Calling critics of islam "islamophobes" is pure racism and also supports islamic racism and sexism

Calling critics of islam "islamophobes" is pure racism and also supports islamic racism and sexism

Calling criticism of islam "islamophobia" is pure racism and also supports islamic racism and sexism

Klevius supports no border on Ireland. Follow the will of the people, i.e. let England leave and let Scotland and Northern Ireland stay. UK is an unconstitutional mess which now wants to leave EU without controlling its border to EU. A proper constitution would have demanded qualified majority in two consecutive elections/votes about such a crucial matter as Brexit - and being aware what the vote is about. The root of the problem is England's mad man Henry 8's colonialization of Ireland and lack of constitution. The preposterous "British" Brexit parody is then spiced with the government's and BBC's use of religious hate mongering etc. In summary UK is an anomaly of countries trying to be a state in a world of federal states united as countries.

BBC isn't much interested in anti-semitism, homophobia etc. but uses them as an excuse for its Saudi/OIC supported "islamophobia" smear campaign against Human Rights.

Is BBC's Pakistan rooted and Saudi raised muslim(?) presenter Mishal Husain an "islamophobe" against evil* islam, or an apostate supporting toothless** "islam"? She doesn't fast during Ramadan but rather drinks some alcohol, and doesn't veil herself and says she doesn't feel any threats to her way of life (Klevius: thanks to Human Rights - not sharia islam), well knowing how muslim and non-muslim women suffer in muslim sharia countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia without Human Rights. What would she say to a muslim terrorist asking her if she's a muslim? Isn't it about time to stop this bigoted and hypocritical indirect support of islamofascism that this Saudi/OIC initiated "islamophobia" smear camopaign against Human Rights*** is all about?

* Human Rights equality violating sharia islam
** in line with the anti-fascist, anti-racist and anti-sexist U.N.'s 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration.
*** Socialists have an ideological problem with individual Human Rights, and are therefore vulnerable for islamism (see Klevius 1994).

Is UK turning into a militaristic unconstitutional islamofascist rogue state?

Is UK turning into a militaristic unconstitutional islamofascist rogue state?

First UK people voted to join and share borders with EU. Then England voted to leave while Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to stay. And now UK politicians want to leave while keeping the Irish EU border open. UK lacks a modern constitution according to which a constitutional issue has to pass at least two majority votes.

British militarist neo-colonialism and conflict mongering

British militarist neo-colonialism and conflict mongering

UK sells weapons to Saudis - and smears peaceful China who can do better weapons themselves.

UK sells weapons to Saudis - and smears peaceful China who can do better weapons themselves.

Why is Theresa May excused for her secret ties with Saudi islamofascism?!

Why is Theresa May excused for her secret ties with Saudi islamofascism?!

Euronews/BBC kept for long a low profile about Saudi state terror. Why?

Euronews/BBC kept for long a low profile about Saudi state terror. Why?

A "close ally" of the islamofascist Saudi dictator family mixes OIC sharia with Human Rights

A "close ally" of the islamofascist Saudi dictator family mixes OIC sharia with Human Rights

Negative Human Rights for a Positive Human Future

Peter Klevius global morality can only be challenged by violating the most basic of Human Rights.

Everything Peter Klevius writes (or has written) is guided by the anti-sexist. anti-racist, and anti-fascist Universal* Human Rights declaration of 1948. In other words, what is declared immoral and evil is so done as measured against the most basic of Human Rights (the so called "negative" rights - i.e. the rights of the individual not to be unnecessarily targeted with restrictions and impositions). Unlike the 1948 Universal Human Rights (UHR) declaration, islam denies Human Rights equality to women and non-muslims. And violation of such basic Human Rights can't be tolerated just by referring to "freedom of religion".

* This means accepting everyone - without exception due to e.g. sex, religion, lack of religion, "security" etc. - as equal in Human Rights. The individual is protected by negative Human Rights, but of course not against substantiated legal accusations - as long as these are not produced as a means that violates the basic Human Rights (compare "not necessary in a free, democratic country"). The legislator may not produce laws that seek to undermine some individuals rights. This also includes e.g. "freedom of religion", i.e. that this freedom doesn't give the right to unfree others, or cause others to be in an inferior rights position. If by islam you mean something that fully adheres to basic Human Rights equality, then you aren't targeted by Peter Klevius islam criticism. However, if you mean islam accepts violations of the most basic of Human Rights, then you may also call Peter Klevius an "islamophobe" - and he will be proud of it. And when it comes to "security" it can't mean "offending" opponents to basic Human Rights.

This is why any effort to twist or accuse the writings of Peter Klevius as "islamophobia" etc. can only be made from a standpoint against these basic Human Rights. As a consequence, no body of authority can therefore accuse, hinder etc. Peter Klevius without simultaneously revealing its own disrespect for these Human Rights. Conversely, Peter Klevius can not accuse anyone who agrees on these rights - i.e. this leaves e.g. "islamophobia" etc. accusations against Peter Klevius without merit.

Every effort against these basic Human Rights is treason against a country calling itself free and democratic.

Definition of Negative Human Rights - i.e. the very foundation of the freedom part of the anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948.

Most people today are A(mono)theists, i.e. not "believing" in an impossible "one god"*. Such a "collective god" would mean equally many personal "gods" as there are believers/interpretors. "Monotheisms" are for racist/sexist movements - not for individuals. Human Rights are for individuals living among individuals with same rights.

Religion always means a total or partial reduction of some people's (e.g. women''s) Human Rights equality.

Being against A(mono)theism must be categorized as contempt of basic Human Rights equality because "monotheists" have doctrines which can't comply with basic Human Rights equality.
Klevius moral formula is a bedrock you can't beat:

1 There's no absolute and fixed moral in a dynamic society.

2 Therefor we have to repeatedly agree on a minimum moral and equality for all.

3 In doing so we are logically forced to approve of negative Human Rights, i.e. not to impose restrictions other than necessary in a democracy based on as much freedom as possible for all individuals - no matter of sex, race etc. And, for the truly dumb ones, do note that this definition excludes the freedom to restrict freedom.

* Though some people keep calling their own racist/sexist "interpretation" as "god's/allah's will").

Rabbi Sacks: "BBC runs Britain." Klevius: Pro-sharia BBC meddles/trolls worldwide.

Rabbi Sacks: "BBC runs Britain." Klevius: Pro-sharia BBC meddles/trolls worldwide.

UK PM escapes muslim terror induced by her "close ally", the islamofascist Saudi dictator family.


Saudi terror, war crimes, sharia - and "islamophobia" smear campaign against Human Rights.

Rule Britisharia Human Rightsphobia

Racist UK Government and BBC

Racist UK Government and BBC

UK's sharia ties to Saudi islamofascism threaten EU (and UK) security

UK's sharia ties to Saudi islamofascism threaten EU (and UK) security

Warning for BBC's faked "news" and support for Human Rights violating Saudi/OIC islamofascism

Warning for BBC's faked "news" and support for Human Rights violating Saudi/OIC islamofascism

Peter Klevius "islamophobia"/Human Rightsphobia test for you and your politicians

Sharia and weaponry keeps Brexit-UK in EU - with leaking borders and against the will of the people

Sharia and weaponry keeps Brexit-UK in EU - with leaking borders and against the will of the people

While EU closes internal borders it opens external ones.

While EU closes internal borders it opens external ones.

"Brits" who are racist against EU citizens but dare not criticize muslims - here's your passport.

"Brits" who are racist against EU citizens but dare not criticize muslims - here's your passport.

Welcoming UK's main security threat - and committing treason against the will of the people

Welcoming UK's main security threat - and committing treason against the will of the people

BBC (imp)lies that 84% of the world is "monotheist" although most people are A(mono)theists

BBC (imp)lies that 84% of the world is "monotheist" although most people are A(mono)theists

The ultimate treason against people in England, Ireland and Scotland

The ultimate treason against people in England, Ireland and Scotland

True Brits for the islamofascist Saudi dictator family and against Human Rights

Klevius: Face it, Wikipedia, BBC etc. fake media - Finland was first in the world with full suffrag

The network that reignited evil Human Rightsphobic sharia islam via al-Saud

Human Rightsphobe Jacob Rees-Mogg and BBC News crack jokes about Germans lacking humour

UK PM candidate Rees-Mogg: Germans needed Human Rights - we don't. Klevius: I really think you do.

Klevius "islamophobia" CV

Some basic facts to consider about Klevius* (except that he is both "extremely normal" and extremely intelligent - which fact, of course, would not put you off if you're really interested in these questions):

* Mentored by G. H. von Wright, Wittgenstein's successor at Cambridge.

1 Klevius' analysis of consciousness is the only one that fits what we know - after having eliminated our "pride" bias of being humans (which non-human would we impress, anyway?). Its starting point is described and exemplified in a commentary to Jurgen Habermas in Klevius book Demand for Resources (1992:30-33, ISBN 9173288411, based on an article by Klevius from 1981), and is further explained in a commentary to Francis Crick's book The Astonishing Hypothesis under the title The Even More Astonishing Hypothesis (EMAH), which can be found in Stalk's archive and which has been on line since 2003 for anyone to access/assess.

2 Klevius out of island/mainland fluctuating Southeast Asia Denisovans up to big skulled Siberians as the birth of much more intelligent modern humans who then spread all over the world, is the only analysis that fits both genetic reality as well as tool and art sophistication seen in e.g. the Denisova cave (no dude, Blombos etc. don’t come even close).

3 Klevius criticism of Human Rights violating sharia islamofascism (e.g. OIC) which is called "islamophobia" by islamofascists and their supporters who don't care about the most basic of Human Rights (e.g. re. women). Klevius' "islamophobia" has two roots: 1) UN's 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration, which, contrary to any form of muslim sharia, doesn't, for example, allow sex to be an excuse for robbing females of their full Human Rights equality, and 2) the history of the origin of islam ( e.g. Hugh Kennedy, Robert G. Hoyland, K. S. Lal etc.) which reveals a murderous, pillaging, robbing, enslaving and raping racist/sexist supremacist ideology that exactly follows precisely those basic islamic tenets which are now called "unislamic" but still survive today (as sharia approved sex slavery, sharia approved "liberation” jihad, academic jihad etc.) behind the sharia cover which is made even more impenetrable via the spread of islamic finance, mainly steered from the islamofascist Saudi dictator family.


4 Klevius analysis of sex segregation/apartheid (now deceptively called “gender segregation”) and heterosexual attraction - see e.g. Demand for Resources (1981/1992), Daughters of the Social State (1993), Angels of Antichrist (1996), Pathological Symbiosis (2003), or Klevius PhD research on heterosexual attraction/sex segregation and opposition to female footballers (published in book form soon).

Klevius 1979: Human Rights for girls/women rather than religion

Klevius 1979: Human Rights for girls/women rather than religion

Klevius can no longer distinguish between the techniques of BBC and Nazi propaganda - can you!

By squeezing in Atheist ideologies/philosophies as well as polytheisms under the super set BBC calls "religion", and by narrowing 'Atheism' to what it's not (Atheism is what it says on the tin - no god) they produced the extremely faked proposition that 84% of the world's population is "religious". Moreover, BBC also proudly claimed that the 84% figure is rising even more. Well, that's only by relying on those poor women in Pakistan, Bangladesh, English muslim ghettos (where most so called "British" women don't even speak English) etc., who still produce many more children than the average in the world. But Klevius doesn't think this abuse of girls/women is anything to cheer.

Racist Theresa May is robbing EU citizens of their Human Rights

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

This (via Saudi sharia finance) is the main threat to your Human Rights

This (via Saudi sharia finance) is the main threat to your Human Rights

BBC, the world's biggest fake/selective news site - with an evil agenda

BBC, the world's biggest fake/selective news site  - with an evil agenda

BBC's compulsory fee funded propaganda for Saudi sharia islam

Support Klevius' Atheist anti-fascism against islamofascism

This is what BBC's muslim sharia presenter Mishal Husain "forgot" to report. Mishal grew up in the very same theocratic medieval dictatorship which now harbors and rules all muslims world organization OIC and its Human Rights violating sharia. While also spreading islamic hatred over the world through a variety of channels.

Klevius to dumb (or just evil) alt-left "antifa" people who support the worst of Human Rights violating evil:

True anti-fascism in its purest form is laid down in the Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948. Islam (OIC) has in UN decided to abandon the most basic of these rights (the so called negative Human Rights).

Fascism is, according to Google's top hit, "a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation*, and forcible suppression of opposition." 23 Aug 2017

So let's face islam with this definition.

A political philosophy, movement, or regime (islam) that exalts nation (Umma) and often race (muslims) above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government (Koran text/Mohammad's example) headed by a dictatorial leader (the caliph - e.g. the Saudi based OIC's Saudi leader), severe economic and social regimentation* (sharia), and forcible suppression of opposition (apostasy ban against muslims wanting to leave islam, and demonizing defenders of Human Rights by calling them "islamophobes").

And islamofascism gets away with it by calling itself a religion and thereby being protected by those very Human Rights it opposes.

* According to Cambridge dictionary, "extreme organization and control of people".

Saudi muslim war criminal and Human-rightsophobe is loved by BBC

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?

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)

What is "islamophobia"?

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

Monday, April 30, 2018

Brexit voters still don't know what they voted for. However, the UK government is working on it...

Would you buy a house without knowing anything about it?


England (not Scotland and N. Ireland) voted yes for something no one knew what it was because unlike previous votes, the Brexit vote had no underlying pre-agreed documentation. It's like buying a house without a contract.  

No question about it, the Brexit vote was unconstitutional in every aspect of the word.

Creating a hostile and divisive environment by dismissing Human Rights and favoring sharia..




.

Sunday, April 29, 2018

Why is the West backing the Saudi dictator family + associates hegemony against the people in Mideast?

Human Rights are pushed aside for the purpose of fueling the real problem behind the suffering. 

No matter who sits in the White House, and no matter how much the Saudis attack its neighbors and the West - they are always forgiven and supported. So why do you let your politicians, PMs, presidents etc. continue doing it?!





Klevius wrote:

Thursday, June 11, 2015

Klevius definition of islam: The faith refuge for racism and sexism (sharia) that can't pass the Human Rights test


Why do we allow* muslims to support Human Rights violating sharia?! Who else could get away with that without being criticized?!

* Under Human Rights people can anyway make consensual agreements but under sharia that is not an option because sharia is supposed to be "allah's" "will".

If you remove the racist and sexist parts of islam you are left with a castrated and crippled ideology and, Klevius would guess, with few, if any, (sharia) followers. It was precisely these evil parts that fueled the origin of islam and now keep Saudi and IS islamofascism ticking.

Islam is a Jewish religion that is 100% penis steered, i.e. muslim men are considered superior to women and therefore muslimhood is defined by the muslim father.


BBC's "expert" Emma Sky today proposes civil war in Iraq.


According to Emma Sky, Iraq could have developed much better and avoided the Islamic State, had it not been for Obama's 2010 withdrawal of the successful miltary surge Georg W Bush activated in 2007. Emma Sky says she doesn't think the Sunni/Shia divide was important because "there were anyway already 30% intermarriages between Sunni and Shia muslims in Iraq".

Klevius: Apparently Emma Sky doesn't know the most basic fact of islam, i.e. that it's the most elaborate ideology of racism and sexism. There could never exist "intermarriages" in islam simply because it's always the male muslim who decides, both personally and ideologically, whether the family is Sunni or Shia.



Other countries where Saudi Arabia has caused enormous blood bath and suffering

Iraq


Islam 99% (Shia 70%-75%, Sunni 22%-27%), Christianity 0.8%, Mandaeism and other less than 1%.

While there has been voluntary relocation of many Christian families to northern Iraq, recent reporting indicates that the overall Christian population may have dropped by as much as 50 percent since the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime in 2003, with many fleeing to Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon (2010 estimate). The percentage of Christians has fallen from 6% in 1991 or 1.5 million to about one third of this, due to massive exodus - two-thirds of Assyrian Christians have fled to other countries in the Middle East, Europe, United States and Canada.

Yemen


Religion in Yemen consists primarily of two principal Islamic religious groups: 53% of the Muslim population is Sunni and over 45% is Shia, according to the UNHCR. Other put the numbers of Shias at 30%.



Bahrain

It is estimated that 60-70% of the Bahrainis follow Shia school, with the remaining third following Sunni Islam. The Al Khalifa ruling family and its supporting tribes are Sunni and are assisted by Saudi military in suppressing the Shia majority.



Saudi Arabia itself suppresses Shia muslims and non-muslims without anyone seeming to react.


An estimated 16 million natives of Saudi Arabia are Shia muslims. The Saud dictator family demand (but not necessarily for themselves) strict Sunni islamic Wahhabism which states that muslims should return to the interpretation of islam found in the Koran and the Sunnah. They also believe that muslims who seek intercession from holy men—such as the Imams Shia revere—are not true muslims. While attempts to force conversion of Shia have been infrequent, Shia have alleged severe discrimination in Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia is also the home for all muslims' world organization OIC which is led by Iyad Madani, an islamofascist belonging to the Saud dictator family.

Calling oneself a true muslim 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.

Wednesday, April 11, 2018

The Saudi dictator family is extremely likely responsible for the chemical attacks in Syria - yet their war criminal Hitler "prince" is welcomed and supported. How come?



Theresa May said she wouldn't hesitate to nuke innocent children and women - so why would she hesitate to prolong the suffering in Syria by extending the Saudi initiated war that was just about to end. And she loves Human Rights violating sharia and her "important ally" the islamofascist Saudi dictator.

Klevius: "Reform jihad" means terrorist attacks with a laughter and some "reform" plaster - such as letting some women the right to drive, and letting some people to visit "sharia free" zones.

And the world's worst fake news propaganda media BBC has been completely silent about the Alawites (Shia muslims) murdered, tortured, raped and kept in cages as protection for the Saudi supported Salafist Sunni muslim terrorists' mortar etc. basis. But BBC has a lot of air time used against Facebook - their main competitor they want to kill as they have already killed so many others who they feel threatens BBC's world media monopoly.

Jaysh al-Islam is a coalition of Islamist rebel units involved in the Syrian Civil War. Its primary base of operations has been the Damascus area, particularly the city of Douma and region of Eastern Ghouta. Jaysh al-Islam is the largest rebel faction in the area, as was Liwa al-Islam. The group was a part of the Islamic Front. The organization has rejected membership of the Free Syrian Army. The group along with Ahrar ash-Sham are among the main rebel groups supported by Saudi Arabia. It promotes an Islamic state under Sharia law.


Alleged use of chemical weapons by Saudi supported terrorists


On 7 April 2016, the Sheikh Maqsood neighborhood in Aleppo was shelled with mortars that may have contained chemical agents.[84] On 8 April, a spokesman for the rebel group said that “weapons not authorized for use in these types of confrontations” had been used against Kurdish militia and civilians in Aleppo. He stated that “One of our commanders has unlawfully used a type of weapon that is not included in our list”. He did not specify what substances were used but, according to Kurdish Red Crescent, the symptoms were consistent with the use of chlorine gas or other agents. Welat Memo, a physician with the Kurdish Red Crescent, said that the people affected are "vomiting and having difficulty in breathing."


Klevius wrote:

Monday, March 26, 2018

Who benefits most from recent attacks against Russia (and Corbyn's anti-semitism)? The islamofascist Saudi dictator family and its new Hitler.


Klevius analysis: Russia is the main obstacle for the islamofascist Saudi dictator family's take over of the whole of Mideast. And the war drums are on for the Saudi Hitler. 


How did UN and the West end up in the darkest of caves against those very Human Rights UN and the West had agreed on after the last Hitler?



Dear non-politician readers, how many of you think it's ok to go in bed with our main enemy? An enemy that has countless of times attacked us. An enemy that criminalizes the values we hold as our dearest. An enemy that ticks every box on evilness.


Klevius is utterly ashamed of being a "Westerner" today...








Monday, April 09, 2018

Theresa May and her right wing extremists want to help the Saudi Hitler dictator and his terrorists by prolonging Syrian suffering.


Klevius would never have believed what he sees now, i.e. the total collapse of Western decency.

How many more people will you have killed and suffering for the purpose of aiding the world's most dangerous islamofascist? Shame on you! Aiding the Saudi steered terrorists is a criminal offense against the Syrian people.



As an individual in the tradition of "critical Europeans" Klevius now finds himself among complete foreigners, such as e.g. Corbyn, Putin, Assad etc. 

And it all comes down to the West's extremely stupid decision to support the most evil of ideologies.

Does any sane person believe in this propaganda?

On the verge of Putin's re-election Russia was accused of using a nerve agent in England.

On the verge of Syria's liberation from Saudi led terrorist attacks and end of "civil war" (initiated by Saudi Arabia) Russia is accused of supporting the use of a nerve agent.

We don't know who did the former, but a good guess is that it could be connected to Saudi interests in Mideast.

However, the latter can't be anything else than performed by Saudi sponsored terrorists - using the old tactics of shooting chemical RPG's into the area bombed by Syrian military, or simply throwing gas containers into shelters/hospitals etc. which they first use as launching places for to attract Syrian air raids.

Klevius guess is that the victims were Alawites or others hated by the Saudi sponsored Wahhabi/Salafi terrorists.

It was earlier reported that the victims were found in a bomb shelter. And dead people don't witness - so we're left with the notorious White Helmet's "explanation".

Islam ultimately behind these chemical attacks. And BBC behind the most elaborated propaganda fake news.


BBC's criminal war mongering and fake news propaganda has gone through the roof - while it tries to shoot down its main rival Facebook for the purpose of reaching fake news world hegemony.

BBC desperately pushes for attacks against Syria while favoring the Saudi Hitler, Mohammad Salman and his war crimes. Saudi Arabia which in the first place instigated and supported the muslim extremist terrorists to attack Syria for the purpose of changing the regime to a Saudi steered puppet one.

Attacks coordinated with mortars and rockets, some filled with chemicals and used against civilians (who were the victims?).

Criticism of the notorious “civil defense” group, the White Helmets, which is part of the extremist muslim terrorist organization supported by the islamofascist Saudi Hitler war criminal "prince" Mohammad Salman

, as well as other groups based in the US and UK.

Russia has warned about a false-flag chemical attack being prepared in the recent months, the ministry said. Those who are not interested in a genuine political settlement of the Syrian crisis are seeking to complicate the situation on the ground, it added.

“The goal of this… baseless speculation is to shield the terrorists and… the radical opposition that refuse to engage in a political settlement [process], as well as to justify potential military strikes from the outside,”

unconfirmed reports of atrocities and false-flag chemical incidents were likely to appear at a time when militant factions are losing ground in Syria. The latest report came as the Syrian Army pushed to liberate the remaining militant-occupied settlements in the Damascus suburb of Eastern Ghouta, with the city of Douma being the last such city in the area.

It comes as Jaysh al-Islam militants holding the city of Douma reportedly held talks with government forces and agreed to leave the enclave. Damascus said on March 31 that nearly all militant-held settlements in Ghouta were liberated, and a major Syrian highway had been cleared after a seven-year militant blockade.

In February 2018, Syrian troops began the operation to retake the area that has been under militant control since 2012, and Russia brokered the creation of humanitarian corridors to allow locals to escape the siege. A total of 153,240 people have left the area through humanitarian corridors since the start of the operation, according to the Russian Defense Ministry’s Center for Syrian Reconciliation.

Reports of an alleged gas attack in the Syrian town of Douma are ‘fake news’ aimed at justifying potential strikes against Syria, Moscow said. It warned of “dire consequences” in the event of any military interference.

The Russian Foreign Ministry denounced the latest reports about a chemical attack that allegedly affected dozens of civilians in the militant-controlled town of Douma. It said the reports were another example of a “continuous series of fake news about the use of chlorine and other chemical agents by the government forces.”

Klevius comment: Unlike Corbyn, Klevius has no ties to Russia whatsoever, and he has always condemned Russia's use of jihadis, e.g. in Chechnya.

However, for Klevius truth (i.e. the most "likely") ought to be based on reality rather than emotions, power hunger, greed, political success etc.

Saturday, April 07, 2018

Klevius warns for a muslim robot*!


* Klevius' brief tech tutorial: AI deep learning towards technological "singularity" means an all time ongoing adaptation of the interface with our machines, now reaching a new point on the abacus-calculator-computer evolution, wherethe only thing we need to guard is the(negative) Human Rights in the 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration, which is attacked by Saudi based and steered islamofascist OIC's sharia declaration..

A(mono)theism) and the most basic Human Rights are criminalized in Saudi Arabia - so why do you accept your politicians dealing with this islamofascist Saudi muslim "prince"?!

Saudi Hitler and war criminal Mohammad Salman in Hollywood!? Shame on you people!

A Human Rights violating sharia algorithmis the main threat in AI - not AI per se.

Also listen to late David Littman who exposed islamic Human Rights violations in UNHRC:


Asimov's robot laws applied to a muslim robot:


A muslim robot may not harm a muslim, or, through inaction, allow a muslim to come to harm. A robot must obey the orders given to it by muslims, except where such orders would conflict with the first law.


Peter Klevius objects to this and instead proposes the original robot laws based on the original Human Rights:

A robot may not harm a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the first law.

and adds a fourth law, under which a robot must be able to identify itself to the public ("symmetrical identification")
and a fifth law, dictating that a robot must be able to explain to the public its decision making process ("algorithmic transparency").

The crucial point is who is considered a full human. The 1948 Human Rights declaration counts everyone as a Human - without any exception to sex, belief, disbelief etc. Saudi based and steered OIC's sharia falls short of this.

Where does a muslim robot stand on the scale moderate/sharia-extremist? With today's weird blindfolding approach of lumping all muslims together under islam, there's no way to tell. Yet the crucial dividing line is extremely visible and offered to us via the islamofascist Saudi dictator family controlled Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and its Human Rights violating sharia which represents all the world's muslims and which states that muslim sharia always trumps Human Rights.

Do understand that islam's Human Rights violating sharia (OIC) is tightly connected to sharia finance (aka isllamic banking etc.). In other words, sharia Human Rights violations go hand in hand with sharia finance. This is why PM May is for sharia and against Human Rights. And this is why critics are called "islamophobes".

OIC created the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. While proponents claim it is not an alternative to the UDHR, but rather complementary to it, Article 24 states that "all the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah" and Article 25 follows with "the Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration." Attempts to have it adopted by the United Nations Human Rights Council have met increasing criticism, because of its contradiction of the UDHR, including from liberal Muslim groups. Critics of the CDHR state that it is "manipulation and hypocrisy," "designed to dilute, if not altogether eliminate, civil and political rights protected by international law" and attempts to "circumvent these principles [of freedom and equality]."

Human Rights Watch says that OIC has "fought doggedly" and successfully within the United Nations Human Rights Council to shield states from criticism, except when it comes to criticism of Israel.

The OIC has been criticised for failing to discuss the treatment of ethnic minorities within member countries, such as the oppression of the Kurds in Syria and Turkey, the Ahwaz in Iran, the Hazaras in Afghanistan, the 'Al-Akhdam' in Yemen, or the Berbers in Algeria. However, OIC eagerly supported the Saudi led Rohingya jihad attacks in Myanmar while equally eagerly blaming the consequences on Buddhists - as did BBC who has kept almost completely silent about OIC's violations of Human Rights.

To determine possible safety issues with a muslim robot one may use the fifth Law, dictating that a muslim robot must be able to explain to the public its decision making process in accordance with the most basic of Human Rights in the 1948 anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration (so called "algorithmic transparency"), or whether it follows the Saudi based and steered OIC's (the muslim world sharia Umma) sharia against the most basic of Human Rights.



Tech ignorance -




Michael Kofman CNA: The Su-57 is not meant to be a direct competitor to the F-22 or F-35.

Brown: That's how Russia seems to be marketing it.

Michael Kofman CNA: Yeah, I'm sure someone thinks their Honda Civic is better than a BMW.

Peter Klevius: !!! I do. And this moron is supposed to be a technological "expert"? Where Honda Civic is top quality high tech, BMW Mini is a low quality disaster. Moreover, Honda plays in a division far over BMW. BMW couldn't spell to hybrid passenger cars in the 1990s when Honda started serial production. Klevius advices Kofman to learn from the guys on the street who by used cars - or to check the overwhelming cumulative car quality statistics over the decades. BMW wasn't capable of producing a reliable front wheel driven car - so they stuck with their 100 year old formula: 6-in line and RWD, i.e. the easiest way of building a car. And they failed anyway, even there.

Fact is, BMW has always been behind Honda and other main Japanese manufacturers when it comes to edge in technology and quality - not to mention environment.

This single stupid statement by Michael Kofman reveals the tip of an iceberg about his bias and reliability problem.




Honda has throughout its history been far ahead of BMW. As has Mazda, Toyota/Lexus etc.


Klevius wrote in December 2005:

Honda's Asimo robot running etc.



How come that Honda is so much superior compared to BMW?

Klevius comment: Look at those pathetic males (pathetic if they are racist/sexist pan-Arabic Islamist mosque-building oil-billionaires who trade in Islamic darkness in mosques, schools, universities, youth organizations etc?)! Too busy spending oil-money on technical wonders their own slave & oil-fuelled pan-Arabic/Islamic culture is uncapable of producing? Whereas Shinto (the world's oldest* religion) created the world's best high tech, Islam (the world's youngest "religion") created terror and Koran-brainwashed suicide-killers in the service of fascist and sexist pan-Arabism (i.e. true Islam)! For a better world in Darfur and elsewhere - bury Islam! Islam has caused more suffering than any other ideology (incl. Hitler's & Stalin's socialism/communism), yet it has always been excused (and surprisingly often by its own victims, i.e. the opposite compared to the "black"/"white" situation)!


Klevius wrote: 

Wednesday, November 04, 2015


Honda immediately got quality issues when it stupidly tried notorious German ZF transmissions in some models. Why? Because German "quality" sucks* in comparison!


* EU rules makes it easier for Japanese car makers if they ise EU parts. However, there's a reason why the Japanese do better quality than the West: Same reason as why the Japanese  were 10 years ahead with hybrids in passenger cars (you need good tech to economically squeeze in hybrid transmissions in small cars); why the Japanese were 10 years ahead to land (and even bring back samples to Earth) on an asteroid/comet; why the Japanese etc. etc. etc.

This Japanese digital/analogue camcorder from 1997 with both digital and analogue in and out capability (incl. transformation from analogue to digital and vice versa) was the first of its kind to be exported to Europe. However, due to the Europeans not being able to compete with Japanese technology they put EU restrictions on Japanese products (EU was initially made to constitute a bulwark against Japanese high tech products) - in this case so that Sony had to shut the ports on the cam corder for its European consumers. And that's why Klevius connected the small gadget on top of the camera above to its LAN port hence overriding these stupid EU restrictions imposed by Philips etc. Btw, this camcorder has also really powerful night shot settings, incl. in total darkness.

The VW/Audi quality myth vs the (racist?) covered up truth about Japanese quality

How come that people are so stupid? Sharia islam is a horrifying ideology with an unbeaten record of causing human suffering, genocides, enslavement,  rapetivism etc. and still openly (Saudi based and steered OIC) violating Human Rights. Yet people believe it's a "peaceful religion". Similarly, all the evidence are there that the Japanese have produced the best technology and quality and that VW has been average or below average most of the time. Yet people still believe that VW has quality. Why?!

It's not only about dirty play behind Audi/VW doors - it's about a real quality difference between German and Japanese technology. A difference that anyone can see by comparing all the quality reports since they started many decades ago. And even though the Japanese sometimes may drop for reasons outside Japan, the overall picture is so strong that no one in their full mind can deny it (see e.g. the revealing car fire stats from the Swedish insurance company Folksam further down. Scary! Or collect all J D Power reports and start counting. Or Which Car, etc. etc.




Honda (incl. Acura) and Toyota (incl. Lexus) have ruled the car quality race in the world since some time after WW2. And in the 1960s only Mazda (Toyo Kogyo) managed to achieve a similar quality level. However, when Mazda got a 25% Ford contamination some models on some markets got inferior Ford parts. Nissan was even more contaminated by Renault which resulted in many non-Japan made Nissans fell far behind truly Japan made Nissans (e.g. Nissan GTR is fully Japan/NISMO made).

The open secret with Honda and Toyota quality is that they haven't generally been contaminated by non-Japanese. And yes, it was a mistake to let Mexicans produce safety gadgets under a Japanese name. Just like with many US made parts that have contaminated Toyota in the past.


However, the mythbusters are still working hard:







Then this moron suggests you to buy an other VW/Audi!



 Klevius wrote:

Saturday, May 16, 2015


VW/Audi, part of Hitler's revenge on the after-world

The German protestant myth and the Japanese Shinto secret

Audi has constantly managed to score below average quality. Japanese have constantly managed to score above average. Why?

Has Hitler's cars victimized more people than his army?


            German car maker Audi used Nazi slave labor during World War II

It all started with the stupid idea of a cheap car for the masses with the driving unit over the driving wheels in the rear, the battery in the middle, and the fuel tank in the front as the main impact zone. As a consequence the engine was made air cooled with a huge noisy fan. Luckily we don't see these kinds of dangerous cars anymore - except for Porsche of course. Ever tried to drive a classic Porsche on a road littered with grovel, old leaves etc., or just wet?! The Beetle was definitely safer because of its lower power output and smother on the road. However, the noise is almost the same.

The need for a cheap, simple car to be mass-produced for Hitler's new Autobahn network of Germany, was formulated by Hitler himself, the leader of the National-socialist Germany. In June 1934 Ferdinand Porsche received a contract from Hitler to design a "people's car" (or Volkswagen). The production of this death trap went on from 1938 until 2003. In other words, VW continued to spit out this dangerous car in less developed countries for profit for 40 years after its much safer front engine and front wheel driven successor Golf had been introduced.

In 1937, Porsche joined the National Socialist German Workers' Party (becoming member no. 5,643,287) as well as Schutzstaffel (SS). By 1938, Porsche was using the SS as security members and drivers at his factory, and later set up a special unit called SS Sturmwerk Volkswagen. In 1942, Porsche reached the rank of SS-Oberführer. During the war, Porsche was further decorated with the SS-Ehrenring and awarded the War Merit Cross.

A new city, "Stadt des KdF-Wagens" was founded near Fallersleben for the Volkswagen factory, but wartime production concentrated almost exclusively on the military Kübelwagen and Schwimmwagen variants. Mass production of the car, which later became known as the Beetle, began after the end of the war. The city is named Wolfsburg today and is still the headquarters of the Volkswagen Group.

Hitler contracted Porsche in 1934 to design and build it to his exacting standards. Ferdinand Porsche and his team took until 1938 to finalise the design. This is one of the first rear-engined cars. With over 21 million manufactured (21,529,464) in an air-cooled, rear-engined, rear-wheel drive configuration, the Beetle is the longest-running and most-manufactured and most dangerous car of a single design platform, worldwide.

 This car was made in the 1960s at the same time as this Japanese Mazda Luce (below) which in every aspect was its direct opposite - except for the price tag. Yet, people continued buying the catastrophic Beetle! Why? Because it was German and you couldn't trust the Japanese, could you.

VW Beetle 1966: Air cooled engine based on WW2 technology. Maximum Output:  50hp, Top speed: 123 km/h.
0-60mph  23.0 (declared by factory but usually slower - the lousy engine rarely worked as it was planned to).






A more expensive but poor quality Audi from the same time

Audi 1700, 1966, 71 hp / 72 PS, top speed: 148 km/h (declared by factory - not in real life); accelerations: 0- 60 mph 14.8 s (declared by factory - not in real life). The engine was extremely old fashioned compared to Mazda Luce's engine. Moreover, it was nowhere near the quality and reliability of the Japanese. The car was in every other aspect also inferior. Where the Audi had mechanical fuel pump, poor electric generator, poor brakes etc. Mazda was just the opposite.


Already in the late 1950s the Japanese technological and quality superiority was obvious. Just compare the bikes above from BMW and Honda.

Mazda 1500 Luce 1966: 84 hp/86 PS, top speed: 160 km/h; accelerations: 0- 60 mph 14.3 s (declared by a cautious factory but usually faster). OHC, Alu top, 50/50% weight distrib. Kad all the latest safety devices etc that VW lacked. The most beautiful (did BMW copy it?) and reliable (compared to its time) sedan ever made? Remember that Mazda was the only one who managed to develope a functioning rotary engine! After the 1992 le Mans win Mazda's rotary engine was, of course, excluded from racing again!

Sweden's biggest motoring organization warns: This is why Audi/VW engines fail



Is Audi the world's worst "luxury" car?



 compared to the best



Some voices from VW/Audi victims further down on the posting



Klevius wrote:

Wednesday, November 12, 2014


Japan makes the world's top technology - yet Europe gets the press! Why?


Why is the media shouting FIRST EVER when a bunch of European countries try to copy what Japan did a decade ago?!


Nissan rocket no. 1 with the Hayabusa robot first ever in the world to land and bring back stuff from a body (Itokawa asteroid) outside Earth/Moon




Nissan rocket no. 2  Nissan GT-R Nismo the world's fastest non-electric super car




With a lap time of 7 min 8 sec Nissan GTR is the fastest, (non-hybrid*) globally-homologated road car around the world's most famous race track Nurburgring in Germany.

The old GTR was the first car to go under 8 minutes at Nurburgring.

* i.e. using a battery and Japanese hybrid technology to get extra power for the short time the ride lasts.


A Nissan Skyline* GTR ATESSA 4WD (2700 cc 6 cyl 280-1600 hp) from the 1990s  - the Japanese legend that Lambourghini Gallardo (5000 cc) was aimed to beat - more than a decade later! But consider huge difference in quality! The old Skyline GTR has the world record for legal cars abt 350 km/h on a German (!) autobahn (unofficial >380 km/h)!

What all GTRs have in common compared to non-Japanese super cars is superior quality. Already in the 1990s a Porsche CEO admitted that they can never achieve the same quality level as the Japanese.

* The new GTR has dropped the Skyline name. However, the basics are the same: 4WD and a small but powerful 6 cylinder engine.

Sunday, April 01, 2018

PM May: UK "will be different" after Brexit. Saudi war criminal "prince" Salman: "Our relationship with Britain today is super." Klevius: Human Rights will be miserable - as in Saudi Arabia where they are criminalized.


Britisharia extremists lead UK into a medieval disaster* of religious Atheismphobia.

* Saudi based and steered OIC (all muslims sharia Umma nation) has rejected the most basic of Human Rights because these rights give freedoms that are not allowed for women in islam.


It's all about protecting the Atheismphobic* islamofascist Saudi dictator family

* Have you noticed how Corbyn, when accused of anti-semitism, always points out that he is "against all kinds of racism and islamophobia".

Klevius has for years pointed out that Corbyn associates with racist muslims. No one listened - until now when the Saudi "prince" wants support for his war crimes in Syria* and Yemen in exchange for weaponry deals. This is the reason why the hunt is now on to silence Corbyn's usual Saudi criticism.

* Meddling/intervening in a country by  supporting evil muslim terrorists for the purpose of installing a regime steered by the Saudis.

The "moderate" Saudi hoax


Only a complete idiot would think Saudi Arabia could be "moderate", i.e. following the most basic of Human Rights in sharp contradiction to any form of sharia? And no one's complete anyway, right.

A non-sharia Saudi Arabia would seas to exist in no time. That's why the islamofascist Saudi dictator family has started building "sharia free zones".

Brexit from Human Rights for the purpose of appeasing islamofascists


Brexit would disadvantage women as we depend on EU Equality directives for the promotion, protection and fulfilment of equality and non-discrimination

From disability and family rights to data protection and employment rights and the right to a fair trial.



Roger Casale, CEO and founder of New Europeans, said he wanted to highlight the “importance of reframing Brexit as a human rights issue.”

He said, “The referendum has stripped rights from everyone - UK and EU citizens alike. New Europeans have been clear from the start that we should not be negotiating EU citizens’ rights and the need for immediate comprehensive unilateral guarantees of EU citizens’ rights.

“As such, we have been campaigning for a ‘Green Card for Europe’ to protect these fundamental rights.”

He said, “the prolonged anxiety felt by hundreds of thousands of families whose lives are in limbo” may lead to Article 8 claims against the UK at the European Court of Human Rights.

The European Court of Justice may be asked to decide whether British citizens in the EU “can be stripped of any of their EU citizenship rights at all.”

Geoffrey Nice, from Britain in Europe, said, “It is imperative that we take a stand and ensure that fundamental human rights are not just on paper but implemented and protected.”

Meanwhile, Jonathan Portes, of King’s College London and a senior fellow of the UK in a Changing Europe programme, says that free movement “has been good for the UK - and when it ends, there will be consequences.”

Commenting on the interim report by the UK’s migration advisory committee, he said, “Employers are very worried about the potential impact of ending free movement. This perhaps is no surprise.

“But it’s worth noting that this extends across a wide range of sectors and ranges far beyond the stereotype of EU migrants filling low-skilled, low-paid jobs.

“Migration from Europe fell sharply after the Brexit vote - even though nothing has changed yet. As the consequences for employers and public services become increasingly apparent, politicians should remember that immigration may be just as big a problem when it is falling as when it is rising.”
About the author


Klevius comment: However, Thersa May says Human Rights violating "sharia is good for the Brits" - and Human Rights should be avoided. She proposed to “tear up” Human Rights law.


David Allen Green: But it is a statement worth considering, as it indicates something unfortunate about the approach to law and human rights of not only of the prime minister but also those in the political and media worlds that will nod along with this, and also about the voters who are the intended audience.

Nothing, of course, in the Human Rights Act 1998 or in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), to which the Act gives effect in the UK, hinders the government in dealing with terrorism. Any journalist who asked Mrs May how human rights law causes a problem would not get any answer, beyond the robotics of her saying the position is “very clear”.

The Act is not an obstruction to any UK state activity in the public interest. Almost every ECHR right is “qualified” in that the state can interfere with the right when it is in the public interest to do so. The only exceptions are the rights to life and against torture: two absolutes that are (or should be) fundamental to any liberal society.

In fact, the Act is not a powerful legal instrument. No primary legislation can be struck down because of it. Parliament can legislate in contravention of the Act. The qualified nature of most of the rights means that it takes nothing more than a sensible approach and boilerplate language about something being “necessary and proportionate” for the UK state to comply with the Act and still get its way.

Therefore, the Act does not do a lot — but it does enough. It provides a long-stop and a safeguard. That is why the Good Friday Agreement, which is the basis of the current peace in Northern Ireland, has as a basic requirement that the ECHR is enforceable in local courts. It also provides a useful means by which obvious problems can be addressed. For example, the important second inquest was possible in respect of the Hillsborough tragedy because the Act meant a coroner could now look more widely at relevant facts when there were such fatalities.

One irony of the “debate” about human rights law in the UK is that many who defend the Act will, like me, admit that it has little day-to-day impact. But the difference it does make is important, and it should not be discarded lightly. The Act is (and was intended to be) a deft and modest compromise between giving UK courts direct access to ECHR law in exceptional cases and the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. It is a very “British” piece of legislation: a practical and moderate balancing Act. Via media.

You would not know this from the rhetoric and front pages of those who dislike the legislation, the ECHR, and human rights lawyers. For some, anything and anyone to do with human rights are horrible turnip ghosts that seem to genuinely scare many on the political right.

Nothing is so awful for such opponents that adding the phrase “human rights” would not make it more dreadful. For such people, those two words are toxic. One is reminded of William Hazlitt saying that there once “were a hundred thousand stout country-fellows…ready to fight to the death against popery, without knowing whether popery was a man or a horse”.

So there is a mismatch. The dull actuality of human rights law in the UK does not correspond to the giddy political denouncements. As a greater Tory politician, Benjamin Disraeli, would have said: there are two nations in the exchanges about human rights, neither side comprehending the other. So much do the two sides miss the point of the other, there is nothing that can plausibly be called a debate.

I think there are two reasons for this mismatch.

    The first is that the Act and ECHR rights have not (yet) gained traction in domestic politics. Few in the UK regard them in the same way that, say, a typical American will point to the Bill of Rights. They have not been well explained so they have not been well understood. And this is why those who caricature human rights law can routinely get away with it.

    The second reason is that attacking human rights is politically convenient for many of those who do so. Blaming human rights always gets the easy nods and claps. Some outside the UK may find it odd that politicians can get approval by proposing to remove the rights of voters. Indeed, it is very strange if you think about it for less than a second. But in the UK it seems one sure way of getting (or retaining) political support. If human rights didn’t exist as a scapegoat then … well, you know the rest.

Few politicians have got into the habit of blaming human rights more than Mrs May. A former home secretary (2010 to 2016), she must have become used to the law of human rights stopping her from doing as she wants, unless it can be justified as in the public interest. If something goes wrong, she will insist that pesky human rights are the reason. Pressing her and her supporters for detail is pointless: the only time she ever gave a detail, she incorrectly said a case was determined because of a cat.

At the end of what has been a depressing and, for the prime minister, unimpressive election campaign, Mrs May resorts to attacking the law of human rights, without (of course) any details or reasons. She seems not to care (or even know) about how such law made the second Hillsborough inquest possible or that it is the basis of the Good Friday Agreement. If elected, she is not even likely to act on her promise to tear it up: it would be time-consuming and complicated, on top of Brexit. It is enough, for her cynical purpose, that she invokes the human rights bogeyman.

That is no surprise: one would not expect anything different from her. But the significance is not in that she did this but that she is able to do so. Nearly 20 years after the Human Rights Act was passed, the law of human rights has still not caught on in the UK.


Klevius wrote: 


Saturday, September 25, 2010

Time to burn OIC's Human Rights violation and to indict the Saudi hate criminals and their supporters

Islam (the opposite to Negative Human Rights) is based on infidel racism and sexist rapetivism. It's islam's true origin, and the only tenet that cannot be reformed without erasing islam itself. However, instead of dealing with this most important issue, now criticism of this disgusting islamic supremacism is called islamophobia and suggested (by the most racist and evil organization out there) to be called "racism"!

Btw, did England incite hatred against the German Nationalsocialists thus causing unrest and chaos? And was Germany's attack reasonable because of an unfair Versaille treaty? Patrick Buchanan makes the case that, if not for the blunders of British statesmen the horrors of two world wars and the Holocaust might have been avoided? To this one may add that whereas Nationalsocialism was national and hence not totalitarian in a universal sense, islam is truly totalitarian, on a micro level as well as on a macro level.

57 islamic nations (OIC) have here agreed to adopt Sharia!

This man, Saudi "king" Abdullah (aka Mr X "president's" first call) is an oil parasite whose main task in life has been the spreading of evil islamism!


OIC, a Saudi initiated and supporting organization consisting of 56+1 islamist nations who have:

1 decided to violate Human Rights by replacing them with islamist Sharia which denies girls and women their rights given in the 1948 Human Rights Declaration
2 hijacked UN by constituting its biggest voting bloc
3 criminalized criticism against islam by calling it "islamophobia"


The mosque mouse, silenced by islam



Sept 28-30, 2010, the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), is sponsoring Sharia propaganda at the AIC’s Chicago campus.

Founded in 1969 OIC is now a 56 (+ Palestine) state collective which includes every lslamic nation on Earth. Currently headed by Turkey’s Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, OIC thus represents the entire muslim Umma and is the largest single voting bloc in the UN.

John Laffin warned in 1988 that the Jedda-based OIC, initiated and patronized by Saudi Arabia, is persuading Muslim nations to jettison even their inchoate adoption of “Western models and codes,” and to revert to the pre-Western retrograde systems of Sharia.
According to Laffin, the Saudis offered sizable loans and grants in return for a more extensive application of Sharia.

Saudi Arabia also distributed an abundance of media and print materials which extended to non-muslim countries, including tens of millions of Korans, translated into many languages for the hundreds of millions of muslims (and non-muslims) who did not read Arabic.

And now two special US envoys to the OIC later (both the former, Sada Cumber, and current envoy, Rashad Hussain) will attend the Chicago OIC propaganda for the purpose of islamization.

Andrew Bostom : Elizabeth Kendal, in a recent commentary [4] about the plight of brutalized Egytpian Muslim “apostates” Maher el-Gowhary and Nagla Al-Imam, made a series of apt observations which illustrate the most salient aspect of Islam’s persistent religious totalitarianism: the absence of freedom of conscience in Islamic societies. Egypt, Kendal notes, amended its secular-leaning constitution in 1980, reverting to its pre-colonial past and designating Sharia (Islamic law) as “the principal source of legislation” — an omnipresent feature of contemporary Muslim constitutions, including the new constitutions of Afghanistan and Iraq — rendering “constitutional guarantees of religious liberty and equality before the law illusory.” This is the inevitable outcome of a Sharia-based legal system, because:

Sharia’s principal aim concerning religious liberty, is to eradicate apostasy (rejection of Islam) through the elimination of fitna (anything that could tempt a Muslim to reject Islam) and the establishment of dhimmitude — the humiliation and subjugation of Jews and Christians as second class citizens [or non-citizen pariahs]; crippling systematic discrimination; violent religious apartheid …

In Egypt, as in virtually all Muslim states, a person’s official religion is displayed on their identity card. According to Sharia, every child born to a Muslim father is deemed Muslim from birth. According to Sharia, a Muslim woman is only permitted to marry a Muslim man. (This is the main reason why Christian men convert to Islam, and why female converts to Christianity will risk life and liberty to secure a falsified/illegal ID, for without a Christian ID they cannot marry a Christian.)

There is no religious liberty in Islam, for Islam survives as religious totalitarianism that refuses rejection.

Islam’s refusal to abide rejection by its votaries — the global Muslim umma’s strident rejection of freedom of conscience — is now openly codified, and has been for two decades. The 1990 Cairo Declaration, or so-called “Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam”, was drafted and subsequently ratified by all the Muslim member nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

Both the preamble and concluding articles (24 and 25) make plain that the OIC’s Cairo Declaration is designed to supersede Western conceptions of human rights as enunciated, for example, in the U.S. Bill of Rights and the UN’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The opening of the preamble to the Cairo Declaration [5] repeats a Koranic injunction affirming Islamic supremacism (Koran 3:110; “You are the best nation ever brought forth to men … you believe in Allah”), and states:

Reaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which Allah made the best nation …

The preamble continues:

Believing that fundamental rights and universal freedoms in Islam are an integral part of the Islamic religion and that no one as a matter of principle has the right to suspend them in whole or in part or violate or ignore them in as much as they are binding divine commandments, which are contained in the Revealed Books of God and were sent through the last of His Prophets to complete the preceding divine messages thereby making their observance an act of worship and their neglect or violation an abominable sin, and accordingly every person is individually responsible — and the Ummah collectively responsible — for their safeguard.

In its last articles 24 and 25, the Cairo Declaration maintains

[Article 24] All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia. … [Article 25] The Islamic Sharia is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration.


Michael Hamilton: As noted in Shariah: The Threat to America, Ihsanoglu used the occasion of an earlier speech to an OIC Council of Foreign Ministers’ conclave to declare war on freedom of speech:

In [the OIC’s] confronting the Danish cartoons and the Dutch film “Fitna,” we sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed. As we speak, the official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked.

Of late, the Organization of the Islamic Conference has taken to the United Nations its war against expression that gives offense to Islam. Last September, the Obama administration actually co-sponsored a resolution with Egypt (representing the OIC) in the UN Human Rights Council, calling on the United Nation’s member states to limit such expression, as part of the OIC’s ongoing campaign to have the UN recognize Islamophobia as a form of racism subject to prosecution under international law.

This effort to establish what it calls “deterrent punishments” for shariah slander is only one example of OIC activity at odds with American interests and the U.S. Constitution. Other examples include:

• Disrupting U.S. Efforts in Afghanistan: In the July 2010 edition of the OIC’s “Islamophobia Observatory” Bulletin, the OIC sharply criticized Gen. Petraeus’ counter-insurgency manual as “a manifestation of Islamophobia”;
• Damaging Middle East Peace Negotiations: Since its founding, the OIC has pursued an aggressive anti-Israel campaign, including creating a fund for the intifada in 2001;
• Denies Civil Liberties and Freedom to Muslims and Non-Muslims: The OIC for decades has tried to deny American Muslims and others the protections of the UN Convention on Human Rights and the U.S. Constitution, insisting instead that they comply with the shariah apartheid doctrine formally adopted by the OIC’s members as the so-called “Cairo Declaration of Human Rights.”

According to the conference agenda published by the OIC New York UN Permanent Mission (http://www.oicun.org/9/20100727101615770.html), the executive director of the Chicago franchise of the Hamas-linked CAIR, Ahmed Rehab, will moderate a panel entitled: “The Role of the OIC and the Scope for its Relation with American Muslims.”

In yet another ominous move, the Organization of the Islamic Conference has announced that it will meet on September 30 with American Muslim leaders – many of whose groups the federal government has identified in court as Muslim Brotherhood fronts – for the purpose of creating the “American Muslim Liaison Council to the OIC.”


Question to: Nobel Prize Laureate Shirin Ebadi by David G. Littman (Representative: AWE & WUPJ)

My question is addressed to Madam Shirin Ebadi.
Thank you for your remarkable frank speaking here and your courage - a true lesson for us all.
A year ago, on Human Rights Day 2007, OIC Secretary-General Prof. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu stated that the OIC General Secretariat is considering the establishment of an independent permanent body to promote Human Rights in Member States in accordance with the provision of the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam and to elaborate an OIC Charter on Human Rights.

Four days later, on 14 December 2007, Pakistan's Ambassador Masood Khan - speaking for the OIC at the Human Rights Council -claimed that the 1990 Cairo Declaration was "not an alternative competing worldview on human rights," but failed to mention that the shari'a law was "the only source of reference" in that Declaration's articles 24 and 25 - the same shari'a law in which there is no equality between Muslim men and women and Muslims and non-Muslims. The Final Communiqué of the 3rd Extraordinary Session of the Islamic Mecca Summit on 8 December 2005 had provided a clear message on this - and on the UN system of human rights.
Madam, do you feel that the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam - and a future Islamic Charter based on shari'a law - would clash with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam and the International bill of Human Rights? To give one example: the marriage of girls at nine years old, as in Iran, since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.


Klevius comment: Islamic “monotheism” is the most evil form of the old Jewish “the chosen people” racism. The only meaningful difference is that whereas old Judaism was spread via the Vagina, islam is spread via the Penis (rapetivism). This fact together with islam’s harsh apostasy ban (meaning leaving islam is considered a crime) and that muslim women are not allowed to marry non’muslims, explains why there are now less than 10 Million Jews but more than one Billion muslims.

OIC’s Cairo declaration clearly violates girls/women’s Human Rights. Under OIC’s islamic Sharia a female doesn’t really count as a fully human (only "truly" muslim men counts) because of islam’s rigid sex segregation. Because of their sex females are, according to islam, forever and in all aspects of life, doomed to legal difference as prescribed by whatever Sharia happens to rule. To make this more simple to understand, just compare to the original Human Rights which expressly state that sex should not be an excuse for limiting girls’ and women’s freedom. And even more simple: Whereas under Sharia women are doomed to sex segregation, under Human Rights a woman can choose to sex segregate herself as well as to refuse to sex segregate herself (However, due to the detrimental effects of psychoanalysis this latter option isn’t always open for girls because they may be labeled as “suffering” from gender identity disorder – see Klevius explanation of this repulsive psychiatyric intervention in girls’ lives).



Negative Human Rights constitute the backbone of the Human Rights Declaration and the US Constitution. Islam/Sharia is the very opposite. This is why OIC violates the most important part of the Human Rights by replacing their freedom with medieval islamofascism.













.