* Why should the US be allowed to declare military ownership of the space surrounding our Earth?
Super religious US could easily turn into a Saudi styled islamist theocracy under a future muslim leader.
Unlike EU, US lacks a defense against Human Rights violations - i.e. against islam.
US sharia vulnerabilities:
1. US still lacks full Human Rights equality for women, which fact leaves an open gate for islamic sharia.
2. Unlike US, EU has its own Human Rights body, the European Court of Human Rights. And unlike the Saudi based and steered OIC's "islamic human rights" (sharia), EU's are copied from the original anti-fascist, anti-racist and anti-sexist 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration. Human Rights* standards do not become enforceable in the United States unless and until they are implemented through local, state, and/or federal law. International courts and monitoring bodies hence lack the ability to enforce Human Rights in the US.
* Human Rights, the most sacred thing we have as humans, ought to be spelled with capital. It's appalling to see an evil ideology such as islam which doens't accept the most basic of Human Rights, is spelled with capital while the latter is not.
3 US can't keep up with Chinese technology. The same happened with Japan but because of US bigger size and extensive license imperialism it forced Japan to adapt (computing, military cooperation, moving Japanes companies in US etc.). However, China's potential is more than ten times bigger than that of Japan. So if US chooses to see China as an enemy instead of a partner, then the road is open for a cultural conflict where religion is used as an excuse against China. And for that purpose the muslim religion is comes politically handy.
The US isn't necessarily the "defender of the free world" anymore.
Peter Klevius wrote:
Sunday, August 25, 2013
Klevius Human Rights tutorial for ignorant muslims and their supporters
The evilness of islam explained in simple English
There are no Human Rights in islam - only islamic "human rights" (Sharia)
Because islamofascists and their supporters lack any credible argument in favor of islam, but 1,400 years of historical evidence* for the very opposite, they have to use the lowest of means to blur the picture of the evil medieval slave Leviathan. So, for example, are those who dare to criticize this pure evilness* Not to mention the extremely obscure origin of islam. According to Britain's (and the world's - after Klevius) foremost islam researcher when it comes to its extremely violent early stages, Hugh Kennedy, "Before Abd al-Malik (caliph 685-705) Mohammed (allegedly dead 632) is never mentioned on any official document whatsoever".
The main reason that Klevius considers himself the world's foremost expert on the origin of islam is that he (sadly) still happens to be the world's foremost expert on sex segregation/apartheid, i.e. what constitutes the basis for rapetivism and islam's survival (and which is the main reason OIC abandoned Human Rights in UN and replaced them with islamofascist Sharia).
Only truly pious (so called "extremist") muslims are truly evil. However, all non-extremist (secularized) "muslims" aren't necessarily good either if they knowingly use the evilness of islam for their own satisfaction. Only ignorant "muslims" can be excused.
While contemplating the pic below, do consider the inevitable fact that islam (in any meaningful form) doesn't approve of our most basic universal Human Rights! That's the main pillar of the problem, dude!
So those muslims who don't fit in either category need to face Erdogan, OIC and Human Rights violating Sharia - or admit they are no real muslims.
Klevius comment: I for one cannot see the slightest space for political islam in a democratic society based on the belief in Human Rights. Can you?
Introduction
What is religion?
First of all, being religious is an exception. The average world citizen doesn't believe in the Judeo-Christian/islamic "god"*. And the reason we hear so much about "religion" is the same as after 9/11, namely its bad consequences.
* The belief in a "creator" presumes a "creation". Or, in other words, the creation of a "creator" necessitates "creation". However, outside "monotheistic" mythology, the most common view is and has always been, as pointed out by Klevius (1992) that there has always been something from which later shapes emerge (just like Eve emerged out of Adam). However, the main point of "monotheisms" has from scratch been racism and sexism, i.e. in opposition to the enlightened view of every human's equal right no matter of sex etc., (just as we have it in traffic).
Based on historical and contemporary evidence, religion - if with this word we mean Judaism (the chosen people) and its branch Christianity and its tail branch islam - is certainly not " community cohesion" but rather "community confusion" when mirrored against the main idea of Human Rights.
There are three main reasons for people to become religious:
1 They are born into a religion, and if they are muslims it's considered the gravest of crimes (apostasy) to leave islam.
2 A religious person feels a need to defend actions s/he cannot logically approve of without the aid of a "god".
3 A religious person feels a need for forgiveness, and due to the above (2) an other human won't do because s/he might use logic. "God", however, can always be excused by arguing that no human can understand "god's" decisions/actions.
From a sociological point of view the reason why the above (2) problem even arises in the first place is because of a lack of continuous updating of crucial and basic relations. This in turn happens when families etc. are scattered in time and space due to work, school, separate activities etc. and when the lack of updating causes misunderstandings/opportunities that are misused for personal gains.
Adding to religious confusion is its deliberate sex apartheid which also stays in direct opposition to the Human Rights view that one's sex ought not to be used as an excuse for altering or denying rights.
However, by sticking to honest logic and a Human Rights philosophy (equality) all of this can easily be avoided.
Life´s a passionate faith in a project of uncertainty whereas e.g. Islam is godless (Koran is "god's" words and the final reporter is dead) misuse of power and life denial. Arbitrarily giving away parts of your life to a "god" outside the world is partial suicide (and in Islam's case also feeds earthly totalitarianism/fascism/racism/sexism)! (for more read Klevius definition of religion)
Is she Sharia compliant?
If she is Sharia compliant then she lacks Human Rights precisely based on the same logic that made OIC introduce the so called 'Cairo declaration on human rights in islam' (Sharia) which now, via UN, constitutes the framework for everyone wanting to call him/herself a muslim and, as a consequence, a Human Rightsophobe.
Turkish Human Rightsophobic conference wants to discuss how to censor media and make criticism of islam a crime all over the world
This fanatic* muslim and his muslim world organization (OIC) is the most dangerous threat to Human Rights
* who dreams about a Turk led muslim world empire under Sharia, just as Hitler dreamed about a Grossdeutschland. And who blinks the miserable failures of the Turk led Ottoman slave empire which fell in the deepest decay after West had abolished slavery for good.
Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu, the Egyptian born Turkish Fuhrer of OIC (based in Saudi Arabia) will make the opening
speeches of the
“International Conference on Islamophobia: Law and Media” to take
place in Istanbul on Sept. 12 and 13, along with Directory General of
Directorate General of Press and Information Murat Karakaya and
Deputy Prime Minister Bülent Arınç. Other islamofascism supporting Human Rightsophobic speakers include
John L. Esposito, Norman Gary
Finkelstein, Marwan Mohammed, Nathan Lean, Saied Reza Ameli, Halim
Rane, Stephen Sheehi and Ibrahim Salama.
Klevius clarifying comment: Recent internal Turkish criticism against Ihsanoglu is due to the split between Ottomans and Arabs. Ihsanoglu is half Arab and loyal to the Saudis who wanted Muslim Brotherhood erased. That's why he kept silent when the Egyptian army killed the brothers.
Common Misconception about Basic Human Rights and islam/Sharia
It seems that no matter what the
ideology of islam causes, it's never islam if the consequences are
unwanted (Klevius 2001).
Islam sneaked in on an oiled
post-colonialist commerce sold to the public as a combination of
“guilt”, ”compassion” and negative “white middle age man”*
rhetoric. Of course
* The concept of the “white middle
age man” has always been popular, not only among feminists, young
“revolutionaries” and “colored middle age men”, but also
among the “white middle age men” themselves because by
criticizing the “white middle age man” one lifts oneself above
one's own category, much like “true muslims” do compared to
“secularized muslims” (or vise versa).
OIC's Cairo declaration and Egypt's constitution
Zaid
Al-Ali is a senior advisor on constitution building at International
IDEA: The proposed changes (of Egypt's constitution) will not have any impact in the
immediate term on the way in which Egyptians live their lives, but
they remove a tool that hard-line Islamists might have tried to use
in the future to impose a harsher vision of society. It is worth
noting however that the technical committee maintained article 2,
which imposes the principles of Islamic sharia as the main source of
legislation in the country. It also kept the distinction that was
first introduced in 2012 between "heavenly religions"
(Islam, Christianity, and Judaism) and the rest, whose right to
practice rituals is curbed. The technical committee also proposed to
reestablish the ban on religious parties, but also indicated that
political parties cannot "undermine public order," an
incredibly vague term that is subject to abuse (article 54).
In terms of women's rights, the 1971 and the 2012 constitutions were both not particularly generous. They both included vague references to morality, to traditional family values, and to women's "obligations towards family and society." The technical committee, which was dominated by men, has essentially maintained the same wording and the same principles in relation to this issue. Women are therefore equal to men within the limits of Islamic sharia, the state is still responsible for protecting the "original values of Egyptian families" (article 10), and the state will also still provide assistance to women to satisfy their "obligations towards family and society" (article 11). This is precisely the wording that caused so many liberals to denounce the Muslim Brotherhood-led process in 2012.
Peter Klevius: "The state will provide assistance to women to satisfy
their obligations towards family and society" (article 11
Egypt const.). Ugly sexism wrapped in nice wording.
Women are equal to men ONLY “within the limits of Islamic sharia” because they have "obligations towards family and society" (article 11 Egypt const.).
"Heavenly religions"*
(Islam, Christianity, and Judaism) and the rest (article 2 Egypt
const.). A triple stage racism similar to when black supremacist racists
in Nation of islam divide the world in the good blacks, the inferior
non-blacks, and the evil whites.
* However, apart from the racist fact
that people who don't want to belong to the "heavenly religions"
are deemed less worthy, among the "heavenly religions"
islam is always the “only true religion” because the other
"heavenly religions" have got it all wrong. This fact must certainly be
connected to the problems Jews and Christians continuously face in
muslim countries and even elsewhere - compare e.g. the horrifying case
of Malmö in Sweden. The Swedish newspaper Skånska Dagbladet reported
that attacks on Jews in Malmo totaled 79 in 2009, about twice as many as
the previous year, according to police statistics. In March 2010,
Fredrik Sieradzk of the Jewish community of Malmö told Die Presse, an
Austrian Internet publication, that Jews are being "harassed and
physically attacked" by "people from the Middle East. In December 2010,
the Jewish human rights organization Simon Wiesenthal Center issued a
travel advisory concerning Sweden, advising Jews to express "extreme
caution" when visiting the southern parts of the country due to an
increase in verbal and physical harassment of Jewish citizens in the
city of Malmö. And so on. See more on Wikipedia
and do note the usual "only a small number of muslims are jihadists"
but never "an even much smaller proportion of Swedes are Nazis".
Moreover, all Swedes are Swedes whereas all muslims aren't necessarily
pious muslims at all, which fact alters the proportionality even more.
Whereas Human Rights allow you to lead your life as you wish without necessitating others to do so, Sharia does the opposite
So why do you suffer from such a grave form of Human Rightsophobia? Why do you want all other women to be restricted just because you yourself want to be restricted?! What disturbs you so much that you want to impose your way of life on others - or, alternatively, in a racist manner despise them?
ARTICLE
6 in OIC's Cairo declaration:
(a) Woman is equal to man in human dignity, and has
rights to enjoy as well as duties to perform; she has her own civil
entity and financial independence, and the right to retain her name
and lineage.
(b) The husband is responsible for the support and welfare of the family.
(b) The husband is responsible for the support and welfare of the family.
ARTICLE 7:
(a) As of the moment of birth, every child has rights due from the parents, society and the state to be accorded proper nursing, education and material, hygienic and moral care. Both the fetus and the mother must be protected and accorded special care.
(b) Parents and those in such like capacity have the right to choose the type of education they desire for their children, provided they take into consideration the interest and future of the children in accordance with ethical values and the principles of the Shari'ah
ARTICLE
22 in OIC's Cairo declaration:
(a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion
freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of
the Shari'ah.
(b) Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari'ah
(c) Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith.
(b) Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari'ah
(c) Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith.
Two too common islamofascist statements supported by Saudi based OIC (all muslims world organization) and its Sharia declaration (also called Cairo declaration on human rights in islam):
1 The modern democracies of today have
not yet attained what the Faith of Islam ordained fourteen and half
centuries ago.
Peter Klevius: Very pleased to hear
that. And I truly hope they never will.
2 Islam allows complete freedom of
though and expression, provided that it does not involve spreading
that which is harmful to individuals and the society at large. For
example, the use of abusive or offensive language in the name of
criticism is not allowed.
Peter Klevius: Criticism of islam is,
according to OIC's Sharia, ALWAYS abusive and offensive no matter how
it's worded!
Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig's (a supporter
of islamofascist Sharia) presentation of islamic "human rights"
(i.e. Sharia) offers a wonderful opportunity for Peter Klevius to
really point out how islam (Sharia) is diametrically opposite the
real Human Rights (also called Negative Human Rights because of its
lack of positive impositions in basic rights):
Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: Though the
influence of political motives, rivalries, and deliberations has made
complicated the correct formulation of this problem, but this should
not prevent thinkers and genuine humanists from snooping into this
problem and ultimately obtaining a solution (Klevius: Yes, I do!). In
the West, it is only since the last two hundred years or so that
human right became a subject of eminence among the political and
social issues of Western society and an issue of fundamental
significance.
Peter Klevius: Please Mirza, you can't be that stupid! You're as
far you can get from the truth (perhaps not too surprising
considering you're trying to defend the biggest lie in the history of
the world). The process started long before islam even existed and
eventually developed into the 1948 Human Rights Declaration which
rests on an unbeatable logic that islam has never been even close to.
On the contrary, islam and its Sharia (in whatever form) always
restricts basic (negative*) Human Rights via (positive*) islamic
impositions.
* Whereas positive rights oblige or
open up for action/imposition, negative rights oblige inaction. If
you don't threaten the rights of others (as muslims do if they follow
Sharia) you shouldn't be bothered. Just as you shouldn't be bothered
by the police unless an offense against the law is suspected.
Negative rights include freedom of
speech and expression, freedom from violent crime, freedom of belief
(as long it doesn't affect Human Rights of others), habeas corpus, a
fair trial, freedom from slavery etc.
The right to private property has no
direct (only indirect – the right not to be robbed of one's
property) connection with negative Human Rights.
A negative right is a right not to be
subjected to an action of another person, religious group, a
government etc.
Moreover, this also includes
legislators, i.e. that a law that contradicts Human Rights cannot be
considered lawful.
And for those who try to circumvent the
logic of negative Human Rights by referring to enforcement or laws,
you don't understand that Human Rights are not laws but the very
basis for legislation.
How far the law can restrict Human
Rights is a matter between us humans but balanced by the underpinning
idea of negative Human Rights in much the same way as traffic rules
are tailored for the actual reality – not any specific ideology.
Traffic rules should be as smooth and democratic as possible for the
purpose of flow, safety etc. just as laws should be as little
intrusive on freedom as possible.
Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: During the last
few decades this prominence reached its peak in the West with the
formation of UN after the Second World War and the subsequent
drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but we Muslims
know it very well that if the Western World and the Western
civilization have paid attention to this matter in the recent
centuries, Islam has dealt with it from all the various aspects of
Human Rights many centuries back.
Peter Klevius: Is a slave an equal? And is a muslim woman equal
to muslim man as according to Human Rights? Apart from paillaging, islam
has sponged on slaves and women for 1400 years!
Moreover, islam is an Arabic religion and Arabic islam is considered
superior to islam experienced via other languages. On top of that you
have the Sunnia Shia divide - not to mention all other branches
considered inferior or blasphemous by other muslims.
Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: The first thing
that we find in Islam in the correlation of basic human rights is
that it lays down some rights for man as a human being. In other
words, it means that every man whether he belongs to Muslim state or
not, whether he is a believer or unbeliever, whether he lives in some
forest or is found in some desert, whatever be the case, he has some
basic human rights just because he is a human being, which should be
recognized by every Muslim.
Peter Klevius: Well, that doesn't make any sense at all, does it.
Either you mean he (what about she) has to comply (as a Dhimmi) with
Sharia or he is a blasphemous infidel.
Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: The Security of
Life and Property:
The first and the foremost basic right
is the right to live and respect for human life. The Holy Quran says:
“Whosoever kills a human being (without any reason) manslaughter,
or corruption on earth, it is though he had killed all mankind”.
Peter Klevius: Why did you put the most important part "without any
reason" within brackets? Not complying with Sharia, or perhaps not being
a true muslim, or being an infidel standing in the way for islam, or
just an infidel who happens to have the wrong passport, belief etc. may
be such a reason. Not to mention the reason the 9/11 muslim terrorists
had to murder innocent people in the US just because they felt islam was
under attack from the West.
Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: The Protection
of Honor:
The Quran does not allow one’s
personal honor to be abused: “O you, who believe, do not let one
set of people make fun of other set. Do not defame one another. Do
not insult by using nicknames. Do not backbite”
Peter Klevius: No wonder muslims are over sensitive - not the least towards each others. Just check the news!
Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: The Right to Protest against Tyranny:
This is mentioned clearly in the Quran:
“God does not love evil talk in public unless it is by someone who
has been injured thereby”. This was acknowledged by Abu
Bakr, who said in his very first address: “Cooperate with me when I
am right, and correct me when I commit error. Obey me as long as I
follow the commandments of Allah and His Prophet, but turn away from
me when I deviate”.
Peter Klevius: Indeed, reminds me of the "Arab spring" and all those muslims who fight all those muslims who have "deviated".
Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: Freedom of
Expression:
Allah gave Adam liberty of free choice
between right and wrong. It is the same reference that Allah almighty
says in Quran: “Then He showed him what is wrong for him and what
is right for him”. Islam allows complete freedom of though and
expression, provided that it does not involve spreading that which is
harmful to individuals and the society at large. For example, the use
of abusive or offensive language in the name of criticism is not
allowed.
Peter Klevius: So how could criticism against islam under Sharia not be "abusive"?!
Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: Equality before
the Law:
Islam gives it citizens the right to
absolute and complete equality in the eyes of the law. According to
Islamic concept of justice, absolutely no one is above the law. This
point was made in a very dramatic fashion by the Prophet himself. One
day, a women belonging to a high and noble family was arrested in
connection with a theft. The case was brought to the Prophet with the
recommendation that she be spare the mandated punishment for theft
(amputation of the hand). The Prophet replied: “The nations that
lived before you were destroyed by God because they punished the
common man for their offenses and let their dignitaries go unpunished
for their crimes. I swear by Him Who hold my life in His had that
even if Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad, had committed this crime, I
would have amputated her hand.”
Peter Klevius: These fairy tales are laughable, not only because
they are without any historical connection (not even mentioned in the
Koran), but, more importantly, because women are not even close to
equality with men in before the Law (Sharia). Moreover and again,
"before Abd al-Malik (caliph 685-705) Mohammed (allegedly dead 632) is
never mentioned on any official document whatsoever..."
Peter Klevius: The modern
democracies may rightly argue that the world is indebted to them for
establishing
the equality and freedom. These countries could take the credit for
introducing Human Rights and abolishing slavery (which is still
sanctioned in islam) and abolishing judicial discrimination of women
(except for in the US*). However, instead it seems that these countries
try to do their utmost to downplay these important achievements, and
instead they are supporting the very opposite.
Peter Klevius wrote:
Tuesday, December 20, 2016
In Peter Klevius Yule* sex tutorial Geri Jewell reveals that "the denial was that the passion David had sexually I couldn't equal", and Michelle Thomson that when her friend raped her "it wasn't sexual".
Klevius: All women are gay*. However, not every woman has realized it as yet...
Women, from a male point of view, have wonderful assess - just like feamale dogs from a male dog's perspective. And not only that, women have the potential to reproduce. And when women are receptive there are usually no lack of providers. So women should really not have anything to complain about in this respect. Other than, of course sex segregation/apartheid.The sperm has to be attracted to the egg in some way. That's biological 'heterosexual attraction'. Testosterone is an important hormone in this task. However, the measurements are not easily compared between men and women because labs tend to (why?!) state the percentage of free testosterone for men, but give a measurement in pg/ml for women. Or the male measurements will be in ng/dl requiring a mathematical conversion for direct comparison to the "normal" range of the opposite sex. The level readings between men and women are so vastly different because the number represents a percentage of the TOTAL testosterone. Women naturally start with a much lower total amount, so 2.5% of 40ng/dl is going to be much less than 2.5% of 800ng/dl in a man.
However, even 20 times more Testosterone doesn't mean a man is necessitated to sex - merely that he is always potentially ready for sex (at least Klevius - the "extremely normal" - is and has always been since his adolescence). In other words, Klevius proposes that we lay to rest the old imposing "dog sex" culture and instead all treat each other as humans, not as sexual beings. However, to achieve this we need to teach young girls (and boys) about the only real difference between the sexes, namely heterosexual attraction, so it won't be confused with sexual acts (which people should of course be allowed to perform without any other restrictions than what the law says added with full and informed consent - just like most other civilized behavior. Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, we need to end the mostly male "push for sex" culture, i.e. dog behavior. Asexuality should be the default state of interaction.
And to avoid unnecessary confusion re. Klevius sex analysis, do understand that unlike physical reproduction in the female body (which is completely independent from the male one), heterosexual attraction needs both sexes although the female one is in this respect the passive one. At this point someone (especially women) might have problem reconciling this with the fact that many women do enjoy sexual acts without possessing the male type gaze for HSA. Klevius then repeats that although all women are gay, not all women do or enjoy sex, which fact should be respected equally as respecting that Klevius has never needed drugs or alcohol for being happy or having good sex, nor has he ever deliberately thrown white pepper around just for the pleasure of sneezing (rest calm, Klevius won't ever criticize you if you do).
And you, if you think this analysis is just Klevius opinion then you haven't understood it at all - read and think again. It's the same logic as 2+2=4.
1 HSA isn't sexual acts per se but a biologically inplanted interest for being attracted to having sex with females. Whereas dogs seem to be more excited by the smell of a female dog's pheromones, human males seem to be more interested in the shape of the female body. In fact, analytically there's no difference between gay sex and hetero sex if HSA isn't a factor (however, it would be enough to term it HSA sex if the male at least think about a physical woman - compare e.g. heterosexual men unknowingly being attracted to males disguised as women).
2 Males have way more potential urge for sex than women because of some 20 times more testosterone. And please, don't confuse this with what Klevius calls "rubbing sex", i.e. just stimulation of the genitals without HSA (compare the case of white pepper and sneezing).
3 Being pregnant and having a baby has nothing to do with sex segregation at all because it's entirely a woman affair.
4 This means that all women, incl. asexual and achild ones ought to be treated equal with males. And as a consequence, this analysis also benefits men who want to get rid of their macho masculinity label as well as those who unnecessarily feel they're lacking one.
Peter Klevius drawing 'Woman' from 1979:
Whereas classic sex segregation (read more Klevius to better understand the concept) is imposed by circumstances, religious/cultural sex segregation is what is imposed on girls/women even when it's no longer necessary. In the latter case women have been held back by men to an extent where incompetency outside "women's sphere" increasingly became obvious. As a consequence grown up women started internalizing this incompetency as "femininity" although the only true femininity is defined by heterosexual attraction (read Klevius because you'll find nothing anywhere else so far - sad isn't it).
Peter Klevius 1979 poem 'My Friend':
en beröring
ord som diffusa budbärare
speglar en glimt av din tanke
i chifferform redan förvrängda
förrän de blivit sagda
av mig och din förväntan
min vän
A rough translation for those poor uneducated individuals lacking Swedish, the origin of the English language (oh, perhaps you were unaware of English being a Scandinavian* language - my deepest condolences):
* The oldest Swedish is Old Nordic. To call it "old Norse" wrongly associates it with Norway and Norwegian, both of which weren't around as entities until after the Viking age. As Klevius has always said: North Germanic, and probably Germanic per se, was a late IE outcome between proto-Uralic and PIE (i.e. what Klevius use to call "old Finland-Swedish").
A perception (see/se, track/tryck, i.e. see-in-track/synintryck)
a touch
words as diffuse messengers (words/ord, bid-bearers/budbärare)
mirror a glimpse of your thought (think/ing, tank/e)
in cipher form already distorted (fore wronged/förvrängd/a)
before they've been said (sagda)
by me and your expectation (fore waiting/förväntan)
my friend ( min frände, min vän)
Women on sex and work
Actress and comedian Geri Jewell, who has cerebral palsy (witch has not affected her intelligence - only motorics), reveals in a new memoir, I’m Walking As Straight As I Can (alluding to her a-heterosexuality as well as her motoric disability) how much she struggled growing up with a disability and how she wrestled with her "sexuality" (or rather lack of it), and reveals she is a "lesbian", which is a code word for not possessing male heterosexual attraction genes nor same level of testosterone.
Geri Jewell was the first disabled actor to take a lead role in a sitcom and she's gone on to challenge ideas about what is possible. She describes the pressures on her to go into a job suited to her disability and what made her rebel against such restricting expectations
Peter Klevius: Her rebellion against such restricting expectations as created by cultural sex segregation is just stunning - although her escape under an equally sex segregated cover ("lesbian", "gay" etc.) is not. Why didn't she claim her Human Rights as described in the 1948 Universal Human Rights Declaration against fascism, which gives her the right to lead her life as she wishes without having to "explain" it. Or is it because she is an American, and the US Constitution still doesn't give women full equality with men - hence necessitating labels?
Klevius wrote:
Sunday, September 20, 2015
Islam, OIC - and Eurabia
Europe's fascist past reborn via religion
As long as fascism is called good - how could we ever stop it? But Klevius, as a critical European ("islamophobe" if you like) feels extremely embarrassed in front of those true refugees escaping islam and hoping for protection under Western Human Rights. Sorry!Tuesday, March 8, 2016
Klevius (the world's foremost authority on sex apartheid - sad isn't it) to all the world's women on women's day: Here's your main enemy exemplified as a timid "mosque mouse"!
Sharia islam is never good for your Human Rights if you are a woman. But willing whores and deceptive but off the point talks may well lure many women still.
But the more important question is: Can you as a woman face your own sex apartheid history fully?
Update: Learn more about heterosexual attraction and sex segregation/apartheid here.
The origin of islam was plundering and raping booty jihad along Jewish slave trade routes.
Here's an approximate map of Judaism just before the origin of islam.
And below an approximate map of the violent muslim colonization in the foot steps of the Jewish slave trade routes.
Except for Khazaria, Jews were more business orientated than eager to waive swords compared to their copycats the Arab Bedouins. However, without wealthy and influential Jews leading the bloodthirsty and illiterate Bedouins (compare Ibn-Khaldun's description) and paving the way for the Arab looters (compare how the Jews used Turkic people in Khazaria in pretty much the same manner) the "Arab conquest" would have quickly dried out in the Arabian sand.
Dear reader. When reading Klevius analysis of the origin of islam, do always keep in mind the following important facts:
1 There was no Koran - only some Jewish/Christian text manipulations.
2 There was no Muhammad - only the old Jewish Messias (the rescuer/saver/leader) myth. Muhammad as described by muslims is a later invention snd doesn't appear in any official documents whatsoever before Malik.
3 Conventional "descriptions" of the "Arab conquest" are impossible and leave historians "amazed". Instead looting, booty, and sex slaves were the main incentives for the Bedouins. What was new was a more tight racist system of "we-and-the-other" which hindered (for a time) hindered internal divisions. On top of this was the Dhimmitude taxation system under the sword.
4 Understanding these point is also understanding that islam originated as a parasite and therefore never functioned as inspiration in itself for innovations etc. This is why every islamic colony has ended in bachwardness. Africa is an example of how a parasitic ideology was able to drain a whole continent.
Klevius will tell you much more later. Keep tuned and excited!
A little, timidly nonsense speaking Swedish "reformist" Shia muslim "professor"* who rides on the non-muslim world's longing for "nice muslims".
* Klevius uses 'professor' only re. scientific researchers. Mixing in a "god" isn't science.
Whereas few women believe in the Islamic State, some morons still believe in the oxymoron "reformed islam". To understand the impossibility of a civilized islam one only has to go to its evil origin (as Klevius has done since 9/11). And if you for some strange reason don't want to listen to the world's foremost expert on sex apartheid - and therefore also islam -just take a closer lookj to what BBC and others don't want to talk about.
And you may laugh this Saudi billionaire hoodlum away as a Saudi joke but then you miss the very point, namely that:
1 OIC's sharia includes both the Saudi sharia as well as any other sharia that fulfills the lofty definition of the Cairo declaration.
2 The main reason (except for protecting the Saudi and other muslim nations medieval systems) for OIC's sharia declaration was that the 1948 Universal* Human Rights Declaration gives women full equality with men, which fact made it impossible for islam in whatever sharia form.
* There's a dumb view presented for even dumber people that the UN declaration was "Western made" and therefore biased. Nothing could be more wrong. The paper and the pen may have been "Western made" but the content is from scratch made deliberately "non-Western" i.e. universal. Educate yourself!
Unlike many other forms of sexism, muslim sexism is pure racism: Muslim women in every single variant of possible sharia islam are always treated as "the other".
A Shia muslim that is on the extreme fringe of Shia muslims and not even considered a muslim by the majority of the world's Sunni muslims, incl, most muslim so called "scholars".
A pathetic and disgusting Human Rights denier who "accuses" basic and universal Human Rights for being bad "because they came out of the West". Ok, cars etc. also came out of the West and yes, he could blame them for some pollution etc. and call it "post-colonialism". But how on earth could you possibly deny the logic of the negative (basic) Human Rights, or deny them because they "came out of the West". Well the reason "they came out of the West" is that the islam contaminated parts of the world didn't give them a chance to come out there.
So is he an outright lier trying to camouflage islam's incompatibility with the most basic of Human Rights- or is he, like so many muslims, incredibly dumb/ignorant/brainwashed?
Mohammad Fazlhashemi, professor in islamism (aka "islamic theology") and filosophy (sic)* at Uppsala University in Sweden: There are some essential norms in the Koran that can be used to protect human dignity in different ways depending on time and cisrumstances.
* As Wittgenstein already pointed out, philosophy is a difficult discipline even without trying to squeeze in a God scheme in it. And even more so when the "God" is totally out of reach and only exists as differing human "interpretations".
Klevius: "Protecting" women from having access to full Human Rights? And "human dignity" should be read "muslim male dignity" added by the important "who is interpreted as being a true muslim" which could, as we all know, vary quite a lot among muslims. Moreover, what about the dignity of non-muslims? Either you let muslims "interpret" it or you skip islam alltogether, because here lies the real difference between Human Rights that gives every Atheist or whatever person (even muslims) equal rights, and sharia islam which openly violates these rights, as can be seen, for example, in Saudi based and steered OIC's (all muslim's main world organization) official abandoning of Human Rights in UN. Mohammad Fazlhashemi, professor in islamism (aka "islamic theology") and racist/sexist "muslimn filosophy" can't possibly be unaware of OIC, the muslim world's biggest and most important institution, can he!
Mohammad Fazlhashemi: That islam is good can be proved by comparing it to the illiterate Arab speaking bedouins.
Klevius: Is that really a good enough standard as reference?
Mohammad Fazlhashemi: There's no logical connection between a muslim's belief and a muslim's rights.
Klevius: Apart from the fact that most muslims completely disagree with you, why do you then keep asking for muslim's rights? Why should muslim's have special rights because of their "beliefs"?
And here's this small minded muslim reformist's Shia source:
Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari: I do not call for a separation of politics and religion. Of course there should be cooperation between them.
Klevius: Cooperation between Human Rights violating sharia and politicians representing Human Rights doesn't sound very reformist, does it.
From an interview with Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari (spiced with Klevius comments): The way of life in Medina and Mecca was quite simple. But what took place then cannot be a model for today's world. Nowadays, Muslims live in intelligent social systems, in which there is a wide diversity of institutions. This requires us to develop a proper plan with the aid of reason. This is not something that can be derived from the Koran.
Klevius: At least he seems to admit that the slaughtering of all the Jews in Medina wasn't a good "model". Or did he mean something else? The muslim booty and sex jihad?
"During its Golden Age, Islam was known for highly controversial and pluralistic debates. Today, the reality in many Muslim countries is quite different. There is little freedom of thought.. What can be done to promote more freedom of thought in Muslim countries?"
Klevius: The "golden age" was just the same as today, i.e. muslims sponging on resources they haven't themselves created. Slaves back then - oil and Western welfare today. More than 90% of the economy in Andalus was based on slavery - fully in line with islam's original enslavement formula: "Infidels" (i.e. non-muslims and women) could be enslaved because Muhammad had heard Allah (via an angel though) saying so.
Shabestari: Freedom of expression all depends on whether a people has politically developed to such an extent that it understands what freedom is. Then it will demand freedom of expression. Even now there is a great tendency towards freedom in Islamic countries. Yet, why it hasn't truly developed is another question. This has to do with political hurdles and the system of government in these countries. It is more of a cultural difficulty than a difficulty related to Islam or religion in general. Unfortunately, this is a retrograde cultural reality.
Klevius: Admittedly Hillary Clinton's sharia campaign against freedom of expression represents "a retrograde cultural reality". However, how could it possibly not be directly connected to islam itself when she works for the world's biggest and most fundamental islam representing organization, the Saudi based and steered OIC?!
"The Arab protest movements are associated by many people, both within these countries and also abroad, with the hope for democracy. Others (muslims) say that Islam fundamentally forbids democracy."
Klevius: Yet it's all islam and muslims - no matter what it stands for. As a consequence it encompasses both the most evil of muslims as well as those "muslims" who can't be distinguished from non-muslims other than by name. And this state of affairs is of course most handy for the most evil of muslims.
No comments:
Post a Comment