If Nationalsocialism (aka "Nazism") was behind the Germans' atrocities - then why isn't islam behind muslims' atrocities?

Islam took the opportunity for delivering its evil when a Nairobi shopping center arranged a day especially for children!

BBC: "It's not because of islam but because of unemployment in Somalia!"

Pamela Geller (a Jew): Jihad in Kenya: Muslim Group holds non-Muslims hostage after massacre in Kenyan mall siege, 39 dead, 150 injured.

"All Muslims leave... we only want to kill non-Muslims": Jihadists massacre at least 22 in Kenyan shopping mall after releasing anyone who could prove they were Islamic by reciting a prayer

Kenya has been a beacon for democracy in Africa. But Africa has come under the boot of Islam under a US President who is aiding and abetting the global jihad. Obama aided Islamic supremacists in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria. And Isamic supremacists have been waging a vicious jihad in Mali, Nigeria, Sudan, Ethiopia, Tanzania ... the whole continent. This is the horror of Islam.

They vow, boast even, they mean to conquer the world.

Klevius: However, BBC keeps repeating its hollow and empty monot(heist)onous and thoroughky dangerous lie: "Muslims stay together with non-muslims". The majority of Germans stood with the Nazis, remeber!

A man with a Christian first name but a muslim-sounding surname who managed to escape the attackers by putting his thumb over his first name on his ID. However, an Indian man standing next to him who was asked for the name of Muhammad's mother was shot dead when he was unable to answer.

Al-Shabab says the African Union forces are invaders stopping their legitimate vision of creating an islamic state.

Klevius comment: Arabic islam invaded and destroyed Africa inside and out during 1400 years of Koranic slavery and genocides!

Pamela Geller (a Jew): Islamic Jew-hatred is a religious imperative!

Belgium,  a country where Jews cannot walk down the street with a kippah, Star of David, or any symbol of Judaism without getting beaten to a pulp. I suspect that part of the reason Jew-hating Europeans embraced Islam and the sharia is because Islamic Jew-hatred is a religious imperative. So instead of being your everyday, run of the mill Jew-hating nazi, now they are righteous.

Klevius (an Atheist): Islamic hatred is a religious imperative! Islam is a hate crime - the worst ever seen on the planet!

In fact, islam is so deeply evil so it doesn't fit under any Human Rights conventions - no matter how many amendments and/or exceptions are made. This is why the world's biggest and most powerful muslim organization (Saudi based OIC) via UN has declared (the so called Cairo declaration) that it has abandoned Human Rights and replaced them with islamofascist Sharia! As a consequence many basic Human Rights now constitute criminal offenses for muslims.

BBC: "our* correspondent in Maaloula has seen statues in churches which were left undamaged". Klevius: Really!

* As BBC is extremely biased in favor of Sunni Saudi islamists in these matters, it would make no sense if their chosen correspondent wouldn't be equally biased.

The muslim genocide of Christians, Jews etc in muslim Arab land

Western, Saudi, Qatar etc sponsored violence in Syria

With Obama's & Co warmongering rhetoric against Syria, prominent Christian figures in Mideast have warned Christians about the extreme danger that islam and its Saudi supported Sunni muslims pose.

The leader of Lebanon’s Free Patriotic Movement, MP Michel Aoun accuses the West of encouraging the collective displacement of Christians by backing the Al-Qaeda affiliated Al-Nusra Front.

Possibly all the Christians living in Maaloula have now fled. Bloudan next?

Christian scholars and others accuse Washington and some European governments of plotting to displace them in exchange for oil and gas.

According to Greek Melkite Patriarch Gregory Laham III, witnesses told that when the rebels moved into Maaloula they threatened Christians with death unless they converted to islam.

Some Christians who fled wrote to the US Congress to alert them of the horror of the attack. They said that members of the Islamist Al-Nusra Front, looted "monasteries and churches, removing sacred images as they went on, ordering residents to convert to islam to save their life".

"I saw people wearing Al-Nusra headbands who started shooting at crosses," one resident said to the AFP news agency. One insurgent "put a pistol to the head of my neighbour and forced him to convert to islam by obliging him to repeat ‘there is no God but [Allah].' Afterwards they joked, ‘He's one of ours now'".

Free Syrian Army muslim rebels and the muslim al-Nusra islamists (both supported by Obama, the Saudis, Qatar etc) have all the time been fighting together against Assad and his government forces. So also in Maaloula where Christians have been forced to flee after having been murdered, and intimidated (incl. forced conversion to islam) by muslims*.

* Yes, idiot! They were muslims, period. And this fact isn't altered by there being some so called "moderate" muslims in the world. On the contrary, this kind of islam excuse is the worst of bigoted hypocrisy. Eating the cake while still having it, i.e. Islam is what connects all muslims,dude!


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?

What is it you should see behind the islamofascist smile? 1400 years of Koranic genocides and rapetivism?

Islam is an evil ideology, and this evilness is directly connected to its violent and totalitarian origin. And the sooner the world gets its facts right about islam (instead of the all time ongoing and misleading islam propaganda fueled by oil money, racism and sexism) the sooner islam induced criminality/atrocities will decrease in a world with already enough atrocities without islam.

BBC's extreme bigotry/hypocrisy knows about no borders - others than those protecting the evil deeds of the Sunni islamofascists

Excusing islam from its consequences

Not only is BBC a disgusting institution in that it harbors exactly the same low moral as do the bankers, media people etc they choose to criticize. But while BBC presents itself as the servant of the public, the truth is something quite the contrary, i.e. a misleading propaganda institution to a large extent steered from some of the most despicable of islamofascist countries. This is why BBC so eagerly defends islam and puts brackets on islam for the purpose of sheltering islam from its own consequences - i.e. from the very origin and soul of itself.

Two recent and horrifying examples of BBC-s total lack of compassion for people while defending the world's by far most evil ideology throughout 1400 years:

Example 1: BBC tries to convince its listeners that islam is innocent in the case of muslim sex groomers (i.e. sex slavers - as you do know by now islam and its Koran clearly sanctions sex slavery as well as conventional slavery - in fact, the very essence of islam). BBC does this by presenting "findings" from a UK muslim women's organization (sic) which points out that also Pakistani girls were among the victims of the widespread sex enslavement of young girls in the UK.

Klevius slaughtering of this utterly pathetic, hypocritical and bigoted argument: According to islam, secularized* girls are no real muslims anymore! These girls had actually escaped islam (represented by their families, their imam and their "honor") and hence constituted a legitimate target for being made sex slaves "possessed by your right hand" as it's clearly stated in the Koran.

* How "secularized" may greatly vary among different muslim "communities" but one thing is certain - a muslim girl/woman can never be free and equal to a muslim man! A muslim girl/woman is denied Human Rights (compare OIC's Cairo declaration for all the world's muslims)!

And other excuses, such as "but muslims obey the laws of the country" are just forced temporal exceptions and equally pathetic and worth nothing in the light of how islamic Sharia sees girls' and women's Human Rights as defamatory against islam.

Read more about this disgusting sex segregation furthest down on this posting.

Klevius new word 'rapetivism' today got 34,900 hits on Google.

Example 2: BBC's extreme push for a violent attack on the Syrian people. I.e. BBC in the service of the Saudi Sunni islamofascists who want to commit genocide on the Shia community wherever it exists.


We are certainly used to see Kerry making a fool out of himself, not the least in his failed presidential campaign. And now he again slipped his mouth out of control thereby giving the Syrian people some respite to the US bombings.

The worst US "president" ever, muslim born (apostate?!) eagerly wants to hurt Syrian people so to please the Saudis

Not the slightest evidence that the accused used chemical weapons - but a multitude of reports about Al-Qarda and its allies both having them and using them. How can you people by this war monger's lies. Are you the Germans of today?!

How many Jews, Christians, Shiites and Atheists in Arab muslim countries? Very few, and depends on when you ask - they are eradicated in the same pace as Obama prepares his slaughtering of non-Sunni Syrians!

What you now see is perhaps the most hypocritical deliberate and murderous planned use of Western fire power for the purpose of helping the most intolerant islamofascist country in its genocide of Shia muslims, Christians , Jews and non-believers.

How many mosque rats at Leicester University?

Sexist islam in UK universities

Leicester University is one of the world's most sexist universities. You may not believe me but the truth is (an other professor witnessed it) that a female professor there, when presented with criticism against islam's rejection of women's full Human Rights via Sharia, said "Why don't you want to let women lead their lives as they wish". Yes, you got it right. She saw the restriction of women's rights as a right! Moreover, she also blamed the messenger for not allowing women to NOT HAVE THEIR FULL RIGHTS!

I will go deeper into this and also name the professor in an upcoming post. Her female students need to know this, and as usual, it seems that Klevius is the only one daring to really address this ultimate sexism.



In the meantime, read this  a decade old web writing by Klevius on the topic:

Sex segregation and rapetivism - the pillars of islam

Rapetivism and heterosexual attraction

HSA (heterosexual attracton) is biological attraction between two related forms with one part predestined as the receiver/reproducer. HSA can be one- or double-sided, i.e. both parts can actively search for each other (compare two magnets) or only one part (usually the male) has an inbuilt attraction towards the other sex.. Feminists use to confuse/deny this with cultural sex-segregation aimed to cover up short-comings in a manner not far from the confused and chaotic blend of erotics, friendship and misinterpreted projections that we used to call love..HSA can itself never be bi-sexual. Neither has HSA anything to do with rape/"rapetivism" (which is, in fact, a form of necrophilia). Although a man may experience HSA aesthetics where a woman doesn't, it hasn't necessarily anyhing to do with sexuality before a "mutual trigger" is released (and that hasn't even to be physically directly connected). And even then there is nothing preventing withdrawal at any point. If not, then we are talking something else. More on From Klevius without love
Sexuality (eroticism) is not solely connected to HSA because it is in no way limited to heterosexuality. In fact one cannot even evaluate its strength in terms of hetero- or homosexuality.Sex segregation (modern) is the purported (i.e. deliberate) effort to bridge (and sometimes to cover incompetency, felt or real) socially, personally and politically an obvious lack of corresponding rights between the sexes - a phenomenon similar to that when individuals, classes and races that had "failed" were attributed biological explanations. Classic (not modern) sex-segregation, on the other hand, is the sex-division produced by practical circumstances. Hence the word modern should be understood as only partly related to what we conceive as the era of modernity. Feminism and psychoanalysis are the means by which modern sex-segregation is upheld. Strivings for non-segrgation through equal rights (basic human rights: negative rights, i.e.the right not to be imposed segregational or other "rights" that oppress the individual in question, and positive rights, i.e. the right to an equal participation in the democratic society e.g. through the right to vote, to be elected, to perform or not to perform any act that does not violate the rights of others) thus does not count as feminism. Feminism is per definition always biological essentialism. Biologically implanted HSA (in the male) represents a possible, theoretical base for feminism because it targets the real and relational difference between the sexes. Whereas procreation (after conception) is not necessarily predestined to heterorelation of any kind HSA always is, no matter if there are two physical persons of opposite sex present or not. Only a certain part (HSA) of what we could title general hetero-pornography is totally dependent on the real or assumed presence of two sexes. If we are hungry and if we believe that a sandwich dummy is a real and good one then our behavior/longing is "biological" rather than "cultural". "Assumed" in this context should of course not be considered "cultural" but rather a tool for limiting conceptual confusion re. "cheating sexes", i.e.. for example, when a male "misinterprets" what he think is the female sex according to his own view on that sex..Non-essential sex-segregation is a logical paradox that excludes the possibility of equal feminism. Apart from the obvious biological essentialism that is embedded in the concept as such, it is impossible to defend an equal, "non-essentialist" feminist position other than as a transient stage. And if that is the case then this "transient stage" constitutes the framework on which life and death of feminism depends. Consequently there seems to be no other way of discriminating between progressive and reactionary actions than by assessing underlying motives.

Sharia sex segregation or Human Rights for girls/women?

In every possible form of Sharia girls/women are forced to lead their lives in sex apartheid of varying degrees. But according to Human Rights every girl/woman has the right to decide herself what kind of life she wants to lead - incl. a sex segregated life if she so wishes.

In islam women and non-muslims are all "infidels", and the only thing that really distinguishes a woman as muslim is her "duty" towards islam to reproduce (physically and/or culturally) as many new muslims as possible. .

In John Peters Humprey's world view "infidels" didn't exist

John Peters Humphrey (peace be upon him and Human Rights) is the last prophet of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights - and he is utterly defamated by muslim Humanrightsophobes - yet all the Billions of Human Rights followers take it (too?) calmly.

John Peters Humphrey (who actually existed and who wasn't a pedophile or a murderous scumbag or a fanatic warlord or a terrorist) wrote the first draft of the Universal Human Rights Declaration (peace be upon him and Human Rights). Here's part of his profound and sacred original revelation:

"Subject to the laws governing slander and libel there shall be full freedom of speech and of expression by any means whatsoever, and there shall be reasonable access to all channels of communication. Censorship shall not be permitted"

Klevius comment: By 'libel' and 'slander' John Peters Humphrey of course meant something directed to an existing individual, not a totalitarian ideology!

The kiss of death

This is what Klevius wrote about this woman

Sunday, October 07, 2012

Kate Rudd, Sayeeda Warsi, Catherine Ashton, all work for Ansar Al-Shariah and OIC

There are 193 states represented in UN. Why are 57 of the worst Human Rights violators (OIC) allowed to dictate it and the world?!

 When Piers Morgan asked Iran's president if he was prepared to accept Israel's right to exist Ahmedinejad referred to the "end of occupation first" and by this he of course also referred to his previous answer where he saw the establishment of Israel in the first place as an "occupation". However, Piers Morgan never pointed out this. Wonder why?

Three UK women working hard from top positions for Sharia and against girls'/women's Human Rights

1 Kate Rudd, the British Consul General in Jeddah, started her diplomatic career as head of the UK Trade and Investment delegation to Iraq and her questionable position has only deepened as the delegation’s representative to OIC.

2 European Union's high representative for foreign affairs, Catherine Ashton (see text below).

3 Sayeeda Warsi ('Minister for Faith islam' – is at the Foreign Office and includes being the lead minister responsible for Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Central Asia, the UN, the International Criminal Court and the OIC, which is the largest multi-lateral organisation in the world after the UN)

 

Cliff Kincaid on The Wall Street Journal repeats what Klevius has warned for a decade:

OIC has not given up its efforts to silence criticism of Islam. The group has merely changed tactics, focusing instead on dramatically expanding the U.N. ban against advocating religious hatred. The legal basis here is the U.N.'s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which prohibits "any advocacy of . . . religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination [or] hostility." Several Western states also bar such incitement. The OIC's attempt to broaden existing hate-speech laws is therefore difficult to resist on principle for those liberal democracies, which have bought into the idea that tolerance can be fostered through limiting free speech. This agenda was vividly on display in a statement by the foreign ministers of the OIC at the U.N. General Assembly last week. The statement, in response to the "Innocence of Muslims" film and cartoons depicting Muhammad published by a French magazine, refers to the U.S.-brokered Human Rights Council resolution. It then urges U.N. member states, "in line with their obligations under international human rights law, to take all appropriate measures including necessary legislation against these acts that lead to incitement to hatred, discrimination and violence against persons based on their religion."

Astonishingly, the European Union's high representative for foreign affairs, Catherine Ashton, has also issued a joint statement with the secretaries general of the OIC and the Arab League that "condemn[s] any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to hostility and violence. While fully recognizing freedom of expression, we believe in the importance of respecting all prophets." The statement will be understood by many as EU approval of the OIC position that disrespecting any prophet is tantamount to advocacy of religious hatred and should be prohibited by states that have ratified the ICCPR

Baroness Cox: "It is right, of course, that we respect freedom of religion, but surely not when basic laws and morality are being flouted..." 

Klevius comment: Baroness Cox here reveals her "islamophobia" and could be jailed for it now in any of OIC's member states, and soon even in UK if Sayeeda Warsi & Co are allowed to continue their evil Human Rightsphobia. Sharia is "basic laws and morality" that deeply clashes with Human Rights. So deeply, in fact, that OIC (islam's foremost representative) has openly violated Human Rights by replacing with the terms "as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari'ah"; "according to the norms of Islamic Shari'ah"; "in accordance with the provisions of Shari'ah"; "All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah"; "to assume public office in accordance with the provisions of Shari'ah" "The Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration".

Some examples from OIC's Cairo declaration: 

ARTICLE 22: (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. (d) It is not permitted to arouse nationalistic or doctrinal hatred or to do anything that may be an incitement to any form or racial discrimination. ARTICLE 23: (b) Everyone shall have the right to participate, directly or indirectly in the administration of his country's public affairs. He shall also have the right to assume public office in accordance with the provisions of Shari'ah. ARTICLE 24: All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah. ARTICLE 25: The Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.

Al-Qaeda's air force?