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

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

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

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

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

Human Rights is diversity - sharia is the opposite

The evil of Sharia islam is what makes it incompatible with Negative Human Rights (i.e. why islamic OIC violates Human Rights by replacing them with Sharia, hence excluding women and non-muslims from equality). The evil of islam and its origin may be easier to grasp with historical examples, e.g. the Origin of the 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!

Myth vs Truth

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

Wednesday, July 08, 2015

The evil spiral from "British values" to "Swedish values" to "muslim values"


Sweden's biggest newspaper despises 'Swedish values' but hales muslim Umma nationalism


Aftonbladet: Nationalism paves the way for contempt! Klevius: Is that why members of the muslim nation (Umma) show such contemt against non-muslims?
The main obstacle to world solidarity is islamic nationalism and its contempt
for the other, the "infidel" (compare OIC's sharia declaration in UN)!





Klevius was the first non-racist and non-sexist person to publicly analyze and intellectually pinpoint the real problem (without excuses or political correctness) with islam. Why were no one listening?

The reasons are many: If you belong to the Judeo-Christian "religious community" you are probably already hampered in your efforts to defend your own religion while criticizing islam. You might have financial connections to islam, or you may be plain stupid/ignorant.

Slowly, way too slowly, media is waking up to the giant problem of muslimhood, that Klevius immediately after 9/11 analyzed and pinpointed despite all the "blasphemy" ("islamophobia") threats and inconveniencies he has faced (do note that Klevius hasn't needed to change anything - others have). However, there is an even longer way to walk before the rock solid truth behind Klevius blog title 'Origin of islam, the worst racist/sexist hate crime ever' is fully absorbed, as exemplified in the following.

Allison Pearson (The Telegraph): Ten years on, the threat, as the Prime Minister admitted yesterday, continues to be real and deadly. Scotland Yard’s anti-terrorism squad says it has foiled up to 50 plots since 7/7. In the intervening decade, there have been more than 2,000 terrorism-related arrests. As we observed the silence for the dead of 7/7, arrests were at a record high, with almost one detention every single day.

Against that horrifying background, consider the complaint this week in the Guardian by the writer and editor, Mehdi Hasan. He says that since 7/7, British Muslims have met with discrimination – “subject to unprecedented scrutiny; tagged as a suspect community, the enemy within, a 'fifth column’ (to quote Nigel Farage)”.

Well, yes. If substantial numbers of men from a certain group in society are presenting an unprecedented threat to a country, then scrutiny and suspicion do tend to be the result. As for discrimination, try lying on a beach in Tunisia and being shot dead for no reason other than not being Muslim. 

The "muslim community" consists of muslims (for sharia and against Human Rights) and neo-"muslims" (against sharia and for Human Rights) but only the former will have an effect (so called "radicalization") on that community.

 Whenever discussing islam, always remember that the origin of islam makes no historical sense whatsoever if not read through the same evil original formula as do Islamic State and the Saudis! And for the "tolerant-golden-age-islam" people you better remind them that the gold was slavery, the very financial and social basis of islam.

Is it because of so called "sharia finance" Cameron hides Human Rights under "British values" while insidiously opening up for islamofascist sharia "values" by disconnecting UK from the Court of Human Rights in Strassbourg?

If your muslim friend possesses those "British values"*, i.e. basic Human Rights, that Theresa May and David Cameron
think they do, then no harm is done to make sure by asking. Your muslim friend may be honest or not, but at least you have either made her/him proud or, alternatively, made her/him (isn't this grammatical gender aprtheid inherited from Mideast senseless) aware of this crucial distinction and, if lying to you, feeling some deserved guilt for building your relationship on a disgusting lie.

* There can't be any other "British values" (than basic Human Rights) which are meaningful in a context of debating muslimhood and islam. Islamic sharia jihadists are born in UK, speak in a "British" way, they are educated in Britain, they work, study and/or live on benefits in Britain. They do British sports, entertainment etc. And on top of this some of them are imams, mosque leaders, leaders/members of muslim organizations, muslim politicians etc.

The allure of sharia islam is (apart from pure sexism) supremacist racist hate (compare the ritual stoning of the infidel during Mecca haji).


Being "black" or "white" has no connection to black or white supremacism.
Being sharia muslim has every connection to islamist supremacism because sharia, in whatever meaningful form (e.g. OIC), will always violate the most basic Human Rights. Whereas the basic ('negative') Human Rights guarantee universal equality, supremacism rests on the belief that some people are better than others and therefore the "inferior" ones can be mistreated. No dude, this shouldn't be misunderstood as not being allowed to love your loved ones more than others. If you are too dumb to get it, think of traffic rules. You can love your car more than any other cars out there, but that doesn't give you more rights in the traffic, does it.


The name of the free world's enemy is sharia islam. Is this why PM Cameron doesn't dare to utter the world 'sharia' in the context of British victims of sharia islam?


Acknowledgement 2 (for dumb people or for those willfully trying to misread): By 'sharia muslims' Klevius means those muslims who subscribe to basic Human Rights violating sharia islam on a level of OIC's Cairo declaration in UN - or worse.


Back in 1215 Magna Carta (the first predecessor to Human Rights) was produced to stifle traitor King John's effort to islamize Britian. Compare this to the  British PM Cameron's attacks on Human Rights while seemingly proposing Britain as the center of sharia islamofascism outside Mideast (beginning with London sharia finance).
King John the Traitor, PM David Cameron and the islamofascist "king" Abdullah who pretended to be "reformist" while steering the country in an even more intolerant direction by new sharia inspired laws by early 2014 (e.g. equalizing Human Rights, Secularism and Atheism with "terrorism" and due penalties - compare Raif Badawi and others).

King John in the early 13th century sent envoys to Mohammed al-Nâsir asking for his help. In return King John offered to convert to Islam and turn England into a muslim state. The muslim jihadist Mohammed al-Nâsir's view on King John: "I never read or heard that any king possessing such a prosperous kingdom subject and obedient to him, would voluntarily ... make tributary a country that is free, by giving to a stranger that which is his own ... conquered, as it were, without a wound. I have rather read and heard from many that they would procure liberty for themselves at the expense of streams of blood, which is a praiseworthy action; but now I hear that your wretched lord, a sloth and a coward, who is even worse than nothing, wishes from a free man to become a slave, who is the most miserable of all human beings." Mohammed al-Nâsir concluded by wondering aloud why the English allowed such a man to lord over them — they must, he said, be very servile and soft.


Our politicians call our worst enemy, i.e. islam and its "guardian" Saudi Arabia, our "ally"!  No wonder the war on "radicalization", i.e. sharia islam (islamofascism) is not progressing.


So called Saudi Arabia, based on an islamofascist ideology almost identical with that of what so called BBC on order of PM Cameron, calls the "so called Islamic State", has now beheaded 100 people so far this year. So called Saudi Arabia considers basic Human Rights as "terrorism" and criticism of islamofascism as "blasphemic" "terrorism". Moreover, so called Saudi Arabia considers Shia muslims as no muslims at all but as apostates. The leader of the congregation at the Grand Hate Mosque (Masjid-al-Kurh) in Mecca, Adel Al Kalbani, declared that all Shia muslims were apostates, unbelievers, and as such should be hunted down and killed (i.e. murdered).

Shias, on the other hand, lump Israel together with so called Saudi Arabia. “Sheba and Dedan” are viewed as Jews for their support of Netanyahu’s anti-Iran campaign. Ayatollah Husayn Ali Montazeri, Khomeini’s successor-designate, denounced the Saudis as “a bunch of English agents from Najd who have no respect either for the House of Allah or for the pilgrims who are the guests of Allah.” Just as Jerusalem would be liberated from the “claws of usurping Israel,” Mecca and Medina would be liberated from the “claws of Al Saud.”

However, the problem is that when after 9/11 Georg W Bush was criticized for his attempted "crusade" against sharia islam, a discursive gray zone was created that came to protect that very evil that was the root cause of the problem.

The gray zone that hides and conflates sharia islam uses the meaningless term 'muslim' to cover both real sharia muslims and so called "British muslims" or "secularized muslims" or "cultural muslims".

Only by cleaning up this messy discourse, the evil of sharia islam and sharia muslims will be clearly visible. Only then we can open heartedly welcome neo-"muslims", i.e. those so called "moderate muslims" so admired and put on a pedestal by our politicians, and whom we assume are for basic Human Rights, i.e. so called "British values".


 .




.

No comments: