BBC's muslim presenter Mishal Husain, like many Saudi/OIC supporters, represents the "security risk" between islam's "core" (OIC sharia) and "periphery" (e.g. "Euro-islam", "cultural islam" etc.).
Peter Klevius suggests cooperation instead of unfounded incl. religious) hate!
Klevius is ashamed over hateful, racist Western Sinophobia - and support of hateful sharia jihad. BBC's sharia supporting (?) muslim Mishal Husain now eagerly sides with Sinophobic extreme right wing politicians who support Saudi islamofascism but demonize China and Chinese (except if critcical of China). Sinophobes would treat China exactly the same if it copied US "democracy".
BBC today (20200129) forgot to tell about China already having isolated the virus for vaccine (and helped Australians to do so). However, BBC repeatedly lied that the death rate is 20%. Common flu and the new corona virus deaths (~2%) are extremely rare outside very vulnerable groups - who don't travel much.
BBC, who otherwise don't hesitate to spit on Trump, has no problem using his advisor when it comes to racist Sinophobia against Huawei. US is blackmailing UK so to hinder China's tech success and the "security issue" is actually US itself.
Niklas Arnberg, Swedish professor in virology: "Considerably higher mortality than ordinary flu." BBC: "Death toll rises as disease spreads from China."
Peter Klevius: Both are faking! Arnberg used overall death numbers although most (all?!) of these deaths have been people who could have died from ordinary flu as well. And do you really think BBC would ever have written similarly about the deadly camel flu from Saudi Arabia?!
Why is BBC only talking about Jewish victims - and why is BBC silent about the fact that most "anti-semites" (i.e. anti-Jews) are muslims? Holocaust: 6 million Jews and 11 million "others" were murdered by the German government for various discriminatory practices due to their ethnicity, Atheism, or LGBT+. Hitler: "All character training must be derived from faith." Himmler: ""We believe in a God Almighty who stands above us; he has created the earth, the Fatherland, and he has sent us the Führer. Any human being who does not believe in God should be considered arrogant, megalomaniacal, and stupid." Klevius (the Atheist "other"): That's a description of me by most Americans and muslims. Btw, why are muslim sex predators from Pakistan called "Asians"?! And why (compare Koran and sex slaves) have they been protected while Klevius has been muffled?!
Islam trumps LGBT rights in English schools - and hateful sexist and racist muslim supremacism defending BBC is silent as usual (e.g. about Parkfield Community School 2020).
Klevius: Do you really support US/UK/BBC's disgusting racist Sinophobia madness - and their support and use of anti-Human Rights muslim islamism?! Wikipedia: In the Xinjiang riots Turkic speaking Uyghur muslims shouted/posted "kill the Han (Chinese) and Hui (Chinese speaking muslims)"!
US/UK (NATO) don't accept muslims like Uighur islamists (other than as proxy soldiers) - but demand China to accept them. NATO's Sinophobia is a threat to world peace, environment and prosperity. NATO is all about US monopolizing space for its own militarism and to block China's success? In 1990s Russia was proposed as a member of NATO but is now demonized by US/UK (and BBC) as the "main enemy" together with "the challenge from China" (sic). But NATO members are guilty of offensive wars, occupations, annexations, use of chemical weapons, use of islamist terrorists, foreign interventions, extrajudicial murderings in other countries - and use of similar muslim "re-education" camps as China (why not just criminalize original evil islam?!). NATO (US) threatens the free flow of tech and wealth, and provokes hate and defensive attitudes among Chinese - hence forcing China (world leader in tech) using its financial muscles more for defense (China can't be starved like USSR in 1980s) than environment. Btw, Chinese per capita GDP is 1/3 of US, and total GDP much bigger than US - and faster growing. A fraction of the effort given to demonize "islamophobic" islam criticim, would do wonders to reduce Sinophobic racism against Chinese. And stop using the "Communist threat". China is now a capitalist country similar to Western powers - except technologically much better (and the West copies everything China does in surveillance). Do you really think much would change if China would be fully democratic - except chaos caused by NATO? NATO (US/UK) would be equally Sinophobic. In fact, what is called "democracy" in the West functions quite similarly as the leadership in China. Media propaganda, lying politicians and empty promises combined with silencing the real issues (compare BBC's fake "news") - and therefore a truly democratic vote. Moreover, the only reason capitalist China has a non-democratic leadership for the moment is precisely its justified fear for leaving it vulnerable for what happened in the past when UK and US meddled and attacked with great suffering for the Chinese people. NATO should turn against the real evil, the islamofascist Saudi dictator family.
England voted (for the second time) against Merkel’s islam import from Turkey.
Can islam be rehabilitated from its evil origin and deeds - and can unrehabilitated islam be allowed in public and private spheres?
Why is Saudi based and steered OIC's Islamic State of Gambia accusing Aung San Suu Kyi for the consequences of islamofascism OIC's sharia protects - and why isn't the murderous islamofascist war criminal and genocide committing Saudi dictator "prince" accused of anything? And why is BBC's leading muslim extremist propaganda presenter Mishal Husain allowed to "present" an absolutely one-sided pro islamist picture for BBC's compulsory fee paying listeners?
BBC awards a white man who plays an odd sport few are interested in the title of "sports personality of the year 2019". Why?! Because cricket is a "british" colonial sports and also fits BBC's special interest in "asians" - but couldn't find a "british asian" good enough.
DEMOCRACY DENIED: WARNING TO UK VOTERS ABOUT BBC's HUMANRIGHTSPHOBIA! WHO's RIGHT ON ISLAM - BBC OR THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE?
BBC undermines your most basic Human Rights. BBC's "islamophobia" propaganda machine (incl. Sayeeda Warsi) boosts OIC islam while neglecting Council of Europe's sharp ("islamophobic") criticism of OIC's world sharia (Cairo declaration). SO HOW COME THAT BBC IS ALLOWED TO MEDDLE IN THE VOTING PROCESS BY ATTACKING AND SMEARING THOSE CANDIDATES WHO SHARE THE VIEW OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE - not to mention the anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948?!
BBC's muslims and their PC supporters also meddle in UK election by demonizing "islamophobia", i.e. trying to stop critcs of islamofascism.
Muslim child/youth fascism induced by an islam interpretation from family and strengthened by PC media, politicians etc.
Saudi Aramco's confidence scam
BBC, in an interview about Corbyn, also desperately tries to agitate for more militarism and use of nukes - although fact being that a UK with nukes and war meddling globally may draw more attention and due risk for the Brits than without.
However, unfortunately BBC demonizes China on behalf of UK's relying on militarist meddling, weapons sales and islamofascist sharia finance. So you see the solution: Cut off sharia etc. islamofascist ties and open up for prospering with China - not the over-selfish game of spying and dying of US.
BBC boosts stupid nationalist "Britishness" with peculiar "sports" like cricket and rugby because the world has already "colonized" football and the English language is a global property.
John le Carré: I'm depressed and ashamed of British nationalism. Nationalism needs enemies but today we really have no identifiable enemies except among ourselves.
North Atlantic (sic) Treaty Organization invades a country in Mideast and attacks (with chemival weapons) a people without a country.
UK's Brexit business model: Sharia finance, weapons sale and militaristic meddling?UK Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (sic) and Global Neo-Imperialist and Militarist Meddling, Jeremy Hunt, 15 Oct. 2019: It's wrong to accuse Donald Trump - it's Americans isolationism because American taxpayers don't want to pay between 1/2 and 2/3 of the defense of Europe. And Turkey is very skilled at finding wedges and gaps between allies. UK should be EU's bridge to US.
Peter Klevius: No, EU should take care of its own defense - against whom? The Saudi dictator family who is the world's no 1 spender on weapons and islamic terror incitement and who hates EU's anti-sharia legislation? And UK taxpayers should not have to pay more for dangerous militarism. Militaristic meddling is a bad and dangerous business idea.
Peter Klevius congratulates Savid Javid for abandoning the islamofascist "islamophobia" smear. BBC’s bigoted hypocrite Mishal Husain and others ought to follow!
BBC's Mark Mardell couldn't get a visa to China because of his extreme and hateful Sinophobia - but that didn't stop him/BBC from producing a fake anti-China program series while pretending to be there. Is Sinophobia really better than cooperation?
People in UK-land (especially women) will loose their Human Rights after Brexit - while sharia prevails in UK, and UK citizens in EU are protected by the European Court of Human Rights.
Saudi war crimes investgated by the Saudis
If China today became a full democracy (and even accepting full Human Rights) - nothing would change, because it's not the rulers but the high tech industry in China that outperforms the West. And unlike islam, China doesn't have tenets against Human Rights. However, islam is tied to its supremacist and sexist sharia tenets (OIC) which deny women full Human Rights - just the opposite to what is said in the anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration from 1948. If islam would accept full Human Rights it would not be islam anymore. China's economic expansion has been a non-aggressive big contributor to wealth around the world, but when China reached out its Belt and Road hand, then the West bit it and supported extremist muslim terrorists. Islam induced hate crimes and terror are based on a shared evil ideology (a global muslim collective rather than as nationals, which inspire and hail each other) - but because most are committed by lonely or gang muslims, and because police and media are told muslim "ethnicity" ought not to be revealed, then the public are kept unaware of most muslim hate crimes. How come that evilness is protected? The answer is in the question. To hide its original evilness. And how come that BBC and UK politicians dare to support islamofascism in Kashmir? Freedom from sharia for women in Kashmir!
* UK PM Theresa May opposed Human Rights.
Islam (represented in UN by Saudi based and steered OIC and its sharia called “islamic human rights”) is against Human Rights!
Sweden’s Supreme Court has found a man guilty of rape for having sex without explicit consent from a teenage woman who had been passive and gave no clear expression that she wanted to participate in the sexual acts. Lack of a partner’s spoken agreement or any other clear approval can hence be considered rape. However, islamic sharia gives a muslim man the "right" to have sex with wives and and concubines his "right hand possesses" (e.g. "infidel" girls/women). The neo-islamist rational (original openly supremacist islam didn't need one) is that "it satisfies the sexual desire of the female". Peter Klevius wonders if Swedish Courts will accept this reasoning - perhaps only for muslims?!
Peter Klevius also wonders whether BBC's leading presenter, the alcohol drinking and not Ramadan fasting, Pakistan rooted and Saudi raised muslim, Mishal Husain, approves of sharia?
In UK both Tories and Labour are against "islampohobia" - so apparently also against Human Rights? And if not, then they are "islamophobic" after all. So how do you vote for someone critical of islam's Human Rights violations if parties don't allow "islamophobia"? Is it democracy?
What do BBC and Jeremy Hunt have in common? Both support the islamofascist murderer and war criminal Mohammad bin Salman.
Peter Klevius: Girls' emancipation needs more football and less cricket, netball etc.
BBC's cricket propaganda is a slap in the face of young girls who need equally much moving around and spatial skills as young boys. However, there's a huge sex segregation in females motivation and access to football - not only the world's by far most popular physical sport, but also the only one that doesn't use tools or hands to handle the ball, and which makes all participants moving most of the time even without the ball. Moreover, the very nature of the sport forces participants to a never ending series of spatial and strategic challenges - with or without the ball and even while playing alone. So why is BBC so hostile to the Queen of sports (the "beautiful game") that is perfect for the physical and spatial development of girls - and in the face of the football loving majority who has to pay compulsory fees (and paying extra for football channels) to this faking regime propaganda media that uses stiff and lifeless colonial cricket for neo-colonial purpose?! England banned football for girls/women already 1921 and suggested cricket, land hockey and netball instead - almost like today except it's not called a ban. And what about the laughable notion of a "world cup" in cricket?! When is the "world cup" in caber tossing between Gotland and Scotland?
The murderous war criminal, Saudi muslim "custodian of islam" (and OIC) "prince" MBS is OK but Human Rights defender Peter Klevius isn't. Why?! Because the former isn't an "islamophobe", dude!
BBC thinks the militaristic Saudiphil Jeremy Hunt "is a safer option" as UK PM. What about you?
Racist Sinophobia disguised as "security" while muslim terror spreading Saudi murderous dictator and war criminal is "an important security ally"!?
Nothing in Primate/Haplorhini evolution came out of Africa - not even Africa (it was disconnected due to tectonics).
A “definition” of “islamophobia” ought to be balanced with a definition of muslim Human Rightsphobia.
"Diversity" without basic (negative) Human Rights is like having a car without steering - dangerous.
In its senseless and continuous "islamophobia" ranting BBC says to be 'muslim' is the same as to be 'English'. Klevius thinks not. A 'muslim' is one who wittingly or unwittingly adheres to what historical records show being the most evil enslaving ideology ever around (from a Human Rights perspective). And Klevius doesn't count as real muslims those who call themselves "cultural muslims" for the purpose of benefiting from a certain "ethnicity", or those who against their will are trapped in muslimhood because of the evil apostasy tenet in islam. And islamic "modesty" attires is a protected way of calling other women "whores".
The most serious threat to our Human Rights is the hate campaign against "islamophobia" which really is directed against Human Rights.
As long as most muslims in the world are ruled by a sharia (e.g. Saudi based and steered OIC) that gravely violates the most basic of Human Rights, and as long as the most devout muslims do the same by simply following original evil (according to Human Rights) islam, you can't legislate against criticism of islam without simultaneously legislating against Human Rights. Why do you want to hinder muslims from apostating? It's a Human Right! Islam should not be allowed to traumatize apostates. Authentic original (e.g. Wahhabi/Salafi) islam doesn't fit in the boots of "Euro-islam" and Human Rights.
Klevius suggests the UK baby should be named Muhammad. After all, according to BBC, the Queen is related to him and all politicians love islam. And several hadiths describe him as white (one even proposing the killing of anyone who says he was black). Only problem being that he then may be described as a white supremacist. Luckily the baby, according to BBC, is “mix-race”.
Klevius to EU voters: If you respect Human Rights - don’t vote for anyone who supports the islamofascist Saudi dictator family who spreads Human Rightsphobia via the Saudi based and steered OIC’s world sharia!
No true muslim can be fully human.
Why? Because islam's dividing the world in muslims and (not fully human) "infidels" makes it impossible. Only by fully accepting the basic (s.c. 'negative') Universal Human Rights equality - which islam can't accept (see e.g. Saudi based and steered all muslims world Ummah sharia organization OIC) without committing ideological suicide - can we meet every human as basically equal, in the same way as we can give every road-user a basic equality in traffic, i.e. we have traffic sense. So Klevius asks muslims whether they have "traffic sense"? And for all the rest of you - to be 'human' in a global sense can only be achieved by giving every human you meet basic equality - no matter how alien that human might feel to you. Because every human has the right to be "alien" and there can't even be any alternative to this as long as we don't accept brainwashed totalitarianism (see e.g. Klevius 1996 paper Angels of Antichrist). This is the only way to meaningfully talk about 'humankind'. And to alien hunters Klevius says you probably meet them every day already.
So when BBC and other fake media talk about xenophobia against muslims, they actually contribute to spread xenophobia themselves.
A "good muslim" is one who suppresses and distorts original islam so to fit Human Rights. However, some just pretend to do so - and some just continue hating the "infidel".
Peter Klevius to Greta Thunberg: Saudi salafist oil funded supremacist islam or Chinese Taoist (kindness) high tech - which one do you think is the real threat to the people and environmment in EU and the world?
Ultimate bigotry and hypocrisy – militant spying and war mongering 5 Eyes instead of true 5G?
Saudi hate spreading antennas (Salafi/Wahhabi mosques etc.) or Chinese world leading 5G tech? No one knows the amount of street etc. victims of Saudi hate because when the haters are muslims their attacks are not recorded as hate crimes. If a Chinese would attack shouting 'Tao' it would most certainly be classified as a hate crime. However, chances are slim that it ever occurs compared to hate attacks made by muslims.
Arabic (not "white" etc.) islam has been the by far biggest enslaver throughout 1,400 years. Islamic language imperialism via the Koran. And all races have been complicit in the muslim Koranic slave trade. So how do you distinguish between descendants of slaves or slave traders? Will Cambridge check today's "Caribbeans", "Africans" etc. about it? Klevius warns there might be unwelcomed surprises, e.g. that many of those who come to Europe are actually descendants of slave trading black Africans on whose wealth lineage top they are better privileged than those from slave lineages. And what about "whites" like Klevius who were cut off from any lineages? Should the skin color Klevius was born with be used against him because of the privileges of others with the same skin color? Same question may be asked about sexism. Klevius doesn’t see it fair to blame him for male sexism just because he happens tp be male, do you!
The real threat is the US led Saudi supporting spy organization 5 Eyes, which 1) tries to block superior tech, and 2) uses China as a scapegoat for US/UK privacy breaches. It's not China but US that wants to control you! So "securing 5G from Chinese influence" actually means giving US/UK a technical space for spying/influencing etc. In short, trying to hinder US/UK customers from accessing the best technology while spying on them.
Muslim terrorists get legal aid to stay in UK - EU nationals don't!
BBC collected a UKIP hating mob to shout "islamophobia" against islam criticism.
However, the very same BBC also willfully misleads people about islam so that most people in UK are completely unaware of that Saudi based and steered OIC and its extreme Human Rightsphobia is a world guide for (sharia) muslims. Moreover, BBC's top presenter (Mishal Husain) who seems to be muslim in name only (drinking alcohol, not fasting on Ramadan, no muslim attire, no Haji, no sharia, etc) so to dupe the public about islam.
The 1948 Human Rights declaration was created to protect against fascism. Accepting islam without a clear border against sharia that violates the most basic Human Rights, allows space for islamofascism (i.e. original supremacist islam).
However, the new fascist mob is shouting "islamophobia" because islam can't comply with it (compare Saudi based and steered OIC's sharia declaration against Human Rights). This smear is then "enhanced" by connecting it to murderers, Nazis, right wing extremists etc. Islam's sharia sexism and racist supremacism is the problem - so why is addressing it "bad"?!
BBC is also keen on silencing the only truly free media, i.e. bloggers etc. social media.
The crystal clear connection between the surge in knife, rape etc. attacks and islam - and its custodian, the islamofascist Saudi dictator family - is desperately silenced by BBC and politicians (BBC now tries to cover this up by airing long programs about "conventional" knife crimes instead). This means they are directly complicit, doesn't it. Klevius suggests boycotting BBC and Saudi bribed politicians. They constitute the worst security threat.
Peter Klevius evolution formula
Stop security cooperation with UK whose close connection to the the suspected murderer, war criminal and islamic terror spreading islamofascist Saudi custodian of islam, Mohammad bin Salman, constitutes the by far worst threat against the security of people in EU! Moreover, sharia islam (the only real islam for real muslims) which is a racist and sexist supremacist ideology that violates Human Rights, is supported by UK.
Don't let haters and Human Rightsphobes get away with it by calling themselves 'believers'!
Either religion is (grades of) supremacist hate and sexism and you better become an Atheist (and therefore universal human) - or you keep your "beliefs" for yourself. In traffic you can think what you want about other people, but you can't drive over them!
- and take responsibility for your own supremacist sharia, represented by Saudi based and steered all muslims world organization OIC, which violates the most basic Human Rights! And do note the difference between universal impositions and universal freedom! Full respect of the other rests on accepting her/his freedom. This is the only way of being universally human.
Islam is an evil* supremacist and divisive ideology - why isn’t this told by BBC, schools etc.?
* weighed against the anti-fascist, anti-supremacist, anti-racist and anti-sexist Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948 that all civilized people are supposed to build on. Islam doesn't fit these goals, so OIC (the legal world Umma steered from and by the Saudi dictator family) decided to replace them with medieval racist, sexist and supremacist sharia.
Article 24 of the Saudi based and steered OIC's sharia declaration (CDHRI) states: "All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia." Article 19 says: "There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Sharia." CDHRI also fails to guarantee freedom of religion, in particular the right of each and every individual to abandon their religion, as a "fundamental and non-derogable right".
Article 10 of the Declaration states: "Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion or to Atheism." Since in Islamic society all reasons for conversion away from Islam are considered to be essentially either compulsion or ignorance, this effectively forbids conversion away from Islam.
CDHRI denies women equality with men by imposing "own rights" and "duties to perform".
A global world is only possible under the guidance of (negative – i.e. individual freedom from racist/sexist impositions) Human Rights - as outlined in the original anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948. It excludes any religious or other supremacist tenets or impositions on the individual.
Due to the above and due to the West (politicians and media) having locked itself in with the islamofascist Saudi dictator family (the custodians of islam) we now have a deficit of (negative) Human Rights education – but massively more religious propaganda (e.g. Saudi spread “islamophobia” smear) against these rights. Against this background it's utmost hypocrisy to point against wealth spreading China while supporting islamic hate, terror and war crimes spreading hegemonic Saudi dictator family.
Saudi and BBC hate propaganda against Iran and Shia muslims behind attacks on Corbyn's "anti-Semitism"? BBC's inflammatory and offensive hate mongering use of the oxymoron "anti-Semitic" (reinforced by "islamophobia") protects Semitic (Arab/Sunni/Saudi) muslims from criticism while excluding non-Semitic Shia muslims (e.g. Iran). BBC also use "Asians" when they mean non-Semitic former British Asian muslims, i.e. again not incl. Iranian Shia muslims. Why? Because BBC's poster boy Mohammad Salman hates Shia. England also got a massive problem with "Asian" (sic - read 'mostly Sunni muslim') sex offenders. But no one dares to ask if islam's hate teaching of taking "infidel" sex slaves - and "muslim sensitivity" policies - may encourage it?
Don't let BBC's or islam's glossy surface (i.e. normal news/info and non-sharia muslims respectively) lure you to not see the evil core. Klevius is the opposite. WYSIWYG. No hidden evil core, just defense of your (whoever you are) basic Human Rights that islam wants to deny you.
Theresa May & Co defend sharia by saying "it's just a a contract". This is utter lie because any meaningful islam demands sharia and stepping out of the "contract" is the worst sin you can commit as a muslim (s.c. apostasy). Theresa May's and others deception is built on the mass of secular muslims, i.e. not true muslims. And these "secular muslims" get away with it as long as there's not enough true muslims to demand sharia all over the pitch - as yet. Moreover, Saudi led sharia finance demands sharia compliance - as does Saudi based and steered OIC, all muslims world organization.
Klevius supports "secular muslims" - Theresa May supports sharia muslims.
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?
Negative Human Rights for a Positive Human Future
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.
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").
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 can no longer distinguish between the techniques of BBC and Nazi propaganda - can you!
Racist Theresa May is robbing EU citizens of their Human Rights
Support Klevius' Atheist anti-fascism against islamofascism
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".
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")!
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.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Obama's speech didn’t do much for Muslim women. He defended their rights in Western countries to wear the hijab. He didn’t touch on Muslim women being confined, being forced into marriages or being victims of honor killings: These traditions and principles in the Koran and in Islam are being practiced in the West. He didn’t address that.
I think he was just appeasing the Muslim world because they perceive--they have these notions that Muslim women in Western countries--are not allowed to wear the headscarf or cover themselves. I mean you can wear whatever you want in the United States.
In Egypt where he spoke, women who do not wear their veil in public are subjected to very obscene remarks on the street and even sexual assault. Nowadays, even if they are covered they become victims of the same things: That is, in public, in Egypt, as a woman, you run 80% of the time the risk of being assaulted simply because you are a woman walking down the street. They are forced into marriages; their testimony in countries where Sharia is law is just half of that of a man. They can be divorced with no rights. They need guardians, a married guardian or they cannot sign any legal papers. The President simply did not address Sharia or Islamic law in relation to women.
ON ISLAMIC EXTREMISM:
Who is a real reformer? Obama’s message is that all of this [violence] has nothing to do with Islam. He says that progress and human rights are perfectly reconcilable with Islam. "Islam is peace." He sticks to the line that there is nothing to reform in there. According to the President, we are only fighting a very small number of extremists, but it's not Islam, so if that’s the case then there really isn’t much to reform. The true reformers -- the moderate Muslims -- take away from the speech that they can’t depend on the Obama administration to criticize Islam. Between the lines it's as if he is saying that he will prevent Islam from negative stereotyping or something like that, which is ridiculous because he can’t do that. But most Muslims as we know, believe that negative stereotyping is equal to criticizing Islam.
Obama said “let’s speak plainly to one another”; I would have liked him to have added, “and that means let us face some of your religious principles and how they are radically different from American principles.” That’s what we need to talk about. His plain speaking went as far as saying we have a right to be in Afghanistan because Al-Qaeda attacked and keeps trying to attack us… but what inspires Al-Qaeda? Why are people we call moderates not facing up to Al-Qaeda? What is it about Islamic values that causes this? His plain speaking ended exactly where George Bush’s and all the Presidents that came before him… and Tony Blair… ended: with the selective quoting from the Koran. It's like Hillary Clinton putting on the headscarf as a “sign of respect."
John FG McMahon
Please be assured that the problem lies not with ordinary Australians but disaffected immigrant/refugee youth of Sudanese and Middle-Eastern origin. As the students have themselves described, their attackers are in the main "black men (Africans)" or "Middle-Eastern".
These immigrants/refugees have been warmly welcomed and embraced but they repay us with conduct such as this. One incident involved a Catholic nun walking down a Sydney street. She passed by two Muslim women dressed in their garb who turned on her, assaulted her, spat on her and tore the crucifix chain from her.
So please ignore the media there in India who have no idea at all. Our media, because of political correctness, refuses to describe the ethnicity of the attackers.
The Cronulla riots a few years ago came about with frustration by the locals with the lack of protection by the police from marauading Lebanese Muslim gangs who were brazeningly invading shops, restaurants, bars and cafes spitting and urinating on patrons and assaulting/intimidating all and sundry. One incident involved a young mother who had taken her toddler daughter to the beach.
The toddler was playing in the water when a gang of these militants came up to the mother and demanded that she cover up her daughter who was wearing a regular modest bathing costume. She refused and told them to go away. They did but returned a little later with knives. The young mother fled with her daughter.
A young fellow who had been away at sea for some weeks returned and was withdrawing money from a ATM. He was assaulted by one of these gangs and critically injured. He was repeatedly stabbed and the assault only stopped when the knife broke off in his back. These gangs hunt the streets at night looking for "skips", their term for Australians. Now they have turned their attention to easier marks- students from India.
My view is that these immigrants/refugees should return to their countries of origin and take their violent evil disruptive ways with them. Australia is a land of immigrants. I am second generation Irish-Australian. Everyone has assimilated. From Greeks, Italians, Lebanese Catholics/Christians,Russians,Eskimos,South Americans, South Africans (black and white), Mexicans etc etc all get along except for those from Muslim countries/areas.
The Government(s), politicans and police are afraid to control these Muslims for fear of being labelled "racist". This is the usual cry (yelp?) from the Muslims when they are criticized in any manner, rightfully or wrongfully.
Frontpage Interview's guest today is Dave Gaubatz, the first U.S. civilian (1811) Federal Agent deployed to Iraq in 2003. He is currently the Director of the Mapping Sharia Project and the Owner of DG Counter-terrorism Publishing (dgaubatz.blogspot.com). He can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org.
FP: Dave Gaubatz, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
You have recently uncovered Muslim Brotherhood material in the U.S. Tell us about it.
Gaubatz: Thanks Jamie.
For several years I have reported publically and to law enforcement personnel that Halalco Books, located in Falls Church, VA, services and distributes Islamic terrorist material to Islamic Centers/Mosques throughout the U.S.
Dar al Hijrah leaders in Fairfax, VA, had first informed me that in order to be a "Pure Muslim' I must use only authorized and correct materials and these materials could be located at Halalco. During my many visits to Halalco I have been provided materials and been invited to the homes of Halalco employees. Halalco is managed by Sunni personnel and can be best described in their own words as "Pure Muslims'. The Shiite people are not recognized as Muslim.
On 3 June 2009, I again visited Halalco. I wanted to see if any new materials were being promoted since President Obama took office and he was due to speak to the "Muslim World' in Egypt on 4 June 2009. Additionally, as you know, the Obama Administration had invited members of the Muslim Brotherhood to attend his speech.
FP: Yes indeed. Ok, so what specifically did you find?
Gaubatz: A very disturbing 24 page manual by the founder (Imam Hassan al-Banna) of "The Muslim Brotherhood". The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928. The manual Halalco was now distributing was titled "Message For Youth". The manual was being reproduced, promoted, and distributed for the benefit of Muslims in 2009. It is very specific on how the youth are to become martyrs through physical Jihad in order to meet the objectives of the Mother Brotherhood, specifically how to implement an Islamic Ummah (Nation) under Sharia Law worldwide.
FP: You have often focused your first-hand research on Islamic materials instead of what an Islamic leader currently says during prayers/lectures. Why?
Gaubatz: The only people who can get away with openly lying, causing harm to our troops/ country, and turn our country from a democracy/free market into a Socialist nation under many Sharia compliant aspects are elected politicians. Islamic scholars realize even under Obama, they can't (to date) verbalize treason and sedition against America. They do realize it is still accepted to call for sedition/treason, and murder of innocent people in written and video formats. These formats of communicating hatred toward America are somehow believed to be covered under our U.S. Constitutions First Amendment. Islamic leaders are taking advantage of our naiveness and regardless of what our law enforcement and politicians believe, America is under attack and inside the U.S. we are losing our country inch by inch.
FP: Why do you believe Halalco are openly distributing Muslim Brotherhood material?
Gaubatz: The management has done so for years, but it is more abundant and now targeted for the Muslim Youth. The more President Obama condones and gives substance to Islamic terrorist groups and their supporters, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Palestine, the more terrorist supporters in the U.S. feel justified in distributing their materials. I have observed more violent Islamic terrorist material being distributed since Obama took office.
How many parents have to lose a son or daughter before Americans understand incidents similar to the murder by a Muslim convert are not "isolated' and are indeed condoned by Islamic leaders throughout our country?
The murderer Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad killed the military recruiter not because of "extremism' but because this is what is being taught in Islamic Centers throughout America by Saudi, Egyptian, and Pakistani trained Muslim leaders. If the largest percentage of Islamic Centers/mosques is advocating such violence, are they extremist or are they the norm?
For several years counter-terrorism professionals and I have informed the public about violent materials distributed in America specifically calling for Muslims to kill innocent men, women, and children. I have personally visited over 200 such mosques and provided first-hand evidence.
Why do our elected officials and law enforcement ignore the obvious? There are no legitimate reasons to ignore evidence advocating killing people and conducting treason/sedition against our country.
FP: Can you provide some statements from the Muslim Brotherhood material you obtained?
Gaubatz: I believe this is exactly what is needed. I would like to give credit to Dr. Bill Warner, Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI), who made a statement on 30 May 2009 at the New English Review Symposium in Nashville, TN. Dr. Warner informed the audience essentially instead of restricting Islamic materials we should provide more information so the American public can understand Islam in its totality. I add that if people viewed everything being provided to Muslims they would understand not only Sept. 11th, 2001, but the murder of a U.S. military recruiter, the beheading of a Muslim wife, or plots to destroy military installations are what the Muslim Brotherhood and its supporters advocate.
The following five statements are just a sampling of what is being advocated to the Muslim Youth by the Muslim Brotherhood not only in Egypt, England, Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan, but within a few minutes from our "godlike' U.S. President.
1. "Liberate the homeland from all un-Islamic or foreign control, whether political, economic, or ideological".
2. "If the government neglects its duties and falls short of its responsibilities, then it will be the duty of the people to first advise and guide, then to dismiss and remove the government, for No obedience is due to a creature who is disobedient to the Creator".
3. "Formation: This is achieved by selecting and consolidating those members who can bear the burden of jihad (all out struggle). The training in this phase comprises spiritual refinement and military preparation…the mode of work is represented by the fraternal battalions".
4. "Always cherish the intention of jihad and the desire for martyrdom in the Way of Allah, and actually prepare yourself for that. Introduce yourself and become thoroughly acquainted with the members of your battalion one by one".
5. "Allah is our goal; the messenger is our example; the Quran is our constitution; jihad is our means; and martyrdom in the way of Allah is our aspiration. These can be condensed further into five words: plainness, recitation, prayer, military preparedness, and manners".
Readers can view my site at www.daveg.us to obtain a complete copy of this 24 page Muslim Brotherhood manual.
Possibly if Americans (specifically law enforcement and politicians) took 30 minutes out of their schedules each day to study the same materials being provided to the Muslim Youth, they would come to the conclusion the teachings of Islam are very violent and will understand tragic incidents by young Muslims are not isolated, but are calculated tactics endorsed by Islamic leaders. The Islamic leaders in America are able to meet their objectives, yet remain free because they can rely on lone Muslims to carry out single and seemingly isolated murders across America which will seldom make the headlines of any news organization.
FP: Final words?
Gaubatz: I will mention two names: Christine Hanson and Juliana Valentine McCourt. Who are they? Have you ever heard President Obama speak of them? Do the media ever speak of them? Christine was 2 years old and Juliana was 4 years old when they lost their innocent lives to supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood ideology on Sept. 11th, 2001. Both children were passengers on United Airlines flight 175 that crashed into the World Trade Center.
People should try and imagine how scared the children must have been, and their parents. What was going through the parents minds when they saw New York City from a few hundred feet below their aircraft and realized their children only had a few seconds to live?
Readers should try to imagine the horror the children and parents must have felt. If you believe your child could not become the next Christine or Juliana you have underestimated the mindset of the Islamic terrorist.
FP: Dave Gaubatz, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.
By: Jamie Glazov
June 10, 2009
Exclusive: ‘The Third Jihad’ – An Interview with Peter Connors
Editor’s note: The Third Jihad is a documentary about the threat of radical Islam that faces the United States and the world. Featuring interviews with many prominent individuals, including a number of contributors to FamilySecurityMatters.org, the film is being shown around the nation in an effort to educate Americans about the very real danger of Jihad.
FSM recently had the opportunity to interview Peter Connors, the Executive Director of the Clarion Fund, a non-profit, non-political media company educating the public about national security threats. Connors oversees strategic development, film distribution, screenings, and all marketing and media activities from their home office in Portsmouth, NH.
FSM: The brutal treatment of women under Sharia law should be a rallying cry for Western feminists – and for a time, the treatment of women in Afghanistan under the Taliban was given a lot of attention. And there have been documented cases of honor killings right here in the U.S. However, it seems as though after America under George Bush went in to Iraq, the attention given to this appalling situation seems to have gone away. Do you think there’s a connection?
PC: Wife beating and "honor killings" are accepted under Sharia Law and in radical Islamic societies around the world. It is especially concerning – but not surprising – that such behavior has made its way to America.
In recent years, these atrocious acts have largely gone unnoticed and this is a serious problem. Frankly, whether or not we sent troops into Iraq, the facts remain the same. Not only are vicious acts against women tolerated; they rarely receive national media attention. This only perpetuates the problem. A pattern has developed and unfortunately, until we break the cycle, the violence will continue.
Americans must be made aware of these activities, especially those taking place on U.S. soil. That is why The Third Jihad is such an important film. It aims to educate the American public about the dangers of Sharia Law and the serious threat it poses to civil liberties and American life as we know it. It cites various examples of honor killings and encourages Americans to take action against such injustices.
It is also important to mention that women are not the only group facing persecution. In many radical communities, there is no tolerance for any religion other than Islam. Churches are destroyed and Christians are overtaxed, harassed, or driven out altogether. Homosexuals are also not accepted in radical Islamic communities and are subject to severe punishment and brutality, as well as the ultimate punishment – death.
It is my hope that our film and web educational tools will help bring more attention to these important issues and activate the American public to take a united stand against them.
FSM: Revenue from Middle Eastern oil is largely responsible for funding radical Islam – from madrassas to training camps. Knowing this, why isn’t it a higher priority for America to utilize its own resources and break its dependence upon foreign oil?
PC: The Third Jihad addresses the issue of oil funding terror. The statistics are astounding. The U.S., which accounts for only 5% of the world's population, uses about a quarter of the world’s oil. It is clear that our reliance on oil perpetuates the problem. While the Clarion Fund can educate America about this issue, it is up to the American public and its leaders to take action, funding programs to develop alternative energy sources and calling for reforms that will end our dependency on oil. We have invested considerable time addressing this issue on our activism website, RadicalIslam.org.
FSM: One of the most prominent Islamic groups in America, CAIR, says it condemns terror acts but refuses to condemn groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. Dennis Prager likens this to condemning gas chambers but not condemning the Nazis. Why won’t CAIR come right out and denounce these terrorist organizations?
PC: I’m not exactly sure what you expect to hear from CAIR, considering they are unindicted coconspirators in the largest terror financing trial in U.S. history. (And from my experience and estimation, CAIR does not represent the voice of the American Muslim community.)
Having said that, this issue is addressed in The Third Jihad. Some Muslim American groups, including CAIR, hide behind a moderate front. This is an attempt to achieve greater credibility and influence – as well as financial support – for their stated cause. CAIR claims to condemn terror but refuses to condemn known terror organizations. This is an indication that something is amiss. Why would they refuse? What are they hiding? They should at least explain why it is that they will not condemn these groups.
The FBI recently cut ties with CAIR following the Holy Land terror financing trial. This is a major step forward, but Americans should realize that there are organizations out there whose motives are of concern.
FSM: Many American Islamic groups considered to be “moderate” have been linked to a document which the FBI believes to be the manifesto of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America – which states, in part, that their work in America is a “grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within” so that “Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” Why aren’t the mainstream media all over this?
PC: The organizations that are in favor of radical Islam have done a very good job of convincing the world – and especially the Western media – that any criticism of radical Islam encourages and is a product of something they call “Islamophobia.” Therefore, most media outlets are concerned about being branded as anti-Islam, which certainly has impacted the level to which these issues have been covered. In a way, the Clarion Fund is playing the role the media should be playing concerning these issues. We are educating America about this clear and present threat to American society.
The manifesto uncovered by the FBI could not be clearer. It outlines goals and strategies for the infiltration and domination of America from within and lists, by name, a number of American Muslim organizations that could help achieve those goals. Many of the groups indicated are thought to be the moderate Muslim leadership of America, including the MSA, ISNA, and the IAP (which also has ties to CAIR). It is unfortunate, but not shocking, that the mainstream media has decided to keep this story under wraps.
FSM: The war on terror, which should really be called the war against radical Islam, has taken a back seat to the economic situation. Will it really take another attack on American soil for us to sit up and take notice?
PC: I certainly hope not, and everyday that the Clarion Fund works tirelessly to inform the American public we get one step closer to solving the problem. However, as Americans remain detached from global terrorism, there is a general tendency to overlook the threat posed by radical Islam. While some simply don’t see the threat clearly enough to be concerned, others prefer to “wish it away.” The underlying issue is a lack of education: Americans are content with remaining unaware of threats to national security, and the media are more than happy to oblige. This is why Clarion’s top priority is to educate Americans – through the production of feature-length documentary films and other interactive media – about threats to our national security.
FSM: Since 9/11, more than 30 homegrown Jihad plots have been stopped before they could be carried out. How seriously should we take the threat?
PC: The threat is real and now is the time to take action. Just look back at the past two weeks with yet another foiled terror attack in New York and the American soldier killed outside the recruiting station in Arkansas. The Third Jihad clearly asserts that the spread of Islamic fundamentalism in America is a societal reality that cannot be ignored. The fact is that terrorism is taking root on our own soil, and is pervasive – penetrating various channels. We are very fortunate that dozens of attacks have been prevented, but it would be naïve to discount the possibility – or even probability – of future terrorist plots or attacks on American soil.
FSM: The threat of a nuclear Iran is one that we should take very seriously. Yet our current president seems to think he can reason with someone whose mindset is such that the thought of “mutually assured destruction” – that is, if he sends off a bomb we will retaliate and we’ll all die – is not something to worry about.
PC: TheThird Jihad addresses the threat of radical Islam on both the cultural and physical levels. As such, it includes a section on chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear warfare.
Essentially, the physical threat of warfare is an extension of cultural Jihad and political Islam. Radical Islamists have developed a strategic approach to achieve their goals and have already convinced many that it is reasonable - even preferable - to engage in dialogue and discussion. This can sometimes blind us to the real threat. The film serves as a clear wake-up call to Americans that a nuclear Iran is a serious issue and an unmistakable reality.
FSM: Is a reformation of Islam from within the best way to combat the problem of Islamism?
PC: The Clarion Fund asserts that the majority of Muslims in America are peaceful, law-abiding citizens; it is only a small but alarmingly growing percentage of American Muslims who hold radical views. Clarion encourages all Americans, Muslims included, to take a stand against radical Islam. Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, the narrator of The Third Jihad and founder of the American-Islamic Forum for Democracy, is one example of a courageous American Muslim who opposes radical Islam. He has made it his life mission to expose the radicals for their exploitation of Islam.
I believe that the best way to combat the problem is by educating and empowering Americans, especially the American Muslim population.
FSM: How successful has your film been in getting the word out to average Americans about radical Islam?
PC: In short, there is a lot more work to be done, but we are pleased with the reception of the film at this point.
Clarion's main objective is to educate the American Public about the escalating threat of radical Islam to America’s national security. We achieve this in two ways – by producing feature length documentary films and by facilitating interactive educational mediums.
The Third Jihad itself serves as an education tool, exposing an important and relevant issue that is very often overlooked or misconstrued by the mainstream media. The film is a real eye-opener for many Americans who would otherwise remain detached from this subject.
Clarion has also developed, RadicalIslam.org, an activism website that helps spread awareness about the threat of radical Islam in America and provides practical response tools. For the launch of the film, the site was been redesigned to include up-to-the-minute updates from major news sources as well as social media-driven networking capabilities.
FSM: Is there another film in the works?
PC: We have not yet decided on the subject of our next film project, but it will undoubtedly focus on an issue of national security. Once Clarion is satisfied with the progress of the grassroots efforts to expose radical Islam’s goal of creating an Islamic law-ruled theocracy in America, we will focus on other threats to national security. Be sure to stay tuned.
Brought to you by the editors and research staff of FamilySecurityMatters.org.