018 and in with more Sunni islamofascists

BBC defends Trinidad Jack, the only black man arrested while supporting a muslim candidate. Surprised? No.

Michel Platini wants to remove Sepp Blatter as Fifa-president by the help of an other muslim,  shejk Ahmad Al-Fahad Al-Sabah from Kuwait – who earlier supported Blatter so to get the Qatar 2022 bid through.

Former FIFA vice president Jack Warner, who according to Washington Post, is one of the most corrupted FIFA guys, was heavily defended by BBC while Blatter was accused by BBC for Warner's actions.

Trinidad Jack says he's innocent cause "who gave me the money?"

Michael E. Miller: Former FIFA vice president surrenders to police(0:50)
Former FIFA vice president Jack Warner surrendered to police in Trinidad on Wednesday after being charged with corruption along with five corporate executives. (Reuters)

It was May 11, 2011, and “Trinidad Jack,” as reporters call him, was holding court.

From his perch atop a raised table at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Port-of-Spain, the capital of Trinidad and Tobago, Jack Warner tried to quell the revolt within the ranks of the Caribbean Football Union. The day before, Warner had doled out brown paper envelopes with $40,000 in them to each of the union’s 25 visiting members. The money, he now explained, came from Mohamed bin Hammam, a Qatari businessman running against Sepp Blatter for FIFA’s presidency.








.

Swedish school in Riyadh reported for having an evil dictator on the wall

 Sweden Again Hit the Wall(ström) Called the "guardian of islam"

A Swedish school in Riyadh Saudi Arabia has been reported for having the Saudi islamofascist "king's" picture hanging in front of innocent children. According to the complaint, it's like having Hitler on the wall. 

According to the complainant Hans Jonasson, who leads several schools in Sweden, it's unacceptable that a school paid by Swedish tax money has a picture of a dictator on the wall who has only this year already executed more than 30 people. Moreover, Saudi Arabia is classified by Amnesty as one of the worst violators of Human Rights.

Klevius question: Was Hitler the Saudi "king" on the wall of BBC's sharia presenter Mishal Husain's school when she studied in Saudi Arabia?

Dear reader! Believe you me. Mishal Husain as a deceptive BBC face of islamofascism (OIC sharia) is a much more important issue for islam's victims in the world than FIFA! 

Klevius wrote about the last Wallgate: 

Will Margot Wallström support Human Rights or islamofascist sharia?

Will she sacrifice Raif Badawi and all other victims of islam - the by far worst ideological crime ever against humanity? Will she blink the blood bath that has always accompanied islam when it hasn't simply retarded to the deepest of human backwardness.

She now has a golden opportunity to be the first foreign minister to stop islamofascism at its source. But will she prevail? Klevius doubts it.

Klevius translation of Aftonbladet's presentation: Government scared about muslim protests.
Wallström: Nothing of what I've said can be interpreted as criticism against islam.
Expert: "Wallstrlm criticized islam"

In other words, in the eyes of the Saudi dictatorship (the "guardian of islam") she is nothing when she no longer serve's them as a tool for promoting their islamofascism.

We have never heard anything similar to the UK about muslim sex slavery in Sweden. How come? Could it really be that the country that has been the most blindfolded when it comes to evil islam has been spared from this curse of original islam?!

OIC is a muslim extremist organization based in Saudi Arabia and steered by the Saudi islamofascist Iyad Madani. This man and his organization is islam's absolutely foremost representative of today - and the wall that Wallström hit her head against!

BBC's "low profile" about the heart (Saudi Arabia/OIC) of today's worst fascism, islam, makes it easy for Klevius to beat BBC in essential news reporting on the topic.

 Klevius wrote about BBC:

Monday, May 21, 2012

Klevius beats BBC when it comes to true reporting about OIC!

Totalitarian fanaticism replacing Human Rights while BBC misinforms muslims and others on how they're robbed of their Human Rights!

Sadly, Klevius is still the foremost (and lone?!) expert on sex segregation/apartheid and, consequently, also the web's foremost expert on islam. Why? Because islam rests so heavily on sex segregation/apartheid, even in its most "secular" form (as long as it's meaningful at all to call it islam) that an effort to understand islam without understanding sex segregation/apartheid is doomed to complete failure! In essence what Klevius is doing is in Bourdieu's words 'to restore to historical action, the relationship between the sexes that the naturalistic and essentialist vision removes from them'.  And where Bourdieu went to the Kabyles Klevius went to the origin of islam, Christianity and Judaism!

Klevius beats BBC in reporting on the most essential and critical issue of our time: OIC and its Fuhrer Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu's islamofascist violation of the most basic of Human Rights!

BBC, the largest broadcaster in the world, has as its main responsibility to provide impartial public service broadcasting.

Klevius question: How come then that Klevius beats BBC when it comes to informing about OIC? As you can see on the 'OIC BBC' search below Klevius' 'BBC News', i.e. not BBC, is the first to offer real info about OIC. on the web (see the eighth result on the pic below: BBC News by Klevius)! And to really prove it you will find a picture of the first BBC post (BBC News - Profile: Organization of the Islamic Conference) further down to show that it completely avoids to inform the most essential feature of OIC, namely that it has abandoned Human Rights and replaced them with Sharia.

According to BBC OIC's aims are to 'safeguard islamic holy places' (Klevius comment: Those places are already carefully destroyed by the Sauds) and toe eradicate racial discrimination (meaning Human Rights "discrimination" of islamic Sharia) and colonialism (sic - islam has been the worst colonizer ever throughout 1400 years!). But nowhere in BBC's text can you find the most important namely OIC's violation of Human Rights by replacing them with Sharia!

While BBC has some 23,000 staff Klevius is not only alone* and without resources, he is also deliberately hindered in his extremely informative work by active and continuous "islamophobia filtering". Yes, Klevius knows that he could do much better by avoiding words like 'islamofascism' etc. but he loves it.

* no offence to other "islamophobes" out there but Klevius happens to be the one with the best potency for evaluating the origin of islam from a perspective of sex segregation/rapetivism.


Klevius wrote about the Mishal Husain/islamopfascism problem:

A Nuremberg trial against BBC's bigoted and hypocritical muslim sharia presenter Mishal Husain - defended by Klevius

In a May 1 sermon, Tunisian cleric Sheik Bechir Begga said that Satan and the Jews are the enemies of Muslims. He added that Allah was gathering the Jews “in Palestine, or in Tel Aviv,” where they would meet their end.


Koran 5:82.

    The Muslim has two enemies. The first is Satan. The Prophet Muhammad said: “Satan flows through human beings like blood flows through the veins.” Satan is the first enemy. “Surely Satan is your enemy, so treat him like an enemy.” This is what Allah said.

    The second enemy is the Zionist Jew.

    […]

    They violated pacts and covenants. They slayed the prophets. They disobeyed Allah’s commandments and violated his prohibitions. What we are witnessing today is their second and final corruption.

    […]

    “When there comes the promise of the Hereafter, We will gather you in droves.” [Allah] will gather them from all over the world. After He had dispersed the Jews all over the world – some in Britain, some in Germany, some in the Soviet Union, and some in other countries – they will gather again in the lane of Palestine, or Tel Aviv.

    “We will gather you in droves.” This is one of the signs heralding the Day of Judgment. These are glad tidings for us, because that is their end. They will meet their end by gathering in Israel. This is the beginning of the end for Israel.

Mishal Husain grew up in Saudi Arabia, the country that gave birth to and shares the same version of islam that propels the Islamic State

Islamic ideology has committed genocides, enslaved, murdered, raped and victimized more people than any other ideology throughout 1400 years. Although history is full of proof of this, the most obvious evidence of islamic evilness* is to be found in the Koran, Muhammad's biographies and the hadiths. And cherry picking away the mass of evil in islamic texts would never have been accepted re. for example Nationalsocialism (aka Nazism).

* Measured by Human Rights standard

BBC's muslim sharia presenter (or?)*: "You could argue couldn't you, that Hamas was also stopping worse happening all of this period, because although there was rockets being fired - they weren't the.. the big rockets that have caused damage in recent days, they were mostly home-made contraptions."

 This support for violent jihad terror alone would be enough to render Mishal Husain morally guilty. However, a much more serious side of Mishal Husain is her support for islam in general, well knowing (unlike many less well informed muslims) that islam means sharia and that sharia inevitably means  grave violations of the most basic of Human Rights.

Mishal Husain, while islam kills and victimizes millions, says that she doesn't think her way of life is under any kind of threat and that she is a proud muslim who doesn't care to fast during Ramadan and rather drinks some alcohol

However. either she is a muslim and thereby has to support Human Rights violating sharia - or she is a lying apostate committing the worst crime known to islam. There is no such a thing as an individual muslim! Although, according to Human Rights, Mishal Husain as an individual is free to believe whatever she likes, if she calls herself a muslim she automatically connects to sharia islam, the very opposite to Human Rights - e.g. as stated by all the world's muslims' Saudi based and UN sanctioned sharia organization OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) and its islamofascist Saudi Fuhrer Iyad Madani.

A consequence of this is that a sharia supporting muslim's vote is undemocratic. OIC's 57 member state voting bloc in UN who supported Human Rights violating sharia as a guidance for muslim legislation all over the world was therefore also undemocratic.

Could there be any doubt that Mishal Husain isn't aware of OIC and its world sharia declaration? After all, it's even on Wikipedia.

Samantha Lewthwaite, Mishal Husain and Michael Adebolajo (who murdered Lee Rigby). Mishal Husain is BBC's top muslim presenter and BBC is the world's leading media. The only thing she needs to say is that she opposes Human Rights violating sharia - and thereby also opposes islam because islam without some form of Human Rights violating sharia is not islam anymore - it's just a private belief and won't bother Klevius a bit.


Adolf Eichman's defense: I did not persecute Jews with avidity and passion. That is what the government did.

Mishal Husain's defense as outlined by Klevius: Mishal Husain doesn't persecute Jews with avidity and passion. That's what the militant part of islam does. Jihadis who are fighting in an unjust war (i.e. against "islamophobia") must still be treated as legal combatants, and not held responsible for the war itself. Only those behind the policy (islam) should be sentenced.

So Klevius proposes that all charges against Mishal Husain should be dismissed, because circumstantial evidence ought not to be allowed.  However, this also implies that Mishal Husain has to avoid supporting violent jihad islam wherever it appears, incl. Israel, so to keep circumstantial evidence from becoming factual evidence and thereby turning her case on its head.

Comment by Anonymous:  But hasn't Mishal Husain asked for muslim "scholars" to address jihadism?

Comment by Clevius: You're so right, Anonymous, that's exactly what she did - asked the government those behind the policy!

Comment by Haram: Does Mishal Husain eat halal meat?

Acknowledgement: A Google search today couldn't find any pictures of Mishal Husain signed Klevius. Not even on 'more images'. Must be a bug or something.
I'm sure BBC or Mishal Husain would never lower themselves to anything like that.

Here are some more in case you've missed them:

.

Snoop Dog was (and still apparently is) stupidly ignorant - so what about BBC's islam presenter Mishal Husain?

Rapetivism and craptivism*

* Rap inducing criminality, i.e. a waste product of human life.

How much guilt has this rapper for black criminality? Is he a rapper or a crapper - and does he even understand his part in it?

Snoop dog (aka Calvin Cordozar Broadus Jr. - named after his stepfather cause his own father abandoned him just as did Obama's father) says his sexism was due to his ignorance. Klevius then wonders whether it's the same ignorance that made him join US' most hateful and racist supremacist community?

Farrakhan (leader of the worst American racist/sexist supremacist sect, Nation of Islam):  “This is a new generation and they don’t want to hear your compromising talk! What they do want to hear, though, is rap music. Rappers are listened to. Kanye West and Jay Zare listened to. Killer Mike is listened to — he even attended Obama's 2015 White House Correspondents Dinner.


 

'I will kill you' shouts the brain dead* hateful black muslim supremacist racist clown Louis Farrakhan

* Can we agree that hateful people are not only stupid but also dangerous - to all of us, including themselves.  Ok, he's smarter than Sharpton but what does that really prove! It's still far short of what could be expected from an ordinary civilized man. Just listen to this childish but hateful rant to childish but, as a consequence, hateful listeners. 

This hateful racist is whom Obama's minister for some 20 years awarded!

Yes, Klevius knows very well that people are very vulnerable to theatrical performance - especially when this helps to excuse one's often misdirected anger about oneself. This is why Klevius would never even dream of acting like Farrakhan. And this is why Klevius believes in Human Rights instead of segregation.

This joke is the leader of black US muslims!

   

'I will kill you if you put your hands on me' Farrakhan said in a context where some presumably white official during the "million man marsh" had explained an escape route for him in the case of violence. And for his black audience (above) he made it sound the opposite to what the official had meant. Farrakhan unscrupulously played the race card hard, hinting the possible violence was white, not black, and then in a childish but obviously for this audience effective way (see how happy they look at the very moment he utters 'kill') played the hero card by stating that he 'should die with his people'. Moreover, Farrakhan knows very well that many young and some older black haters love to hear him hinting at hate violence by using words like 'kill' and 'fight back' etc. He also loves using the word 'devil' when talking about white people. Why? Simply because Nation of Islam's very racist hateful core idea is that "whites" are evil devils while "blacks" are "god's" chosen people. No other race is as good as "blacks" according to just one of the unbelievable fantasies from which Farrakhan's muslim hate organization emerged (see more about NOI furthest down on this posting)


Klevius wrote 8 August 2011:
  
The bizarre but extremely racist "ideology" of Nation of Islam may be summarized as this: Blacks are the superior race on Earth and white people belong to Satan and should be destroyed. The other races are somewhere in between with Asians (Mongoloids) near the bottom just above the whites.


Louis Farrakhan: "According to what we understand, only two percent of the Libyan people are in rebellion against their government. Now, you [Obama] mean to tell me that half the people don't want you, and you dare to say that this man [Al-Qadhafi - i.e. the guy who possibly arranged the Lockerbie terrorist attack and who arranged for the freeing of the one who actually did it] is illegitimate? What makes him illegitimate, and what makes you legitimate?

"I came here to preach the doom of this institution. You say that he is illegitimate, he kills his own people? What's your record? What's your record, America?

"Your governments will soon be laying in… some of you, who have plotted against the peoples of the world, will be seen on the back of pickup trucks, driving through the streets of America, with the American people throwing stones and raw garbage at you.

"In the name of Allah, the Merciful and Compassionate. Dear brother leader, Mu'ammar Al-Qadhafi, may this letter find you, your family, and the faithful people of the Libyan Arab Republic, in the best health and spirit in spite of the prevailing circumstances.

"Dear brother leader, in the general orders that we were given by the honorable Elijah Muhammad, whose desire was to make us brave fighters, willing at any time to give our lives for Allah's sake and righteousness, it states in general order No. 5 'Do not quit your post until properly relieved.' Allah put you on your post, and neither NATO, the president of the U.S., the Arab League, or anybody else, has the power or authority to tell you to quit your post. Elijah Muhammad told me: 'Die on your post.'

"Dear brother [Barack Obama], be careful about the assassination of Mu'ammar Al-Qadhafi and others in the Muslim world. Could it be that while you and your staff are planning the death of Mu'ammar Al-Qadhafi, could it also be that members of your own Democratic Party are plotting to betray you? Could it be that right now, while you are planning for your second term, that there are those in your party [who don't] want you for a second term, and definitely the Republicans don't want you to be a one-term president.

"So, like Abraham Lincoln, who was prosecuting the civil war, and doubted that he would be reelected, won a second term, but this so angered the opposition that it was then that his own reelection inspired his assassination. Could that be going on right now, under your own nose?

"Think, dear brother, before you act, because as the Bible puts it: 'God is not mocked. As a man soweth, the same shall he also reap.'As Obadiah the Prophet said: 'As thou hast done, so shall it be done unto you.' If they are successful in killing brother Al-Qadhafi, this is not going to be the end. This is the beginning of horrors, as you will see."

"The Future for Europe and America is Bleak, Very Very Bleak; China and Russia – Oh, You All will be at War"

"Al-Qadhafi wasn't in some tent twiddling his thumbs. He was working for the good of the African people. The African people will rise. NATO and… I'm sorry, America – I have got to say it, because I heard it from the mouth of the honorable Elijah Muhammad – Europe is finished.

"All of you who love war will be drowned in your own blood, as it is written: 'Those of you who love to shed the blood of others – Allah will make you drunk with your own blood, as with sweet wine.' Europe is headed for war, as we speak. Yes England, France, Italy, Germany, the honorable Elijah Muhammad told me that at the right time to tell you that Europe is the graveyard of the future. All of you who ran to Europe, to your former colonial masters, it is written that everyone will have to go to their own, and find refuge under their own vine and fig tree.

"And as Europe is trying to push out the Africans, to push out the Pakistanis, you would be wise to prepare yourself to get out of there or die there, because the future for Europe and America is bleak, very very bleak. China and Russia – oh, you all will be at war. You like it, so Allah is going to give it to you. You will have war soon. Mark my words – not my words, but the words of a man who was taught by God. You will face every word that he spoke. You will remember what you heard today – that a man, a real man of God was in your midst, and every word that I speak – you will face it."

Klevius answer to this pathetic "wanna be god's messenger" who uses to agitate extreme religious racial hatred while simultaneously changing views like a chameleon when it suits him: You idiot hide behind the otherwise non-related facts that Arabic islam managed to destroy most of Africa for more than a Millennium, and that a majority of African people have darker skin than most of the rest of the world. And of course, when the most advanced cultures (meaning they are based on the non-religious idea of Universal Human Rights) are predominantly "white" (actually really white people, so called albinos you find mostly oppressed in Africa!) this has been utilized by NOI and you as a ground for agitating dangerous racism especially in children and youth. You moron are lowering, not bettering the moral of what you try to lump together under skin color as "blacks".

You, Louis, and your butt-wipes are so funny to watch in your pompous appearance, was it not for all the misery and suffering you cause! All the way from Wallace Fard Mohammad (a white guy with extremely confused ideas) via a string of serial killers incl. Black Panthers etc to British street riots and looting. And on the way your organization didn't only murder people like Malcolm X but also, of course, targeted Martin Luther King and others (a god's gift was it that a "white" man was sentenced).



The founder of Nation of Islam, who actually existed - unlike the made up founder of islam

Drug dealer Wallie Wallace Dodd Fard Ford Farrad David Ali Mohammad (or whatever - i.e. the NOI foudner that Farrakhan forgot to refer to) was born somewhere and died somehow. He founded the fascist organization Nation of Islam in the period between World War 1 and 2 that saw all kinds of fascist movements appear. He became the head of the Chicago mosque in 1929, i.e. when Hitler led the growing National Socialist Party in Germany (by the help of his ability to evoke a sense of violated national pride - compare NOI). Already at the start NOI was connected with murders and suspicious disappearances. He himself also disappeared in 1934, most probably murdered by the next NOI leader, Eliah Muhammad, just as Hitler murdered his competitor Ernst Röhm.

So how does BBC's "muslim" presenter Mishal Husain fit the picture?

   

Well, she can't possibly be equally ignorant as Snoop dog. So why does she lump herself together with the Saudis and the Islamic State under the same umbrella named islam? 'Apostislam', 'Euroislam', 'cultural islam' or whatever but not islam! She is the furthest away from anything resembling islam, its texts and its teachings. And arguing she represents some naive fantasy about a "reformed islam" makes no sense as long as she keeps silent/apolegetic about real islam (as exemplified by Saudi based and controlled OIC and its sharia declaration).

Klevius wrote:
   

A Nuremberg trial against BBC's bigoted and hypocritical muslim sharia presenter Mishal Husain - defended by Klevius

In a May 1 sermon, Tunisian cleric Sheik Bechir Begga said that Satan and the Jews are the enemies of Muslims. He added that Allah was gathering the Jews “in Palestine, or in Tel Aviv,” where they would meet their end.


Koran 5:82.

    The Muslim has two enemies. The first is Satan. The Prophet Muhammad said: “Satan flows through human beings like blood flows through the veins.” Satan is the first enemy. “Surely Satan is your enemy, so treat him like an enemy.” This is what Allah said.

    The second enemy is the Zionist Jew.

    […]

    They violated pacts and covenants. They slayed the prophets. They disobeyed Allah’s commandments and violated his prohibitions. What we are witnessing today is their second and final corruption.

    […]

    “When there comes the promise of the Hereafter, We will gather you in droves.” [Allah] will gather them from all over the world. After He had dispersed the Jews all over the world – some in Britain, some in Germany, some in the Soviet Union, and some in other countries – they will gather again in the lane of Palestine, or Tel Aviv.

    “We will gather you in droves.” This is one of the signs heralding the Day of Judgment. These are glad tidings for us, because that is their end. They will meet their end by gathering in Israel. This is the beginning of the end for Israel.

Mishal Husain grew up in Saudi Arabia, the country that gave birth to and shares the same version of islam that propels the Islamic State

Islamic ideology has committed genocides, enslaved, murdered, raped and victimized more people than any other ideology throughout 1400 years. Although history is full of proof of this, the most obvious evidence of islamic evilness* is to be found in the Koran, Muhammad's biographies and the hadiths. And cherry picking away the mass of evil in islamic texts would never have been accepted re. for example Nationalsocialism (aka Nazism).

* Measured by Human Rights standard

BBC's muslim sharia presenter (or?)*: "You could argue couldn't you, that Hamas was also stopping worse happening all of this period, because although there was rockets being fired - they weren't the.. the big rockets that have caused damage in recent days, they were mostly home-made contraptions."

 This support for violent jihad terror alone would be enough to render Mishal Husain morally guilty. However, a much more serious side of Mishal Husain is her support for islam in general, well knowing (unlike many less well informed muslims) that islam means sharia and that sharia inevitably means  grave violations of the most basic of Human Rights.

Mishal Husain, while islam kills and victimizes millions, says that she doesn't think her way of life is under any kind of threat and that she is a proud muslim who doesn't care to fast during Ramadan and rather drinks some alcohol

However. either she is a muslim and thereby has to support Human Rights violating sharia - or she is a lying apostate committing the worst crime known to islam. There is no such a thing as an individual muslim! Although, according to Human Rights, Mishal Husain as an individual is free to believe whatever she likes, if she calls herself a muslim she automatically connects to sharia islam, the very opposite to Human Rights - e.g. as stated by all the world's muslims' Saudi based and UN sanctioned sharia organization OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) and its islamofascist Saudi Fuhrer Iyad Madani.

A consequence of this is that a sharia supporting muslim's vote is undemocratic. OIC's 57 member state voting bloc in UN who supported Human Rights violating sharia as a guidance for muslim legislation all over the world was therefore also undemocratic.

Could there be any doubt that Mishal Husain isn't aware of OIC and its world sharia declaration? After all, it's even on Wikipedia.

Samantha Lewthwaite, Mishal Husain and Michael Adebolajo (who murdered Lee Rigby). Mishal Husain is BBC's top muslim presenter and BBC is the world's leading media. The only thing she needs to say is that she opposes Human Rights violating sharia - and thereby also opposes islam because islam without some form of Human Rights violating sharia is not islam anymore - it's just a private belief and won't bother Klevius a bit.


Adolf Eichman's defense: I did not persecute Jews with avidity and passion. That is what the government did.

Mishal Husain's defense as outlined by Klevius: Mishal Husain doesn't persecute Jews with avidity and passion. That's what the militant part of islam does. Jihadis who are fighting in an unjust war (i.e. against "islamophobia") must still be treated as legal combatants, and not held responsible for the war itself. Only those behind the policy (islam) should be sentenced.

So Klevius proposes that all charges against Mishal Husain should be dismissed, because circumstantial evidence ought not to be allowed.  However, this also implies that Mishal Husain has to avoid supporting violent jihad islam wherever it appears, incl. Israel, so to keep circumstantial evidence from becoming factual evidence and thereby turning her case on its head.

Comment by Anonymous:  But hasn't Mishal Husain asked for muslim "scholars" to address jihadism?

Comment by Clevius: You're so right, Anonymous, that's exactly what she did - asked the government those behind the policy!

Comment by Haram: Does Mishal Husain eat halal meat?

Acknowledgement: A Google search today couldn't find any pictures of Mishal Husain signed Klevius. Not even on 'more images'. Must be a bug or something.
I'm sure BBC or Mishal Husain would never lower themselves to anything like that.

Here are some more in case you've missed them:

.