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.

Sunday, June 11, 2017

Klevius analysis of Theresa May's (and her advisors' anti Human Rights disaster.


Nick Timothy, fighting against trading with China and journalist Fiona Hill, fighting for the rights of extremist muslims = pro Saudi sharia islamofascism and anti "islamophobia".


To be against "islamophobia" (i.e. against Human Rights criticism of islam in general and the Saudi islamofascists in particular) is a consequence of bowing towards the islamofascist Saudi dictator family. It's also the reason Theresa May said 'sharia is good for the Brits' (which "Brits"? - sharia muslims in Pakistan etc. Commonwealth nations?!). However, as Fiona Hill is described as both ignorant and aggressive is should surprise no one that she's also touchy. I mean, after all, she's a journalist.


Nick Timothy, fighting against trading with China and Fiona Hill, fighting for the rights of extremist muslims. Klevius question: Is this any good for England?.


Klevius wrote:

Saturday, July 30, 2016

Theresa May has "safety" prejudice against dealing with China - but can share security with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia

Some points Klevius fears BBC might miss:

Theresa May calls Pakistan our dependable ally and has deep prejudice against China - but not against Saudi Arabia.





Whereas China is divided in Communism within the state and Capitalism outside it, Saudi Arabia is a theocratic dictatorship busy spreading Koranic hate in the service of itself, i.e. how original islam did.

Klevius advise to Theresa May (and her advisors, Nick Timothy & Co): Britain is constantly attacked by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan via sharia islamism infiltration (both countries, unlike Britain, are islamist sharia states - the latter with nuclear war heads under uncertain control) . However, no one in her/his right mind would think about China as an attacker against Britain - neither now or in the past. And the appalling accusation against China about "to build weaknesses into computer systems which will allow them to shut down Britain’s energy production at will" seems childish at best. Especially when it's "proven" with a Chinese web site text about “building of national defence". Isn't that kind of approach almost universal, not the least in UK?!

China is a main part of our global future, not Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, both very minor players in comparison and both still struggling with unfortunate entanglements to medieval aggression and backwardness. Against this background, is it really in the best interest of UK to uphold racist attitudes against Chinese while showing extreme appeasement towards two of the most intolerant and dangerous countries in the world?

Pakistan defends itself by arguing that its intelligence categorizes "its islamist officers" (sic) in 3 categories: Whites are those publicly sympathetic with Taliban. Blacks are potential recruits for the Taliban. Reds are - Taliban. ISI, MI deal with them through surveillance and possible (sic) abduction and interrogation, and depending on the degree of their islamism they end up as "missing person" for some time or they just "disappear".

However, Pakistan seems quite unreliable. Compare for example, how Osama bin Laden was allowed to reside there. Double-play seems to be the core of "allies" in the muslim world.

David French: Pakistan also helped fund a suicide bombing in Afghanistan in 2009 that became the worst attack on CIA in a quarter-century. “Foreign intelligence service and Haqqani network involvement in the 30 December 2009 suicide attack at [Camp] Chapman,” begins the subject line for the State Department cable, written in early 2010 by a U.S. official who was not named. The memo, made public this week by a nonprofit group, proceeds to challenge the narrative of one of the worst days in the CIA’s history. It describes an elaborate plot in which Pakistan’s intelligence service allegedly put up $200,000 for the now-infamous bombing, which occurred when a presumed al-Qaeda informant was allowed into a secure U.S. base in Khost, Afghanistan, to meet with a team of American officers and handlers. While the claims are controversial (a U.S. investigation pinned the blame on al Qaeda, not Pakistan or its Haqqani network allies), they shouldn’t be remotely “startling.” Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) has long been suspected of “playing both sides” in the war on terror, and there is strong suspicion that the ISI actually views the Taliban as a “strategic asset.” Moving beyond ISI activities, insurgent access to Pakistan as a safe haven — a place where its fighters can rest, re-arm, and recruit — has proven to be of incalculable benefit to the Taliban since 9/11, and there is even evidence that the regular Pakistani army has on occasion fired on American troops. There have been so many reports of conflict that “Pakistan-United States Skirmishes” has its own Wikipedia entry. I recognize that the needs of war sometimes require our nation to ally itself with dangerous regimes (see World War II for the most salient example), but there is still a difference between a shaky or temporary ally and an actual enemy — a nation that is trying to undermine American interests and kill Americans. In other words, there is a line, and it is worth asking (and re-asking) if Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are on the right side.

No comments: