Islam compared to National Socialist German Workers' Party (aka "Nazism"). Turns out islam is worse. Much worse. Judge for yourself!

 .
What's the difference between Nazism and islam? Islam is worse - both in ideology (see below) and in the amount of its victims!

Is it the islamization of Germany that has caused the (relative) quality drop of Nazi cars such as VW and Audi since the 1930s?

 Compared to islam's parasitism ideology, it seems the National Socialist German Workers' Party (aka "Nazi") was way more industrially effective. 

 This shouldn't surprise anyone with the most superficial understanding of the origin of islam as a parasitic separatist movement which after colonizing land isolated themselves in lazy "garrisons" with their slaves from where they enjoyed the fruits (incl. girls/young women, artists, scientists etc) of the working and producing people they had subdued. If you don't understand the parasitic nature of the islamic ideology then you will never understand the Koran or islam. Nor will you understand why Malik much later created Muhammad as a mythological figure whose behavior span such a wide range (pedophile, caravan robber, warlord, rapist, preacher, etc) that everyone (except the "infidel") could find something suitable for himself.
 
Only now has a small scale car production started in Saudi Arabia. By Arab muslims? No, by Japanese Isuzu which will be followed by Korean Daewoo and some other non-Arab car makers. The muslims have NEVER had a technology of their own simply because islam is based on parasitism and due backwardness. This fact isn't changed by oil-money (from non-muslim countries) buying texhnology into islamic countries.

Ihsanoglu's ultimate stated aim (in an interview) was to make OIC the muslim Caliphate led by a Caliph.

Every true muslim is a racist/sexist supremacist Human Rights violator because of islam's incompatibility with Human Rights - as beyond any doubt proven by OIC's sharia declaration in UN.

Iyad Madani, the Saudi Fuhrer of Saudi based OIC, the worst Human Rights violator. Via UN OIC sanctionsislamofascist sharia around the world.
 

Islamic State is Ansar al Islam tuned to Saudi Wahhabism which, in turn, is tuned to the origin of islam - NOT TO ANY "WESTERN INTERVENTION"!

The only "Western intervention" is islam's incompatibility with Human Rights - the very same incompatibility that made OIC officially to abandon Human Rights and to replace them with Sharia via its 57 more or less scumbag representatives in UN (OIC was created via mostly muslim foreign ministers). I.e. in the very world institution that was  created to defend Human Rights. In practice it means that the most basic of Human Rights are criminalized - just as in the world's most intolerant country, Saudi Arabia. It also means that every true muslim, due to whatever form of Sharia, is a Human Rights violator. S/he may not be aware of it as yet though because of politicians' and BBC's etc. misrepresentation of the facts (in the case of BBC the Brits have not been misinformed about OIC - they haven't been informed at all).

The Iraq-"invasion"-caused-it myth

 In Iraq Mullah  Krekar founded in 1999 Ansar al Islam organization with Abu Musab al Zarqawi, with whom he had contact since 1994 through the cell of Abu Musab al Zarqawi in Amman Jordan. Their so called Jordanian millennium attack was scheduled to the 2000 new years eve. Ansar al Islam then developed to a copy of the original Caliphate including the Levant, i.e. what we now know as the Islamic State, mostly funded by Saudi Arabia (through both official and unofficial channels) and almost entirely based on Saudi Arabia's official version of islam - except that the Saudi Caliph calls himself "king".

Dear reader, Klevius has trouble finding any "right-wing" politics in this program. What about you?

Of course it doesn't come even close to Human Rights standard - but islam is way worse as you cab see for youself!

 The 25 Points of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (aka "Nazi") programme here compared to islam:

        1. We demand the union of all Germans (muslims) in a Great Germany (Ummah) on the basis of the principle of self-determination of all peoples (muslims).

        2. We demand that the German people (muslims) have rights equal to those of other nations; and that the Peace Treaties of Versailles and St. Germain shall be abrogated (Palestine/Zionism).

        3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the maintenance of our people and the settlement of our surplus population.

        4. Only those who are our fellow countrymen (muslims) can become citizens. Only those who have German blood (are muslims), regardless of creed, can be our countrymen. Hence no Jew (or "infidel") can be a countryman.

        5. Those who are not citizens must live in Germany (Ummah) as foreigners (dhimmis) and must be subject to the law of aliens (sharia).

        6. The right to choose the government and determine the laws of the State shall belong only to citizens (to the caliph). We therefore demand that no public office, of whatever nature, whether in the central government, the province, or the municipality, shall be held by anyone who is not a citizen (muslim).

        We wage war (jihad) against the corrupt parliamentary administration whereby men are appointed to posts by favor of the party without regard to character and fitness.

        7. We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen (muslim) shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole population, then aliens ("infidels") must be expelled.

        8. Any further immigration of non-Germans ("infidels", Jews, "wrong-muslims" Christians, Atheists etc)) must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans (infidels) who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave (compare Saudi Arabia's laws against "infidels", Human Rights etc).

        9. All citizens must possess equal rights and duties.

        10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically (this may not apply to an ideology based on parasitism). No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all.

        Therefore we demand:

        11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished (this may not apply to an ideology based on parasitism).

        12. Since every war (jihad) imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

        13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.

        14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.

        15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.

        16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

        17. We demand an agrarian (well, the origin of islam was as far from agrarian you can get) reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land (this seems to be as far from "right-wing" you can get).

        18. We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.

        19. We demand that Roman law, which serves a materialist ordering of the world, be replaced by German common law (sharia).

        20. In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German (muslim) to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural (religious) system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life (sharia). The conception of the State Idea (Ummah) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.

        21. The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.

        22. We demand the abolition of the regular army and the creation of a national (jihad) folk army.

        23. We demand that there be a legal campaign against those ("islamophobes") who propagate deliberate political (religious) lies and disseminate them through the press (blasphemy). In order to make possible the creation of a German (muslim) press, we demand:

        (a) All editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German (Arabic) language shall be German citizens (Sunni muslims).

        (b) Non-German (infidel) newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State (Caliph or his representatives). They must not be published in the German (Arabic) language.

        (c) All financial interests in or in any way affecting German (Sunni muslim) newspapers shall be forbidden to non-Germans (infidels) by law, and we demand that the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper and the expulsion of the non-Germans (infidel).

        Newspapers transgressing against the common welfare (of the Ummah) shall be suppressed. We demand legal action against those tendencies in art and literature (Muhammad caricatures, caricatures of the Saudi dictator family etc) that have a disruptive influence upon the life of our folk (muslims), and that any organizations that offend against the foregoing demands shall be dissolved.

        24. We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state (doubtful if this applies to islam in Saudi Arabia - the "custodian of islam"), insofar as they do not endanger its existence or offend the moral and ethical sense of the Germanic race (Sunni muslims).

        The party (OIC) as such represents the point of view of a positive Christianity (islam) without binding itself to any one particular confession (doesn't apply in islamic monotheism). It fights against the Jewish materialist spirit within and without, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our folk can only come about from within on the pinciple:

        COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD

        25. In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State (Caliphate), the unconditional authority (submission) by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.

        The formation of professional committees and of committees representing the several estates of the realm, to ensure that the laws (sharia) promulgated by the central authority shall be carried out by the federal states.

        The leaders of the party (OIC) undertake to promote the execution of the foregoing points at all costs, if necessary at the sacrifice of their own lives (may not apply to OIC).

Klevius hint: It's all about sharia!

But BBC won't tell you though!

However,

Klevius vs ? billion muslims. He knows it's not fair - of course Klevius' Human Rights logic is irresistible compared to dividing hateful muslim sharia racism/sexism! If you just listen to it. But that could of course turn out to be difficult when Klevius message is drowning in islam propaganda. However, some of Klevius relatively few readers seem to be quite sharp when diagnosed with web tools. So let's hope they can do their part better than unsupported Klevius.

Human Rights

  Klevius: On his blogs and sites 'Klevius' is interchangeable with 'Human Rights' because all they do is defending (the most basic) Human Rights. Unfortunately for muslims, islam makes itself the biggest target precisely because of its violation of Human Rights. Nowhere on Klevius' sites/blogs can you find ANYTHING not in line with this Human Rights defense!

 Muslims: There doesn't exist a true muslim without her/him (via her/his support of sharia islam) violating the most basic equality principles of Human Rights. If all of these muslims were really aware of this Klevius qualified guess would be that a considerable part of them would commit open apostasy - i.e. being braver than Obama!

Sexism

Klevius: There is no defense for sex segregation/apartheid. Not even heterosexual attraction (of which Klevius has written the most essential analysis in the world of today - admittedly, the competition hasn't been very hard). The only reason for islam to keep up sex apartheid is keep girls/women in a dependency situation based on the supremacist ideology that women are inferior to men and therefore need their "protection".

 Muslims: Women are inferior to men and women's heterosexual attraction makes it necessary in islam to sharia hide/jail/restrict them physically and/or culturally (the means vary depending on muslim community/sub-settings etc).

Racism

 Klevius:  Human Rights make racism ideologically impossible.

 Muslims: Islam is built on supremacist "infidel" racism. It was the key for the early muslim "conquest": Get slaughtered, enslaved, taxed and humiliated, or become a (lesser) muslim. "Infidels" also constituted the slave reservoir for muslims. Allah's will, you know.

Politics

Klevius: For secularism based on Human Rights.


Muslims: For an islamic nation state (Ummah) based on sharia.

Beliefs

Klevius: Atheist, i.e. lacking a "god" he otherwise could blame. Instead Klevius protects his moral attitude by hanging it on the most powerful of all moral codes namely the negative Human Rights - the last refuge for Universally shared individual freedom. This could be a tricky one for simple minded brainwashed people to understand, so please, follow the link and read slowly. Any question still bothering you, please comment and Klevius will enlighten you!

 Muslims: Whatever a muslim does it's "Allah's will". And because "Allah's" will is not known  then we have no tool whatsoever to know the inscrutable will of the muslim - other than the self evident Atheist conclusion that it's no more or less than the egoistic will of the individual muslim, and not of "Allah". And because of this "Allah" it doesn't bother itself with how this will may turn against Human Rights.

According to one of BBC's extremely few and misleading reports about OIC, its aims are to 'safeguard islamic holy places' (Klevius comment: Those places are already carefully destroyed by the Sauds ... read more on Klevius beats BBC) but nothing about OIC steering 57 countries away from Human Rights.

In Britain, the number of muslim converts recently passed the 100,000 mark, according to a survey conducted by an inter-faith group called Faith Matters. The survey revealed that nearly two thirds of the converts were women, more than 70% were white and the average age at conversion was just 27.

Klevius explanation: Non-muslim women who marry muslims have to choose between a lower status as a non-muslim in the muslim family setting or convert (to a lesser muslim).

The muslim system is extremely racist and sexist in this regard because everything is one-way directed towards the muslim man and islam and away from Human Rights. A non-muslim man isn't even allowed to marry a muslim woman without converting.

So instead of boasting about the high numbers they should be seen as utterly shamful (and shameful) in a civilized country.

So what should muslims do to avoid Klevius' criticism?

Nothing could be easier. Just openly and honestly refute Human Rights violating sharia and you don't hear anything from Klevius. Do as Ayaan Hiris Ali did!

From anti-islamic Magna Carta in 1215 to anti-fascist Human Rights in 1948 - and the islamofascism of today

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.

Some more hateful muslims

Or are they no muslims precisely because 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 Saudi based and steered 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.
.

Let the Islamic State be the guardian of islamofascism - they are definitely more islamic than the Saudi oil billionaires! That would end "radicalization" in no time.

 .

The problem with islam is that the problem is an "ally" called Saudi Arabia - the heartland of the spread of the worst religious fascism ever!

Klevius proposal for peace in islamofascist Mideast: Islam is an Arabic "religion" and originally covered only what was back then the only Arab land, i.e. today's Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Southern part of Syria and the desert part of what is now the southern Iraqi borderland. Let the Saudi dictator family submit to the Islamic State. That would 1) distribute oil billions more evenly 2) better isolate the evil original islam from the civilized world than the Wahhabi-West hybrid Saudi dictator family which spreads street jihadism throughout the globe 3) then talk to and defend the rest of the surrounding Westernized muslim countries which by now would be equally eager as Assad to comply.

Iran is just a pseudo islamic country due to it not being an Arab country. This is why its Ayatollahs have been so overly "islamic". Therefore Iran isn't a problem after Islamic State has taken over in Saudi Arabia as the custodians of evil original islam. Moreover, the dictator family there has much more blood on their hands than Assad and Iran together.

With the Islamic State in Saudi Arabia it would also only take a short while before the people want back to civilization.  Medieval systems don't work anymore.

As it is now the continuous bowing for the Saudi islamofascists bastard regime causes much more suffering and other problems in the long run.

 

Islam's evil history repeats itself exactly according to its evil original formula

Muhajirun (the emigrants - compare today's muslim jihadist emigrants) were the first muslims who (according to muslim mythology) followed Muhammad on his Hijra from Mecca to Medina where they prepared for more caravan robbing and slaughtered all the Jews. The "excuse" was that Meccan's didn't want to follow Muhammad who therefore felt "offended" and "oppressed" and retaliated with Jihad robbery which made it possible for him to keep his bandit followers happy with booty and sex slaves.


Today the Saudi dictator family plus its allies are the main contributors, both ideologically and financially, to the slaughtering, raping, torturing etc terror now going on. And of course they don't distribute the money with a tag marked the state of Saudi Arabia. They use sleazy financial gangsters such as for example Alwaleed bin Talal (you know, the rape accused guy who has never worked and who refused to give his DNA to the court).


 Right, they belong to that overly protected vulnerable and easily offended 1.5 Billion "minority" nation (islamofascist Umma nation) called muslims who are under attack from a few brave and peaceful (but apparently so dangerous and disgusting) Human Rights defenders (i.e. not sharia compliant) called "islamophobes".

Raif Badawi is such an "islamophobe" whose friends and family now have chosen to distance themselves from or even turning against him. In other words, they have, like so many others, helped the Saudi islamofascists instead of a Human Rights defender.

Badawi did nothing wrong according to Western Human Rights based standards other than start a forum that was aimed at "a new generation of Saudi young men and women, who want to express themselves in a way that they can counter the overwhelming majority of clerics and religious people."

Every true muslim is a Human Rights violator because of islam's incompatibility with Human Rights - as without any doubt proven by OIC's sharia declaration in UN.

Iyad Madani, the Saudi Fuhrer of Saudi based OIC, the worst Human Rights violator. Via UN OIC sanctionsislamofascist sharia around the world.
 

ISIS is Ansar al Islam tuned to Saudi Wahhabism which, in turn, is tuned to the origin of islam - NOT TO ANY "WESTERN INTERVENTION"!

The only "Western intervention" is islam's incompatibility with Human Rights - the very same incompatibility that made OIC officially abandon Human Rights and replaced them with Sharia in UN. I.e. in the very world institution that was  created to defend Human Rights. In practice it means that the most basic of Human Rights are criminalized - just as in the world's most intolerant country, Saudi Arabia. It also means that every true muslim, due to whatever form of Sharia, is a Human Rights violator.

In Iraq Mullah  Krekar founded in 1999 Ansar al Islam organization with Abu Musab al Zarqawi, with whom he had contact since 1994. Through the cell of Abu Musab al Zarqawi in Amman Jordan. Their so called Jordanian millennium attack was scheduled to the 2000 new years eve. Ansar al Islam then developed to a copy of the original Caliphate including the Levant.

Washington post shouts "racism" and "islamophobia" when Snoop Dog is arrested in Sweden for a minor drug crime and Somalis caused fire in their own mosque!

The most misleading and racism boosting journalism ever from Washington Post? When will Adam Taylor be cleaned out? Or is he already!

The ignorant Adam Taylor (Washington Post) accuses "far-right Swedish Democrats" for Snoop Dog's lawful* arrest. First of all, it's Sverigedemokraterna meaning Sweden Democrats - not "Swedish Democrats" as Adam Taylor ignorantly puts it. Secondly, as Klevius wrote in his previous posting, Sweden Democrats who are now level with Sweden's biggest party the Social Democrats in polls (due to being Sweden's only islam critical political voice), has a political program which is better described as a conservative center-left sometimes hard to distinguish from much Social Democratic politics and would therefore not be a choice for Klevius was it not for its islam criticism.

* According to the Swedish police Snoop Dog was "extremely polite and cooperative". In other words no signs of protests etc for the arrest. That's how a person typically behaves when caught for something they know is a crime and the evidence is clear.

The ignorant Adam Taylor (Washington Post) lies straight in the face of WP's readers when he tries to make the world's most politically correct country racist against blacks and muslims. The truth is just the opposite namely that Sweden precisely because of its senseless PC "diversity" brainwashing has become a safe haven for muslim supremacism racism and sexism.

And when it comes to "anti-semitism" Sweden is now most probably the worst country in the world (outside Arab muslim countries) for Jews to live in (read abt how Malmö's mayor accused Jews for being victims of muslim attacks).

The ignorant Adam Taylor (Washington Post) moreover writes in a way that gives WP's readers the impression that mosques are under heavy hate attacks by Swedes and even "destroyed" when in reality just a few extremely minor incidents have been reported (e.g. someone leaving a slice of bac etc) and the worst one "with five injured by arson attack" turned out to be Somali muslims playing with fireworks. The police and politicians first made a huge number of the "attack" until the police much later had to admit the facts.


Was it muslims playing with fireworks or an attack from rival muslims? What seems clear though is that the most unlikely scenario is prioritized by the Minister of Immigration, Swedish TV, Aftonbladet etc. 

BBC 25 December 2014 updated at 18:48: Swedish mosque hit by arson in Eskilstuna, injuring five. Police are treating the incident as arson after reports that someone threw an object into the building.

Nothing whatsoever indicated any "anti-muslim"* forces behind the fire.

* Just like islamic violence serves the spread of islam (jihad) "anti-muslim" violence (so rare so it almost doesn't exist in any meaningful sense compared to islamic violence) also fulfills the same purpose.

Klevius: However, this is how Scandinavia's biggest news paper described it:

Sweden's Minister for Justice: An appalling evil deed 

Sweden's Minister for Justice and Migration (!), Morgan Johansson: 'Hard to believe anything else than that this aggregated assault was directed against muslims as a group and islam as a religion.'

Klevius: A Swedish Minister for Justice acting like a teen troll who would have been immediately arrested had it been the other way round!


Swedish TV: The arson attack against the mosque in Eskilstuna shows, according to Islamiska förbundets leader Omar Mustafa, how hate against muslims has intensified.
 Klevius wrote:

Malmo, the third largest city in Sweden, is already over 20% Muslim - and it shows, not the least for the Jews.

    Four grenade attacks in a Ramadan week have rocked Malmo, prompting police to sound an alarm over the increasing violence. Multiple explosions, shootings and arson struck the city, which has a large muslim population. There are no hints whatsoever that the trouble is caused by Swedes. But overwhelming reasons to connect it to muslims.

This is what civil war looks like in the age of jihad. Jihad in the West, made possible by massive muslim immigration.

Swedish muslim Jihadi: “Go There with a Bomb”!

    “Why are these attacks happening during Ramadan? It’s because the jihadis don’t view the violence as something unholy. If the violence is happening for God’s sake and according to the rules Islam is perceived to decree, it is in fact a holy action. To the jihadis, this type of holy violence is more meritorious in God’s eyes than fasting, prayer and charity. … In the hadith, jihad in the month of Ramadan is portrayed as giving extra glory.” — Mohamed Omar.


Klevius wrote:

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

Snoop Dog was (and still apparently is) stupidly ignorant - so what about BBC's islam presenter Mishal Husain?

Rapetivism and craptivism*

* Rap inducing criminality, i.e. a waste product of human life.

How much guilt has this rapper for black criminality? Is he a rapper or a
crapper - and does he even understand his part in it?

Snoop dog (aka Calvin Cordozar Broadus Jr. - named after his stepfather cause his own father abandoned him just as did Obama's father) says his sexism was due to his ignorance. Klevius then wonders whether it's the same ignorance that made him join US' most hateful and racist supremacist community?

Farrakhan (leader of the worst American racist/sexist supremacist sect, Nation of Islam):  “This is a new generation and they don’t want to hear your compromising talk! What they do want to hear, though, is rap music. Rappers are listened to. Kanye West and Jay Zare listened to. Killer Mike is listened to — he even attended Obama's 2015 White House Correspondents Dinner.

'I will kill you' shouts the brain dead* hateful black muslim supremacist racist clown Louis Farrakhan

* Can we agree that hateful people are not only stupid but also dangerous - to all of us, including themselves.  Ok, he's smarter than Sharpton but what does that really prove! It's still far short of what could be expected from an ordinary civilized man. Just listen to this childish but hateful rant to childish but, as a consequence, hateful listeners. 

This hateful racist is whom Obama's minister for some 20 years awarded!

Yes, Klevius knows very well that people are very vulnerable to theatrical performance - especially when this helps to excuse one's often misdirected anger about oneself. This is why Klevius would never even dream of acting like Farrakhan. And this is why Klevius believes in Human Rights instead of segregation.

This joke is the leader of black US muslims!

   

'I will kill you if you put your hands on me' Farrakhan said in a context where some presumably white official during the "million man marsh" had explained an escape route for him in the case of violence. And for his black audience (above) he made it sound the opposite to what the official had meant. Farrakhan unscrupulously played the race card hard, hinting the possible violence was white, not black, and then in a childish but obviously for this audience effective way (see how happy they look at the very moment he utters 'kill') played the hero card by stating that he 'should die with his people'. Moreover, Farrakhan knows very well that many young and some older black haters love to hear him hinting at hate violence by using words like 'kill' and 'fight back' etc. He also loves using the word 'devil' when talking about white people. Why? Simply because Nation of Islam's very racist hateful core idea is that "whites" are evil devils while "blacks" are "god's" chosen people. No other race is as good as "blacks" according to just one of the unbelievable fantasies from which Farrakhan's muslim hate organization emerged (see more about NOI furthest down on this posting)


Klevius wrote 8 August 2011:
  
The bizarre but extremely racist "ideology" of Nation of Islam may be summarized as this: Blacks are the superior race on Earth and white people belong to Satan and should be destroyed. The other races are somewhere in between with Asians (Mongoloids) near the bottom just above the whites.


Louis Farrakhan: "According to what we understand, only two percent of the Libyan people are in rebellion against their government. Now, you [Obama] mean to tell me that half the people don't want you, and you dare to say that this man [Al-Qadhafi - i.e. the guy who possibly arranged the Lockerbie terrorist attack and who arranged for the freeing of the one who actually did it] is illegitimate? What makes him illegitimate, and what makes you legitimate?

"I came here to preach the doom of this institution. You say that he is illegitimate, he kills his own people? What's your record? What's your record, America?

"Your governments will soon be laying in… some of you, who have plotted against the peoples of the world, will be seen on the back of pickup trucks, driving through the streets of America, with the American people throwing stones and raw garbage at you.

"In the name of Allah, the Merciful and Compassionate. Dear brother leader, Mu'ammar Al-Qadhafi, may this letter find you, your family, and the faithful people of the Libyan Arab Republic, in the best health and spirit in spite of the prevailing circumstances.

"Dear brother leader, in the general orders that we were given by the honorable Elijah Muhammad, whose desire was to make us brave fighters, willing at any time to give our lives for Allah's sake and righteousness, it states in general order No. 5 'Do not quit your post until properly relieved.' Allah put you on your post, and neither NATO, the president of the U.S., the Arab League, or anybody else, has the power or authority to tell you to quit your post. Elijah Muhammad told me: 'Die on your post.'

"Dear brother [Barack Obama], be careful about the assassination of Mu'ammar Al-Qadhafi and others in the Muslim world. Could it be that while you and your staff are planning the death of Mu'ammar Al-Qadhafi, could it also be that members of your own Democratic Party are plotting to betray you? Could it be that right now, while you are planning for your second term, that there are those in your party [who don't] want you for a second term, and definitely the Republicans don't want you to be a one-term president.

"So, like Abraham Lincoln, who was prosecuting the civil war, and doubted that he would be reelected, won a second term, but this so angered the opposition that it was then that his own reelection inspired his assassination. Could that be going on right now, under your own nose?

"Think, dear brother, before you act, because as the Bible puts it: 'God is not mocked. As a man soweth, the same shall he also reap.'As Obadiah the Prophet said: 'As thou hast done, so shall it be done unto you.' If they are successful in killing brother Al-Qadhafi, this is not going to be the end. This is the beginning of horrors, as you will see."

"The Future for Europe and America is Bleak, Very Very Bleak; China and Russia – Oh, You All will be at War"

"Al-Qadhafi wasn't in some tent twiddling his thumbs. He was working for the good of the African people. The African people will rise. NATO and… I'm sorry, America – I have got to say it, because I heard it from the mouth of the honorable Elijah Muhammad – Europe is finished.

"All of you who love war will be drowned in your own blood, as it is written: 'Those of you who love to shed the blood of others – Allah will make you drunk with your own blood, as with sweet wine.' Europe is headed for war, as we speak. Yes England, France, Italy, Germany, the honorable Elijah Muhammad told me that at the right time to tell you that Europe is the graveyard of the future. All of you who ran to Europe, to your former colonial masters, it is written that everyone will have to go to their own, and find refuge under their own vine and fig tree.

"And as Europe is trying to push out the Africans, to push out the Pakistanis, you would be wise to prepare yourself to get out of there or die there, because the future for Europe and America is bleak, very very bleak. China and Russia – oh, you all will be at war. You like it, so Allah is going to give it to you. You will have war soon. Mark my words – not my words, but the words of a man who was taught by God. You will face every word that he spoke. You will remember what you heard today – that a man, a real man of God was in your midst, and every word that I speak – you will face it."

Klevius answer to this pathetic "wanna be god's messenger" who uses to agitate extreme religious racial hatred while simultaneously changing views like a chameleon when it suits him: You idiot hide behind the otherwise non-related facts that Arabic islam managed to destroy most of Africa for more than a Millennium, and that a majority of African people have darker skin than most of the rest of the world. And of course, when the most advanced cultures (meaning they are based on the non-religious idea of Universal Human Rights) are predominantly "white" (actually really white people, so called albinos you find mostly oppressed in Africa!) this has been utilized by NOI and you as a ground for agitating dangerous racism especially in children and youth. You moron are lowering, not bettering the moral of what you try to lump together under skin color as "blacks".

You, Louis, and your butt-wipes are so funny to watch in your pompous appearance, was it not for all the misery and suffering you cause! All the way from Wallace Fard Mohammad (a white guy with extremely confused ideas) via a string of serial killers incl. Black Panthers etc to British street riots and looting. And on the way your organization didn't only murder people like Malcolm X but also, of course, targeted Martin Luther King and others (a god's gift was it that a "white" man was sentenced).



The founder of Nation of Islam, who actually existed - unlike the made up founder of islam

Drug dealer Wallie Wallace Dodd Fard Ford Farrad David Ali Mohammad (or whatever - i.e. the NOI foudner that Farrakhan forgot to refer to) was born somewhere and died somehow. He founded the fascist organization Nation of Islam in the period between World War 1 and 2 that saw all kinds of fascist movements appear. He became the head of the Chicago mosque in 1929, i.e. when Hitler led the growing National Socialist Party in Germany (by the help of his ability to evoke a sense of violated national pride - compare NOI). Already at the start NOI was connected with murders and suspicious disappearances. He himself also disappeared in 1934, most probably murdered by the next NOI leader, Eliah Muhammad, just as Hitler murdered his competitor Ernst Röhm.

So how does BBC's "muslim" presenter Mishal Husain fit the picture?

   

Well, she can't possibly be equally ignorant as Snoop dog. So why does she lump herself together with the Saudis and the Islamic State under the same umbrella named islam? 'Apostislam', 'Euroislam', 'cultural islam' or whatever but not islam! She is the furthest away from anything resembling islam, its texts and its teachings. And arguing she represents some naive fantasy about a "reformed islam" makes no sense as long as she keeps silent/apolegetic about real islam (as exemplified by Saudi based and controlled OIC and its sharia declaration).

Klevius wrote:
   

A Nuremberg trial against BBC's bigoted and hypocritical muslim sharia presenter Mishal Husain - defended by Klevius

In a May 1 sermon, Tunisian cleric Sheik Bechir Begga said that Satan and the Jews are the enemies of Muslims. He added that Allah was gathering the Jews “in Palestine, or in Tel Aviv,” where they would meet their end.


Koran 5:82.

    The Muslim has two enemies. The first is Satan. The Prophet Muhammad said: “Satan flows through human beings like blood flows through the veins.” Satan is the first enemy. “Surely Satan is your enemy, so treat him like an enemy.” This is what Allah said.

    The second enemy is the Zionist Jew.

    […]

    They violated pacts and covenants. They slayed the prophets. They disobeyed Allah’s commandments and violated his prohibitions. What we are witnessing today is their second and final corruption.

    […]

    “When there comes the promise of the Hereafter, We will gather you in droves.” [Allah] will gather them from all over the world. After He had dispersed the Jews all over the world – some in Britain, some in Germany, some in the Soviet Union, and some in other countries – they will gather again in the lane of Palestine, or Tel Aviv.

    “We will gather you in droves.” This is one of the signs heralding the Day of Judgment. These are glad tidings for us, because that is their end. They will meet their end by gathering in Israel. This is the beginning of the end for Israel.

Mishal Husain grew up in Saudi Arabia, the country that gave birth to and shares the same version of islam that propels the Islamic State

Islamic ideology has committed genocides, enslaved, murdered, raped and victimized more people than any other ideology throughout 1400 years. Although history is full of proof of this, the most obvious evidence of islamic evilness* is to be found in the Koran, Muhammad's biographies and the hadiths. And cherry picking away the mass of evil in islamic texts would never have been accepted re. for example Nationalsocialism (aka Nazism).

* Measured by Human Rights standard

BBC's muslim sharia presenter (or?)*: "You could argue couldn't you, that Hamas was also stopping worse happening all of this period, because although there was rockets being fired - they weren't the.. the big rockets that have caused damage in recent days, they were mostly home-made contraptions."

 This support for violent jihad terror alone would be enough to render Mishal Husain morally guilty. However, a much more serious side of Mishal Husain is her support for islam in general, well knowing (unlike many less well informed muslims) that islam means sharia and that sharia inevitably means  grave violations of the most basic of Human Rights.

Mishal Husain, while islam kills and victimizes millions, says that she doesn't think her way of life is under any kind of threat and that she is a proud muslim who doesn't care to fast during Ramadan and rather drinks some alcohol

However. either she is a muslim and thereby has to support Human Rights violating sharia - or she is a lying apostate committing the worst crime known to islam. There is no such a thing as an individual muslim! Although, according to Human Rights, Mishal Husain as an individual is free to believe whatever she likes, if she calls herself a muslim she automatically connects to sharia islam, the very opposite to Human Rights - e.g. as stated by all the world's muslims' Saudi based and UN sanctioned sharia organization OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) and its islamofascist Saudi Fuhrer Iyad Madani.

A consequence of this is that a sharia supporting muslim's vote is undemocratic. OIC's 57 member state voting bloc in UN who supported Human Rights violating sharia as a guidance for muslim legislation all over the world was therefore also undemocratic.

Could there be any doubt that Mishal Husain isn't aware of OIC and its world sharia declaration? After all, it's even on Wikipedia.

Samantha Lewthwaite, Mishal Husain and Michael Adebolajo (who murdered Lee Rigby). Mishal Husain is BBC's top muslim presenter and BBC is the world's leading media. The only thing she needs to say is that she opposes Human Rights violating sharia - and thereby also opposes islam because islam without some form of Human Rights violating sharia is not islam anymore - it's just a private belief and won't bother Klevius a bit.


Adolf Eichman's defense: I did not persecute Jews with avidity and passion. That is what the government did.

Mishal Husain's defense as outlined by Klevius: Mishal Husain doesn't persecute Jews with avidity and passion. That's what the militant part of islam does. Jihadis who are fighting in an unjust war (i.e. against "islamophobia") must still be treated as legal combatants, and not held responsible for the war itself. Only those behind the policy (islam) should be sentenced.

So Klevius proposes that all charges against Mishal Husain should be dismissed, because circumstantial evidence ought not to be allowed.  However, this also implies that Mishal Husain has to avoid supporting violent jihad islam wherever it appears, incl. Israel, so to keep circumstantial evidence from becoming factual evidence and thereby turning her case on its head.

Comment by Anonymous:  But hasn't Mishal Husain asked for muslim "scholars" to address jihadism?

Comment by Clevius: You're so right, Anonymous, that's exactly what she did - asked the government those behind the policy!

Comment by Haram: Does Mishal Husain eat halal meat?

Acknowledgement: A Google search today couldn't find any pictures of Mishal Husain signed Klevius. Not even on 'more images'. Must be a bug or something.
I'm sure BBC or Mishal Husain would never lower themselves to anything like that.

Here are some more in case you've missed them:

The oxymoron "diversity" means sharia islam steered from Saudi Arabia. So "diversity training" most often feeds intolerance.

Britain's "diversity" stuck in the uniformity of Saudi Arabian sand dunes?

Whenever you hear the politically correct oxymoron "diversity" you can be sure that it can be traced directly to the least diverse place in the world, Saudi Arabia, the "custodian" of sharia islam and its idolatry of the most intolerant city in the world.

 Why does Cameron seem to have such a problem using the word sharia when precisely this word could help him finding the code to "radicalization"?

Calling oneself a true muslim automatically connects to sharia islam, the very opposite to Human Rights - e.g. as stated by all the world's muslims' Saudi based and UN sanctioned sharia organization OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) and its islamofascist Fuhrer Iyad Madani, who belongs to the Saudi dictator family.

A consequence of this is that a sharia supporting muslim's vote is undemocratic. OIC's 57 member state voting bloc in UN who supported Human Rights violating sharia as a guidance for muslim legislation all over the world was therefore also undemocratic.

In 2008 the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) tried to make a brief statement about honour killings, female genital mutilation and stoning. IHEU and the Association of World Education had three minutes to put their case. But as they tried to make the statement, they were constantly interrupted by the representative of Egypt who accused the NGOs of trying to “crucify Islam”. They insisted that sharia law must not be mentioned at the UNHRC, let alone criticised. A Pakistan delegate — whose country speaks for the 57-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) in the rights body — said the grouping had “strong objections” to any direct or indirect discussion of sharia. Joining Egypt in asking the president, Romania's Daru Romulus Costea, to bar any debate that took this path, he said that if allowed it would “amount to spreading of hatred against certain members of this Council”.

Costea suspended the council and is reported to have asked the NGOs not to mention sharia.

Later Mr Costea told a press conference that he had ruled that only Muslim scholars can be permitted to talk about Islam in the Council. He said that religions deserve special protection because any debate about faith is bound to be “very complex, very sensitive and very intense”.

While Cameron contemplates "radicalization" (sharia islam) BBC asks* for more sharia muslim judges in Britain. Klevius: "British values"?

* A news organization such as BBC can easily cherry pick guests and topics to suit their islam propaganda.

BBC today first asks for more "diversity" among judges. You might think that means more Polish or EU citizen judges. Or perhaps Chinese or Russian judges. Or maybe Hindu judges. No, predictably BBC then transfers "diversity" to muslim "scholars and imams". What else. But what about "radical" muslim judges? Will their intentions be alighed with Saudi sharia islam rather than "British values"?

What's the point anyway of muslim "diversity" when Klevius (i.e. Human Rights) is destroying islam as we know it?

Klevius (i.e. Human Rights) is inevitably winning over islam and its one Billion plus muslims. There's no return whatsoever simply because of the bedrock logic of the so called basic "negative"* rights underlying the thought of universal Human Rights equality. Due to islam's parasitic origin (booty and slaves) it's inherently racist (the "infidel") and sexist (sex segregation/apartheid). This is the essence of sharia and should not be confused with contracts. A contract means having a lawful object entered into voluntarily by two or more parties, each of whom intends to create one or more legal obligations between them. Islamic sharia doesn't qualify under Human Rights guided legislation because of its unlawful racism and sexism. A muslim can't legally make an agreement with other muslims to treat non-muslims, wrong-muslims, LGBTs, Atheists, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, women etc. as not equal to themselves. And this is just the tip of the iceberg Cameron calls "radicalization" and "silent muslim [sharia] supporters".

* Whereas 'positive rights' can be abused as impositions, 'negative rights' means the very opposite, i.e. lack of content, in other words freedom from impositions.

Without Human Rights violating sharia (OIC) there is no islam worth of Klevius' or Cameron's "islamophobia" or islamofascists' love

Sweden's only party critical of islam, Sverigedemokraterna (Sweden Democrats), is the most publicly smeared party ever. Yet they now in July scored 23.3%  making them only 0.8% behind Sweden's biggest party the Socialdemocrats. As their politics differ only marginally in most questions except for islam, this is the only clue to their tremendous success. Klevius is against state socialism (i.e. the self interest of the social state - see Angels of Antichrist) and would therefore check carefully before giving a vote for any social state friendly party. However, if a party is the only one against sharia islam, then Klevius would give it his vote anyway. The choice is extremely easy. 

If you just dare to utter the evil word 'sharia' (e.g. OIC's), then the muslim problem is solved, PM Cameron?

Because then you have finally found your real enemy and its position (Saudi Arabia/OIC).


Private belief and thinking is ok as is its public expression - not its connection to a sharia ideology that goes against the most basic of Human Rights equality.

However, question is, is it sharia islam or BBC that's the biggest stumbling  bloc for Cameron?

 
As David Cameron set out his 5 year plan to combat Human Rights violating sharia islam and sharia muslims, BBC's eager supporter of sharia islam and sharia muslims, Edward Stourton, wastes almost an hour on BBC to spray compulsory license fee paying British listeners with a heavy and cherry picked muslim propaganda from the notorious East London Mosque.

Nothing in the show addressed the key issue of widespread islamofascism. Instead compulsory taxes and license fee paying British listeners were showered with bee hives and "an historic collection which documents the history of one of the UK's oldest mosques".

Then compulsory taxes and license fee paying British listeners were informed about "inter-faith dialogue", i.e. the Saudi initiated one way sharia islamic monologue.

Then compulsory taxes and license fee paying British listeners were fed with the Human Rights violating sharia preacher Muhammad Abdul Bari from the East London Mosque who of course opposed every effort made to break down barriers and build greater understanding between faiths, if it criticized islam at any point, i.e. so called "islamophobia".

Not a word about the Koran's richness of incitement to rapetivism etc:

Qur'an (33:50) - "O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee"  This is one of several personal-sounding verses "from Allah" narrated by Muhammad - in this case allowing himself a virtually unlimited supply of sex partners.  Other Muslims are restrained to four wives, but, following the example of their prophet, may also have sex with any number of slaves, as the following verse make clear:

Qur'an (23:5-6) - "..who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess..."   This verse permits the slave-owner to have sex with his slaves.  See also Qur'an (70:29-30).  The Quran is a small book, so if Allah used valuable space to repeat the same point four times, then sex slavery must be very important to him.

Qur'an (4:24) - "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess."  Even sex with married slaves is permissible.

Qur'an (8:69) - "But (now) enjoy what ye took in war, lawful and good"  A reference to war booty, of which slaves were a part.  The Muslim slave master may enjoy his "catch" because (according to verse 71) "Allah gave you mastery over them."

Qur'an (24:32) - "And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit among your male slaves and your female slaves..."  Breeding slaves based on fitness.

Qur'an (2:178) - "O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female."  The message of this verse, which prescribes the rules of retaliation for murder, is that all humans are not created equal.  The human value of a slave is less than that of a free person (and a woman's worth is also distinguished from that of a man's).

Qur'an (16:75) - "Allah sets forth the Parable (of two men: one) a slave under the dominion of another; He has no power of any sort; and (the other) a man on whom We have bestowed goodly favours from Ourselves, and he spends thereof (freely), privately and publicly: are the two equal? (By no means;) praise be to Allah."  Yet another confirmation that the slave is is not equal to the master.  In this case it is plain that the slave owes his status to Allah's will.  (According to 16:71, the owner should be careful about insulting Allah by bestowing Allah's gifts on slaves - those whom the god of Islam has not favored).

Klevius wrote:

Wednesday, May 6, 2015

Some "islamophobia" before Ed Milliband introduces sharia compliant "blasphemy" laws against the Brits' Human Rights as in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan

Are the Brits shooting themselves in the foot - again?

Politicians in bed with islamofascism is a disaster for Human Rights

Does it really help Jews to cooperate with the ideology that started with the genocidal slaughtering of all the Jews in Medina?

A vote for Ed Milliband is a vote against children's rights

Ed Miliband is the son of Polish immigrant parents. His mother, Marion Kozak, is a Polish Jew who survived the Holocaust thanks to being protected by Poles. His father, Ralph Miliband, was a Belgian-born Polish Jewish Marxist academic who fled with his father to England during World War II.

Rochdale is notorious for its muslim sex predators abusing white British girls taken into "care" by the social state.

Rochdale Labour councillor Shakil Ahmed is the dad of now freed(?!) terrorist suspect Waheed Ahmed who was arrested and accused of trying to go to Syria with eight of his relatives.

Some voices about Ed Milliband's sharia association

Leo McKinstry: Ed Milliband is far more dangerous than his awkward image suggests. An unprincipled, ruthless, opportunistic left-wing ideologue, he represents a serious menace to Britain’s future. Backed by the ScotsNats and Labour’s trade union paymasters, his regime would be one of debts, bureaucracy, mass immigration and constitutional chaos.

But now an even more sinister aspect to his leadership has emerged, one that threatens our essential freedoms. Miliband says he will make Islamophobia a serious crime to be prosecuted by the full might of the state. Flushed with self-righteous zeal, Miliband wants to ensure that the offence “is marked on people’s records with the police to make sure they root out Islamophobia as a hate crime.”

Anyone who believes in liberty will be truly alarmed. Miliband’s proposal goes against the entire tradition of western democracy, which holds that people should be punished only for their deeds, not their opinions.

In the name of tolerance, Labour wants to impose a form of totalitarianism, making a mockery of the concept of free speech. Like so many socialist policies, Miliband’s plan conjures up the dark, Orwellian world of the Thought Police, where all citizens are required to obey the ruling orthodoxy. I n January Miliband echoed the global outrage at the Charlie Hebdo massacre by Muslim terrorists in Paris, even joining other political leaders in the French capital’s official protest march. But his call for a British law against Islamophobia exposes the hollowness of his indignation.

Under his proposal, most of the Charlie Hebdo staff would have been in prison over their satirical cartoons.
Related articles

    Why aren’t the English allowed to be nationalists? asks LEO MCKINSTRY
    Ed Miliband and Nicola Sturgeon are the George and Mildred of politics says LEO MCKINSTRY
    End to hated inheritance tax that hurts middle income families, says LEO MCKINSTRY

Indeed Winston Churchill, Britain’s greatest statesman, would have ended up behind bars if Miliband’s law had been enacted during his life. In his 1899 book The River War, Churchill wrote that “no stronger retrograde force exists in the world” than the “militant and proselytising faith” of Islam. At a time when the police and courts seem incapable of tackling real lawbreakers effectively, Miliband’s proposal will waste huge resources by creating a whole new class of criminals whose only offence will have been to challenge an ideology that is being used to spread violence and misery across the world. In the new climate of censorship created by Labour, too many Muslims, including extremists, corrupt politicians and predatory paedophiles, will be able to silence their critics or halt investigations just by screeching the word “Islamophobia.”

In fact, that is already happening on an epic scale. Until his trial which concluded on Friday, no action was taken against Lutfur Rahman, the spectacularly corrupt Muslim Mayor of Tower Hamlets in east London, as he maintained his grip on power by constantly playing the race and religious card. In the same way, fears about accusations of Islamophobia meant that the authorities in Labour-run Rotherham did nothing about Pakistani sex gangs who systematically abused around 1,400 vulnerable white girls.

A similar spirit of collusion and cowardice has stopped the state dealing robustly with other Muslim abuses, like forced marriages, female genital mutilation, ballot box fraud or extremism in schools. Miliband’s whole scheme is based on a monstrous fraud.

So-called Islamophobia is not an irrational fear or prejudice but an understandable response to the horrors we see all around us perpetrated in the name of Allah, from the savage persecution of Christians in the Middle East to the beheading of Drummer Lee Rigby and the London bombings at home. As the great radical writer Christopher Hitchens once put it, Islamophobia “is a word created by fascists and used by cowards to manipulate morons.”

    Labour plan will fuel Muslim victimhood

    Leo McKinstry

It is outrageous that the Labour Party, while blathering about the fight against discrimination, effectively wants to shut down any debate about a theocratic doctrine that has provoked such a worldwide, blood-soaked catalogue of tyranny, oppression, terrorism, misogyny, anti-Semitism and homophobia.

In practice, what Miliband really proposes is the introduction of Muslim blasphemy laws, such as exist in the barbaric, failed Islamic-led states of the Middle East and Asia. In Miliband’s Britain, it will become impossible to criticise any aspect of Islamic culture, whether it be the spread of the burka or the establishment of sharia courts or the construction of colossal new mosques. We already live in a society where Mohammed is now the most popular boy’s name and where a child born in Birmingham is more likely to be a Muslim than a Christian. If he wins, Miliband will ensure that the accelerating Islamification of our country will go unchallenged.

He wants to act as the Witchfinder-General in the new Islamic order, hunting down heretics as he is cheered on by his Muslim allies. Driven by his desire for power, he is pandering to identity politics of the worst kind, seeking to gain support in the three million-strong Muslim population to prop up Labour’s urban vote. But such an approach is disastrous, for it fuels social division and Muslim victimhood.

If Miliband were a true leader, he would push for real integration by demanding that all Muslims face up to their responsibilities, accept western democratic values, stop trying to build replicas of Bangladesh and Pakistan here and drop their collusion with violence.

But that would require courage, maturity and patriotism, qualities that he so conspicuously lacks. Instead, at a terrible potential cost to Britain, he aims to give protection to alien bigotry.





Soeren Kern: “In Miliband’s Britain, it will become impossible to criticise any aspect of Islamic culture, whether it be the spread of the burka or the establishment of Sharia courts or the construction of colossal new mosques. … If he wins, Miliband will ensure that the accelerating Islamification of our country will go unchallenged.” — Leo McKinstry, British commentator.

    The report shows that Britain’s Muslim population is overwhelmingly young and will exert increasing political influence as time goes on. The median age of the Muslim population in Britain is 25 years, compared to the overall population’s median age of 40 years.

The leader of Britain’s Labour Party, Ed Miliband, has vowed, if he becomes the next prime minister in general elections on May 7, to outlaw “Islamophobia.”

The move — which one observer has called “utterly frightening” because of its implications for free speech in Britain — is part of an effort by Miliband to pander to Muslim voters in a race that he has described as “the tightest general election for a generation.”

With the ruling Conservatives and the opposition Labour running neck and neck in the polls just days before voters cast their ballots, British Muslims — who voted overwhelmingly for Labour in the 2010 general election — could indeed determine who will be the next prime minister.

In an interview with The Muslim News, Miliband said:

    “We are going to make it [Islamophobia] an aggravated crime. We are going to make sure it is marked on people’s records with the police to make sure they root out Islamophobia as a hate crime.

    “We are going to change the law on this so we make it absolutely clear of our abhorrence of hate crime and Islamophobia. It will be the first time that the police will record Islamophobic attacks right across the country.”

Miliband appears to be trying to reopen a long-running debate in Britain over so-called religious hatred. Between 2001 and 2005, the then-Labour government, led by Prime Minister Tony Blair, made two attempts (here and here) to amend Part 3 of the Public Order Act 1986, to extend existing provisions on incitement to racial hatred to cover incitement to religious hatred.

Those efforts ran into opposition from critics who said the measures were too far-reaching and threatened the freedom of speech. At the time, critics argued that the scope of the Labour government’s definition of “religious hatred” was so draconian that it would have made any criticism of Islam a crime.

In January 2006, the House of Lords approved the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, after amending the text so that the law would be limited to banning only “threatening” words and not those that are merely abusive or insulting. Lawmakers also said that the offense would require the intention — not just the possibility — of stirring up religious hatred. They added that proselytizing, discussion, criticism, abuse and ridicule of religion, belief or religious practice would not be an offense.

Miliband’s renewed promise to make “Islamophobia” (a term he has not defined) an “aggravated crime” may signal an attempt to turn the 2006 Act — which already stipulates a maximum penalty of seven years in prison for stirring up religious hatred — into a full-blown Muslim blasphemy law.

According to British commentator Leo McKinstry, “Miliband’s proposal goes against the entire tradition of Western democracy, which holds that people should be punished only for their deeds, not their opinions.” In an opinion article, he added:

    “In Miliband’s Britain, it will become impossible to criticise any aspect of Islamic culture, whether it be the spread of the burka or the establishment of Sharia courts or the construction of colossal new mosques. We already live in a society where Mohammed is now the most popular boy’s name and where a child born in Birmingham is more likely to be a Muslim than a Christian. If he wins, Miliband will ensure that the accelerating Islamification of our country will go unchallenged.”

McKinstry says Miliband is currying favor with Britain’s three million-strong Muslim community to “prop up Labour’s urban vote.”

Muslims are emerging as a key voting bloc in British politics and are already poised to determine the outcome of local elections in many parts of the country, according to a report by the Muslim Council of Britain, an umbrella group.

image: http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/wp-content/uploads/useful_banner_manager_banners/142-JewishShepard-600WIDE.jpg

The report shows that Britain’s Muslim population is overwhelmingly young and will exert increasing political influence as time goes on. The median age of the Muslim population in Britain is 25 years, compared to the overall population’s median age of 40 years.

An extrapolation of the available data indicates that one million British Muslims aged 18 and above will be eligible to vote in this year’s election. According to one study, Muslims could determine the outcome of up to 25% of the 573 Parliamentary seats in England and Wales.

Others say that although Britain’s Muslim community is growing, it is also ethnically diverse and unlikely to vote as a single group. One analyst has argued that the potential for Muslim influence in this year’s election “will remain unrealized because the Muslim vote is not organized in any meaningful way on a national level.”

A study produced by Theos, a London-based religious think tank, found that although Muslims consistently vote Labour, they do so based on class and economic considerations, not out of religious motives.

Indeed, a poll conducted by the BBC on April 17 found that nearly one-quarter of “Asian” voters still do not know which party they will support at the general election. Some of those interviewed by the BBC said that economic issues would determine whom they vote for.

In any event, Muslim influence in the 2015 vote will be largely determined by Muslim voter turnout, which has been notoriously low in past elections: Only 47% of British Muslims were estimated to have voted in 2010.

Since then, several grassroots campaigns have been established to encourage British Muslims to go to the polls in 2015, including Get Out & Vote, Muslim Vote and Operation Black Vote. Another group, YouElect, states:

    “A staggering 53% of British Muslims did not vote in the 2010 General Election, such a high figure of Muslim non-voters indicates that many Muslims feel ignored by politicians and disillusioned by the political process.

    “With the rise of Islamophobic rhetoric in politics and an ever increasing amount of anti-terror legislation which specifically targets Muslims, it is now more important than ever that Muslims use the vote to send a message to politicians that their attitudes and policies must change.

    “YouElect wants to get the message across that there is something you can do about the issues you care about. We have launched a new campaign using the hashtag #SortItOut, which calls on Muslims to use the political process to address the issues that concern them most.

    “With 100,000 new young Muslims eligible to vote this year and 26 parliamentary constituencies with a Muslim population of over 20%, the Muslim community has a very real opportunity to make an impact on British politics.”

Not all Muslims agree. The British-born Islamist preacher Anjem Choudary is actively discouraging Muslims from voting. In a stream of Twitter messages using the#StayMuslimDontVote hashtag, Choudary has argued that voting is a “sin” against Islam because Allah is “the only legislator.” He has also said that Muslims who vote or run for public office are “apostates.”

Despite several grassroots campaigns to encourage British Muslims to vote in greater numbers, some prominent Islamists in the UK claim that voting is a “sin.”

Other British Islamists are following Choudary’s lead. Bright yellow posters claiming that democracy “violates the right of Allah” have been spotted in Cardiff, the capital of Wales, and Leicester, as part of a grassroots campaign called #DontVote4ManMadeLaw.

One such poster stated:

    “Democracy is a system whereby man violates the right of Allah and decides what is permissible or impermissible for mankind, based solely on their whims and desires.

    “Islam is the only real, working solution for the UK. It is a comprehensive system of governance where the laws of Allah are implemented and justice is observed.”

A vote for Ed Milliband won't help victims of muslim sexual predators in accordance with the Koran

The social state is much more devastating to children than any private company - and waste much more money!

A UK mother who found 125 names of potential (most/all muslims?) sex abusers on her daughter’s mobile phone claims she was told by police in Rotherham it would be a "breach of the girl’s human rights" if they investigated.

Klevius translation: Note that we are talking about underage girls who would have no Human Rights protection against social state interventions (aided by the police) whatsoever (to understand this and the tiltle see Angels of Antichrist and Pathological Symbiosis). What they really meant was that it would be a breach of the muslims' human rights (read "diversity policy") if they investigated. And this is the dilemma - Human Rights cover all, including muslims, whereas sharia opposes Human Rights - which fact doesn't hinder muslims (and their supporters) from abusing Human Rights when it serves themselves.!

The parasitic social state that feeds itself on behalf of the taxpayers and children while giving a s--t to non-muslim girls abused by muslims. Don't approve a penny before getting rid of the parasites residing in the social state! And one thing is definitive: Ed Milliband will continue supporting these parasites.

Rotherham has been totally dominated by Labour since World War 2. Compare the total dominance of the Swedish social democrats who created the disastrous Swedish social state all the way from Gunnar and Alva Myral's "social hygiene"  in the 1930s and due eugenics to the explosive tax injection in the 1970s and due birth of the modern social state. Some results: The Swedish "girl problem" (which Klevius has written about since 1993), high child/youth criminality, and a school system that 2015 is classified among the worst within OECD and heavily criticized in a recent OECD report. Yet Sweden has compulsory school attendance and doesn't admit homeschooling at all for normal children (alone in Europe together with Germany whose Hitler imposed law is still in power).

Learn more on Angels of Antichrist and Pathological Symbiosis

Joyce Thacker has been a central figure in the responsibility for letting children be abused and even murdered. How much does she get from your tax money, and will she be rewarded in the usual way for defending islam while not defending children.

Islam is the only remaining legal excuse for hateful racism and sexism. If you are a racist or sexist then your only non-criminal option is islam.

Where others have to adapt to goodness (Human Rights) muslims can continue being evil (sharia) because of islam's status as a "religion".

But the troublesome fact remains that islam isn't only incapable of approving of the most basic of Human Rights, islam is also guilty of 1400 years of constant murdering, genocides, slavery and rapetivism. Islam is a Pandora's box and the only hope is the extinction of its main evil message.

BBC's diversion tactics for the purpose of belittling islamic slavery genocides - the worst ideological crime ever against humanity

BBC's aim seems to be to make people believe that "sex slavery was/is all over the place" - i.e. not only islam.

Today islam is the only allowed ideology that approves of sexual violence/rapetivism.

Sexual violence is a weapon and a strategy that is approved by islam and therefore used by muslims to "justify" it. In other words, when non-muslim traffickers know they are criminals, muslim criminals just point to the Koran, hadiths and Muhammad.

As an exemplifying consequence, out of 585 peace treaties since 1990 only 17 mention sexual violence/rape. And out of 300 ceasefire deals only 6 consider such kind of sexual violence a violation of the deal.

Islam started with Muhammad's genocide of all the Jews in Medina 1400 years ago and continued its violent attacks until today. Islam's victims throughout all these years are more than any other evil ideology. What we call Judaism also started with genocide (the slaughtering of the Canaanites) but due to mainly matrilineality  never managed to produce numbers comparable with islam. This is what Klevius calls the Vagina/Penis divide, i.e. that a man can have more "offspring" than a woman. A muslim man makes a muslim - not a "muslim" woman.A "muslim" woman is an "inferior" being according to Muhammad and islam.

The main body of those who today call themselves muslims consists of people whose female ancestors had been enslaved by muslim males thanks to Human Rights violating sharia which makes the muslim man the determinant for muslimhood while apostasy ban makes it impossible to leave islam. A woman married to a muslim man is, according to islamic sharia forced to reproduce only muslims.

BBC has slowly started understanding that islam isn't just a "religion" but a pure sex slave "religion" and in their programs is now busy pushing out whatever they can find of non-muslim examples of slavery and sex abuse for the simple purpose of thereby trying to dilute islam's horrifying ideological essence and history - and islam's contemporary and continuing sex slavery ideology.

Yes, there has been slavery in different forms even before islam. However, only islam made slavery (parasitism) its main ideology, inscribed it in its main book and violently expanded through slavery, and finally always declined  into the deepest misery when the supply was limited - as was the case when the West in the 19th century toppled the Ottoman slave "empire" which was itself created through islamic slavery. Or more than thousand years ago when some half a million black slaves in what is now Iraq revolted against their Sunni muslim slave "owners". Islam's "golden ages" have all rested on unlimited supply of slaves through human trafficking, slave raids etc.


Klevius: OIC, the Islamic State, muslim sharia racism/sexism etc are all around us, indeed. So why do you contribute to this evil?!