The evil faces of islam
But the fact remains: A true muslim is forever married to a devilish ideology (incl. its draconian apostasy ban) and can therefore never produce a democratic vote (or become a true US president) because a true muslim believes in Sharia, i.e. the very opposite to the Human Rights modern democracy is based on.
To understand the unbridgeable gulf between islamic Sharia and Human Rights please read Negative Human Right! And if you don't believe Klevius ask yourself why OIC (a UN voting bloc consisting of 56+1 nations with majority or considerable muslim populations) had to dismiss UN Human Rights and replace them with "islamic human rights""! And how many of these muslims do even know about it?
The real origin of islam* (racist sexist sex and booty parasitism) is in general eagerly kept away from you by Google, other media, Wikipedia, politicians, teachers etc. Why? Simply because the origin of islam is way too disgusting to fit in the modern world based on Human Rights, i.e. the thought that we all should be treated equally. Whereas Human Rights function as traffic rules islam and its Sharia functions as a system of institutionalized sex and ethnicity** apartheid. And making islam equal castrates its very soul and appeal in no time, no matter if you are an open racist sexist or hiding your true nature in the closet. Only if you really have been so ignorant about islam can you be excused.
* most of you probably don't even know that historically there was never an early Koran or Mohammed at all. It's all made up by arranged fairy tales which, to use the words of one of the world's foremost experts on early islam, Hugh Kennedy: "...it's typical of the sources that we have fairly detailed accounts which completely contradict each other."
** Islam is the ultimate form of institutionalized racism/sexism.
To cover up the evilness of islam it's now PC to describe bad* islam as "islamism" thereby implying that when the Taliban and other jihadists stop fighting everything is ok. But a thug doesn’t need to be violent to rob his victim. He just needs to threaten to be violent. And Sharia coupled with state law easily takes care of this. In other words, islam and islamism are inseparable. So today we have muslim jihadist thugs receiving taxpayers' money when they turn from street jihadism to white collar jihadism (while usually still secretly supporting the former).
* "bad islam" implies there should be a "good islam" but the latter is nowhere to be seen except in the idealized and flattering descriptions created by those who eagerly want to cover up islam's true nature as a totalitarian social fascism that has caused more death an suffering than any other ideology on he planet.
Islamism is the desire to impose interpretations of islam through state law (Sharia). This is precisely what OIC has agreed on by replacing Human Rights with Sharia as the basis for their existing or future legislation. To try to talk this away by stupidities as "which Sharia?" won't change, only obscure OIC's abandonment of Human Rights.
Now, there are still some fools who believe (sic) that islam can be stretched and reformed to fit in a modern world based on Human Rights. But, as a possible reflection of their own uncertainty, to make it more secure they usually try to hide islam from scrutiny altogether by calling this dangerous political totalitarian ideology a “faith” and calling for its "protection" by the help of those very Human Rights islam disregards. Moreover, if islam (OIC) were asked about it, revealing atrocities committed as a consequence of islamic ideology ought to be criminalized as "defamation of religion".
However, at a certain point interpretations of islam inevitably cease to be islam. And to accurately pinpoint these points you just need to compare OIC’s Cairo declaration on islamic “human rights” with the real Human Rights Declaration from 1948. OIC realized this long ago. And the very basic disagreement (apart from the overall racist monotheist “mine/our god is the only right one”) is sex segregation, i.e. that according to Human Rights .
Btw, always remember that when true muslims talk about “human rights” they mean Sharia, not Human Rights.So when you hear muslim representatives claiming they defend "human rights" be on your guard!
Behind the appeasing of islam: The female patriarchy
The very origin of Judaism was sex and reproduction for the purpose of political survival. This is why otherwise unhealthy and unnatural circumcision lies at the heart of Judaic tradition, i.e. to squeee out as many children as possibly from the girls/women. Islam is the final development of this evil branch. But when the Italian Medici family begun blossoming due to its (Jewish) slave trade connections to islamic slave markets this also constituted the first real criticism of the degradation of human value. The Renaissance (coupled with the invention of the printing machine) came to be the starting point for not only Protestantism but also the emerging Enlightened idea about the moral necessity of the equality of mankind. And so finally, in 1948, after a devastating World War where muslims in Europe sided with the bad guys, the final piece was assembled. Women became full members of society. Sex should no longer constitute a hindrance for the freedom of girls/women. But two powerful enemies against this freedom prevailed: Psychoanalysis (see From Freud to bin Laden and Klevius Psychosocial Freud timeline) and the most evil part of Judaic monotheism, mainly represented by islam and, usually in a milder form, by many Christians as well. Sigmund Freud's disgusting sexism lives on as the horrifying GID diagnosis (in DSM), according to which girls who oppose or just don't comply well enough with prevailing gender stereotypes can be labelled mentally ill and even be taken from their families for the purpose of being "treated".
But without the eager assistance of what has been called "the female patriarchy" the rights of women shouldn't be so fatally contested as they are. Female patriarchy means the tendency among women to keep each other down for the purpose of appeasing males. To this Klevius will add the little talked about natural phenomenon called heteroseual attraction (HSA - see Klevius Gametes have no sex) which is biologically implanted in males and thus not easily understood by women. HSA doesn't however, necessitate sexual acts in any sense, i.e. no excuse for rape. But in islam, where women are seen as belonging to a different species, HSA is connected to rapetivism, i.e. the sexual and reproductive (incl. the cultural upbringing of new muslims) parasitism on girls/women.
An example of muslim female patriarchy
Jeswan Kaur (a voice from Malaysia commenting on Maznah Taufik, founder of the Obedient Wives Club): The very premise of OWC is shaky, for it emasculates women and turns them into slaves. In Malaysia’s case, it is making news of a different kind with regard to women, particularly Muslim wives being urged to “transform” into whores to please their husbands. Maznah Taufik said being an obedient wife was all about entertaining the husband, failing which the wife risked losing her husband to another woman. For Maznah, who is herself involved in a polygamous relationship, and her like-minded club honchos, a Muslim woman could bet on a successful marriage if she regaled in playing prostitute all the way in the bedroom. Pleasing a husband is a challenge the Muslim woman has to deal with throughout her married life. Unfortunately, many Muslim wives dare not displease their husbands for fear of being “dimadukan” or ending up in polygamous relationship.
Klevius comment: Here lies the crucial question: Should females be sex segregated, i.e. seen as a different species as in OIC's islamic Sharia, or should they be seen as equals to men as stated in the 1948 Human Rights Declaration? For me the answer is self evident. You're a true bigot and hypocrite if you continue supporting the worst crime ever against humanity!
And although these evil phenomenons exist outside islam it's only in islam that they are intended (now by OIC) to be state law. Just as they were at the origin of islam.
Klevius advice to girls/women: If you need to/want to get access to males and the world by being sex slaves, you don't need islam and Sharia to do so. Human Rights give you the right to do so. However, if you don't wanna be a sex slave, islamic Sharia always denies you your dignity of full freedom.
Sex segregation in court
It's a tell tale sign that a Google News search (US) on 'sex segregation Walmart' (at a time when the Walmart decision was all over the news) didn't produce a single hit. And this despite the fact that it's all about sex segregation!
When five monotheist fanatics in the US Supreme Court faced female Walmart workers' collective protest against sex segregation they, of course, had to dismiss it on the "individual" ground.
According to justice Antonin Scalia there could be no class that was discriminated against because there was no written policy covering them all. "The conceptual gap between an individual's discrimination claim and "the existence of a class of persons who have suffered the same injury,"...must be bridged by "[s]ignificant proof that an employer operated under a general policy of discrimination,"...Such proof is absent here. Wal-Mart's announced policy forbids sex discrimination, and the company has penalties for denials of equal opportunity. Respondents' only evidence of a general discrimination policy was a sociologist's analysis asserting that WalMart's corporate culture made it vulnerable to gender bias.
Klevius comment: "Corporate culture"? What utter sociological nonsense. But what about "the existence of a class of persons who have suffered the same injury,"...must be bridged by "[s]ignificant proof that an employer operated under a general policy of discrimination". Yes, he's right in that sex segregation lacks proof precisely because the 1948 Human Rights Declaration has already erased such legislative hindrance, i.e. what is also called 'de jure segregation'. But what is left is 'de facto segregation, i.e. voluntary segregation that is not sanctioned by law but by cultural attitudes.
The plaintiffs also cited the fact that promotion decisions are made at the individual level by managers as an engine of discrimination, but Scalia saw in it the opposite: "Wal-Mart has no testing procedure or other companywide evaluation method that can be charged with bias....The whole point of permitting discretionary decisionmaking is to avoid evaluating employees under a common standard." To the contrary, left to their own devices most managers in any corporation—and surely most managers in a corporation that forbids sex discrimination—would select sex-neutral, performance-based criteria for hiring and promotion that produce no actionable disparity at all.
Irin Carmon: So because individuals don't discriminate against a class of people who they think are less likely to be competent or committed — and nothing is on the books, systemic discrimination must not exist. Case closed!
Klevius comment: This is the Catch 22 of sex segregation. And the sociologist's argumentation was really laughable.If her sex has culturally hindered a girl from learning something that boys do, and if this capability later on makes the boy a better performer in a job setting, then it's sex segregation that has constituted the basis for the problem.
Female justice Ginsburg: "Women fill 70 percent of the hourly jobs in the retailer's stores but make up only 33 percent of management employees," and that "the plaintiffs' 'largely uncontested descriptive statistics' also show that women working in the company's stores 'are paid less than men in every region' and 'that the salary gap widens over time even for men and women hired into the same jobs at the same time." Those are a lot of individual decisions that have nothing to do with each other. Managers, like all humankind, may be prey to biases of which they are unaware. The risk of discrimination is heightened when those managers are predominantly of one sex, and are steeped in a corporate culture that perpetuates gender stereotypes."
According to Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy, systemic discrimination only exists when written down or with a distinct policy.
Anthony Sabino, a law professor at St. John’s University: “The Supreme Court’s ruling should surprise no one,” . “Class actions are predicated on ‘common questions.’ A class of millions of disgruntled employees is just too vast to present a handful of questions that are fundamental to each and every one of them,”
Klevius comment: Only segregation can produce a million of problems not shared by those they are segregated from!
US is the perfect place to sue the legislators for neglecting sex segregation
Klevius draft to a US law suit, not against WalMart but against that very same US body of legislation that some 100 years ago neglected women’s right to vote as fully human beings:
There’s an ongoing tutorial for sex and race segregation to be blamed for much evil of today. “Blacks”, and people from the “developing world” teach each other "blackism" or "colorism" and due racist hatred against “whites” (by the eager aid of islam). This in turn leads to difficulties because of segregation and overtly positive counter reactions from the "whites" which often obscure a more neutral and balanced communication as well as even feeding more racism in both groups.
When it comes to sex segregation the US legislators should long ago have treated girls/women as a group similar to the group of former slaves*. The social handicap of being brought up in a "feminine" way hence missing all those competences boys in general get and combine during their childhood and as teenagers means that their (women as adult) real value as employees for WalMart suffers.Not to have addressed this crucial issue is a legislative crime that has been made possible precisely because of a general stupid and often religiously motivated reluctance to see the real horror and unjustice of sex segregation.
Read Klevius, the net's foremost expert on sex segregation!.
* this group should actually include everyone who has the burden of a deprived background hanging over her/him.
