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

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

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

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses while FEEding Lnd

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

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

Human Rights is diversity - sharia is the opposite

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

It's racism and sexism even if proposed by a "god"! Klevius altruistic virtual volunteering for the world community in defense of Universal Human Rights . Yes, I know, it's unfair. Klevius vs islam, i.e. Universal Human Rights vs Sharia (OIC) racism/sexism! Of course Klevius will win. The question is just how long we should allow the dying beast to make people suffer. (Negative) Human Rights is not a ”Western” invention! It’s where you end up when you abandon racism and sexism, idiot! After you have abandoned islam! Your confused islamophilia and ignorance about Human Rights make YOU an accomplice to islam's crimes! Whereas Human Rights work as egalitarian and universal traffic rules (no matter who you are or what you drive you have the same rights as everyone else) islam/Sharia differs between muslim men and the rest (women and "infidels")!

Ask yourself, why can't racist islam (OIC) accept Human Rights? The answer reveals the difference between totalitarianism and freedom. And even if everyone converted to islam we'd still have Sharia sexism.
Have you noticed that when the history of slavery is (PC) debated islam is always excluded/excused? Atlantic slave trade and Roman slaves are eagerly mentioned while the world's by far worst, longest and most extensive one is blinked, as is the fact that islam not only sanctions slavery but is itself built on slavery and sex slavery (rapetivism)! The core idea of islam is the most thoroughly elaborated parasitism ever, i.e. what in 1400 yrs has made it the by far worst crime ever. But thanks to islamic teachings muslims are kept extremely ignorant about the evil origin of islam (institutionalized parasitism based on slave finance, rapetivism and pillage). Ohlig: The first two "islamic" centuries lie in the shadows of history. Klevius: There was no islam or islamic Mohammad (that's why the Saudis have levelled Mohammad's "grave" etc), only the evil murdering, pillaging and raping Aramaic-Arabic Jewish("Christian") led illiterate Arab thugs chasing for booty and sex. The "success" of this formula became later institutionalized and codified as a one way (Koran/Sharia) moral excuse (Allah) for further racist/sexist genocides. The bedrock and currency of this system was racist slavery. However, with Enlightenment the new idea of individual (negative) Human Rights emerged (incl. abolishing of slavery) and were, much later (1948), written down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights according to which everyone is equal no matter of sex, beliefs etc. Just like in traffic! But unlike traffic rules no one really seems to care about guarding our most precious asset as human beings. Instead racist sexist islamofascism (OIC and the Cairo Sharia declaration) is protected by Human Rights while they strive to undermine and eventually destroy these Human Rights! And most people don't seem to get it. Always remember, there is no islam without Human Rights violating racist/sexist Sharia. So a "vote" for Sharia-islam is AGAINST democracy and the freedom part of Human Rights!

Sayeeda Warsi (UK's non-elected OIC/Sharia politician) in essence doesn't differ from those muslim Saudi women who approve of sex slavery etc, other than that she is either ignorant or a traitor (against democracy and Human Rights) of the worst kind.

We're all born unequal - that's why we need Human Rights, not islam!

Audi then built by Jewish slaves - today dangerous quality problems

Myth vs Truth

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

Thursday, August 20, 2015

What's the difference between being anti-muslim and anti-Nazi?


Hey Brits, do you think Jeremy Corbyn will protect your Human Rights against muslims?

 In Klevius series digusting Human Rights desecrating hypocritical politicians.




Raed Salah (a friend of Jeremy Corbyn): Very soon, Muhammad will be the most popular name in Europe.

Klevius: And most of them are muslim violators of Human Rights! If we don't start educating muslims about Human Rights instead of lying to our children about islam, then these future Muhammads and Muslimas will never understand the very evil origin and nature of Human Rights violating sharia islam.



The Bangladesh government led by PM Sheikh Hasina has been criticized for failing to adequately protect Human Rights bloggers. 


Klevius: Why should he be criticized? According to deeply racist and sexist (he supports sharia islam - and if he doesn't, then Klevius challenges him to be honest and dare to say he's an "islamophobe") Jeremy Corbyn, "islamophobia" is "disgusting and deeply offensive". In Europe and the US no one protects "islamophobic" Human Rights bloggers! On the contrary they are seen as "not conducive to the public good" because they offend muslims - who apparently are "conducive to the public good" despite opposing Human Rights - with their "islamophobia", and because many muslims are very sensitive and violent, islam criticism, sorry, "islamophobia" may "disturb cohesion" - or somthing like that.

In other words, muslim Human Rights-phobia is good while defending the most basic of Human Rights equals "islamophobia" - which is very bad.

So what do those "muslims" think who don't approve of sharia but rather stick with Human Rights? And Jews who don't want to submit under islam. Should we just allow spineless bigoted hypocrite politicians like Jeremy Corbyn to assist in their extermination.


Klevius answer to the question in the title of this posting: None! Most Nationalsocialists weren't evil at all - just misled like many "muslims". 

Let's listen to a Jewish voice that differs a lot from Ed Miliband:


Shane Croucher: Jewish Twitter users are routinely attacked and questioned about Israel, despite having no connection to Israel other than being Jewish. Some are, ironically, critics of Israeli policy. A parallel would be demanding British Muslims to condemn Saudi Arabia purely because they share – in the broadest sense – a religion. It would not be tolerated in a way that demanding all Jews answer for the actions of Israel apparently is. These double standards and the emboldening of anti-Semites by Corbynmania are creating legitimate cause for concern among British Jews, many of whom are here because their ancestors sought refuge from the Holocaust.


Klevius: "In the broadest sense share a religion"?! Klevius takes it to mean the unfortunate mixing of Human Rights violating sharia muslims with non-sharia "muslims". The divide is bigger than the diameter of our Universe!


Two dumb voices who should really feel ashamed of, not their dumbness, but because of their support for islamofascism


Jordan Denari and Nathan Lean: "Ayaan Hirsi Ali's message has failed to attract many in the American Muslim community, who believe she misrepresents islam."

Klevius: The desperation among supporters of islamofascism seems to block any remaining capability of logical thinking. How could someone who criticizes something represent what  s/he criticizes?!


Jordan Denari and Nathan Lean: Hirsi Ali doesn't speak from a place of formal expertise on Islam.

Klevius: Expertise on islam! Apart from her experience of islam (which she shares with millions of islam's victims) and what you (and "muslim scholars") know zero about - why "formal"?! How would a "formal" criticism of Nazism in a Nazi country have looked like? And when did you last time knew about an unbiased "muslim scholar" (i.e. someone who builds houses of cards on unhistorical muslim fairy tales in the Arabian sand). The contamination of Western universities with "muslim scholars" is a sad step many hundreds of years back in time.

Jordan Denari and Nathan Lean: It's really not islam she desires to change, as much as the public's perception of it.



Klevius: This must be the intellectual equivalent of the guy driving against the traffic on the wrong side of the motorway. When we all know that the islam that is criticized by "islamophobes" like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, is the one in which name evil (i.e. what is criticized) is produced. The "islamophobic" criticism is directed against evil muslims and evil islam - nothing or no one else!

If "good muslims" have a problem (feeling "offended") with sharing the same name as sharia muslims then its their duty to clearly state it by openly rejecting this evil (i.e. against the most basic Western and Human Rights values) sharia islam - or stop being muslims all together, hence committing the worst crime islam (in every form) knows about, which fact really underlines the evilness in their former ideology.



If you like islam - why don't you also like the Islamic State and Saudi Arabia? They are by far the closest to the origin of islam you can get today!












.

No comments: