Were there peaceful and good National-socialists (Nazis) in Nazi Germany?

Germans twice voted in favor of the National-socialistic program. However, an individual, got all the blame. Convenient, yes, but were the German voters totally without guilt?

Are muslims incapable of hate - or is media incapable of reporting muslim hate?

 When muslims commit hate crimes the media solution is to immediately remove the perpetrators from the rank of muslims. It's got nothing to do with islam etc, you know. However, if an Atheist commits a crime and muslims are victims then the perpetrator's belonging to the ethnic group of Atheists is blown up by every means. How come?

And how come that a Google search for 'hate crimes committed by muslims' gives the opposite result to what could reasonably be expected having in mind that the muslim ideology islam seems to produce a disproportional amount of hate crimes and is in stark opposition to the Human Rights principle of equality?

Here's Google News:

and here's Google's web search:

The guardians of Human Rights violating islam

Saudi based OIC - and its islamofascist Saudi sharia Fuhrer Iyad Madani - constitutes islam today, and it's against the most basic of Human Rights!

Some undoubtedly hateful muslims

Or are they no muslims precisely becaus of their hate?!

How come that the most powerful "ethnic"/"religious" group, which preaches violations of the most basic of Human Rights, is the one that is more protected than most other people?!

Muslims don't belong to a vulnerable minority. On the contrary, their Ummah nation is the biggest nation in the world and it's represented by the biggest organization in the world after UN itself, i.e. OIC (the Organization of Islamic Cooperation).

Muslims have chosen to hate, disrespect, and show contempt towards us "infidels" by believing in an ideology that is incompatible with Human Rights. Ok, Klevius could live with that because he isn't offended like many muslims would be in a similar situation. However, muslims haven't stopped there. They have also made this Human Rights violation to a threat against these very Human Rights by sharia criminalizing Human Rights. And as Klevius has always said, under Human Rights you can follow sharia (as long as it's legal) but under sharia you don't have access to Human Rights freedom. Moreover, as it stands now muslims are protected by those very Human Rights their sharia opposes and wants to eliminate.

From Magna Carta in 1215 to Human Rights in 1948

Magna Carta Libertatum is the first rudimentary effort in a long struggle towards the final 1948 Human Rights declaration which PM David Cameron now again seems to betray by giving in for Human Rights violating sharia.

Back in 1215 Magna Carta (the first predecessor to Human Rights) was produced to stifle traitor King John's effort to islamize Britian. Compare this to the  British PM Cameron's attacks on Human Rights while seemingly proposing Britain as the center of islamofascism outside Mideast (beginning with London sharia finance).

King John the Traitor, PM David Cameron and the islamofascist "king" Abdullah who pretended to be "reformist" while steering the country in an even more intolerant direction by new sharia inspired laws by early 2014 (e.g. equalizing Human Rights, Secularism and Atheism with "terrorism" and due penalties - compare Raif Badawi and others).

King John in the early 13th century sent envoys to Mohammed al-Nâsir asking for his help. In return King John offered to convert to Islam and turn England into a muslim state. The muslim jihadist Mohammed al-Nâsir's view on King John: "I never read or heard that any king possessing such a prosperous kingdom subject and obedient to him, would voluntarily ... make tributary a country that is free, by giving to a stranger that which is his own ... conquered, as it were, without a wound. I have rather read and heard from many that they would procure liberty for themselves at the expense of streams of blood, which is a praiseworthy action; but now I hear that your wretched lord, a sloth and a coward, who is even worse than nothing, wishes from a free man to become a slave, who is the most miserable of all human beings." Mohammed al-Nâsir concluded by wondering aloud why the English allowed such a man to lord over them — they must, he said, be very servile and soft.

It's the original evilness* of islam that makes it so vulnerable for criticism that it needs to be protected by sharia compliant so called blasphemy laws (in the West called "hate speech" laws).



* For a starter islam's incompatibility with Human Rights as proved by OIC's sharia declaration in UN.

So what about muslim friends?

Immediately face your muslim friend with the question whether s/he supports Human Rights violating sharia or Human Rights equality? Or do you fear hearing the truth?

Klevius proposes that every muslim is invited to carefully be taught about Magna Carta and Human Rights and how sharia violates the most basic of Human Rights, i.e. the universal equality principle that makes sexism and racism (and due hate) redundant (Klevius 1992). This should then be followed up with the simple question: Do you want equality or Human Rights violating sharia? And those who choose sharia instead of Human Rights (i.e. the real muslims) ought to train themselves in looking at this picture without bursting into violence etc.

The war between muslims and Jews started when Muhammad slaughtered all the Jews in Medina. However, what made this war special was muslims' claim to be the only true branch of Judaism.

 Albert Einstein: "For me the unaltered Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most primitive superstitions.

 Although the majority of the world's population is Atheist, religious dogma leading to racism, sexism and hatred is still allowed to be exempted from Human Rights equality logic.