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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Human Rights is diversity - sharia is the opposite

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

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

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

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

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

Audi then built by Jewish slaves - today dangerous quality problems

Myth vs Truth

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

Wednesday, March 08, 2017

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family as the "custodian of islam" and Saudi based and steered OIC and its worldwide sharia declaration, constitute the worst threat to women's Human Rights.


Peter Klevius on Women's Day: Make sex segregation/apartheid in whatever form a hate crime when the motive is sexism*, i.e. a denial of girls' and women's full Human Rights.


* That would include bullying girls and women for their appearance or behavior just because of their sex.


The worst hate speech comes from islam itself - yet it's protected by blasphemy/"hate speech"/"islamophobia" etc. regulations/propaganda by spineless politicians and greedy finance people.


Is this divisive islamofascist Saudi hate preacher a muslim?



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

US women fighting in vain for equality some 70 years after Finnish women got full equality.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of sex...


Klevius question: Why are women accomplices to their own segregation/apartheid?

True feminist theory fits well with sharia - but not with full Human Rights equality.

Klevius answer:Feminism was originally created in the late 19th century (as was Freud's sexist "psychoanalysis") as a reaction to women's liberation. And true feminist theory still follows that very same original and segregational* formula.

* Do understand that segregation can go both ways - enforced from outside or self inflected. Also consider the "explanatory" power of "victimhood" and how it wraps itself in a protective bubble of accusations - hence excluding part of the solution. Many males have also suffered from similar segregation but without (except for "black African-Americans", or "black" Africans etc. "suffering" from "white colonialism" so called "white privilege") similar categories to group themselves with.


Klevius wrote:

Saturday, May 30, 2015


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.







No comments: