Desperate $-freeloader (since 1971) US has clearly asked Ukraine to bomb Russian radar installations made for warning against US intercontinental nuclear missiles - which have nothing to do with the Ukraine war - which US started 2013-14.
Do try to get it, US behavior is all about losing its dollar hegemony! And weakening Russia is just a means for getting at China, US real "problem".
And Ukraine did it immediately after Blinken left, and some strikes almost 2,000 km away. So when Blinken said Ukraine could decide how to use them, that was a usual US lie on par with US Gaza lies, i.e. they had been well thought through and prepared long in advance. Every time Blinken, Sullivan, Biden etc. open their mouth, it's nice sounding empty platitudes. After all, no one, not even dollar freeloader US itself, knows when the trust in US dollar hegemony suddenly capsizes - only that when it inevitably does, it will happen in no time. So US uses as a scapegoat the very unwitting "book keeper" China - which in every aspect has beaten US - and strangles the world with what is left of US stolen hegemony rope. This is why US is now desperate and more dangerous than ever before. And this is of course why US is so "concerned" about China's economy which has double true growth numbers compared to US fiat "growth", i.e. to contain China from everything incl. trade and investors. In fact, it's truly remarkable that after years of senseless and criminal onslaught from US and its puppets, China still manages to keep its growth and to continue accelerating away from the rest of the world in high tech and science etc.
The way the world's biggest ever financial fraudster and dollar embezzler US (since 1971 and progressively so now) utilizes its crime to continue its hegemony, is all over the place through intelligence (surveillance and spying on all people outside China (and probably some inside as well); politics (bribing, meddling, coersion etc.); finance (by controlling institutions US created for itself, like World Bank, IMF, etc.); CIA and The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) which purpose is to meddle, militarize, support and "award" seditious etc. forces in countries US want to destabilize; sanctions, stealing assets and money, blocking normal commercial channels etc;
DCA/Nato to make US nuke etc. occupation possible; social and other media monopoly via US web control (Silicon Valley is directly steered by US government and military - and for a very bad reason and aim compared to other countries! Etc. etc. etc!
Trump case
US lawfare against its most likely but not liked presidential candidate is much worse than the Russian Navalny case because whereas the latter really had a criminal past, Trump doesn't - so it had to be created.
A biased judge in a politicized justice system with ignorant jurors under the dictatorship of a professional judge who knows exactly how to steer them. In this case the judge even read a book for the, one would guess, mostly not well judicially prepared jurors, which fact leaves a lot of leverage for the judge to color his"explanation" of the text. Especially in cases where the judicial borders are more blurred. Peter Klevius wrote (1992) that although jurisprudence is the ultimate science in that it start from a truth (the law) that is then applied to a case, it's the judicial process per se that constitutes its Achilles heel. This means that "blurred" cases, i.e, lacking a directly pinpointed logical cause and effect line which excludes alternatives, should go unpunished even if it feels wrong. However, this weakness in the judicial system can also be used for the opposite, i.e. to via less well informed jurors etc. parts in the judicial process, make judgements contrary to the judicial understanding. A judge acts like a conductor in such judicial system.
Of course, the situation in higher court is completely different.
When Trump in his first campaign 2016 promised to get tough on islamism and "the deep state", Peter Klevius thought it could be better for the world. However, Peter Klevius was soon disappointed when Trump as president instead hugged the worst muslim islamist of them all (Saudi terror spreader, dictator and murderer MbS). Moreover, when Trump was told in full about the likelihood that China's continuing success would lead to a decline in the world's trust in US stolen dollar hegemony, then Trump joined the criminal band wagon instead of trying to honestly solve it in a rules based order.
Peter Klevius rests his case...
In UK - as in many other "democratic" countries - there's no meaningful reported difference between the two main "choices" voters are offered.
They share the most important issues like:
Taxes,
NHS,
Anti-China (the world's leading meritocratic high tech, science, and clean energy country), pro-US (the world's leading warmonger and dollar embezzler),
Increase in militarism so to satisfy its master, the warmongering "ally" US - which is actually an equally disastrous partner to UK as England is to Scotland. Just compare how low UK per capita income is compared to US, and how low it is in Scotland compared to England. And consider how even the worst warmonger (although competition is tough) on BBC Radio 4 PM, Evan Davis, was surprised to hear that his master US could place US nukes in UK without him even knowing about it. But of course one could argue that what is called UK nukes are ultimately under US control anyway.
Keir Starmer made Labour an exact copy of Tories (even incl. militant right wingers) by ousting voices such as Jeremy Corbyn, Diane Abbott etc.
Although Peter Klevius sympathized with
Corbyn's anti-militarism etc. it wasn't possible to swallow his
uncritical view on sharia islamism. And of course Peter Klevius shares
Coirbyn's, Abbott's and others condemnation of Israels genocide and war
crimes against Palestinians - as has been evident on these pages since
October 2023.
Peter Klevius wrote:
Wednesday, May 18, 2016
Labour and BBC equal Human Rights defense (so called "islamophobia") with muslim "extremism" and terrorism. Is this really fair?!
Will the "British neo-Empire" (based on Commonwealth islamofascism*) finally collapse and integrate due to self inflected religious cancer - just as the Roman Empire did?
* You need to be blindfolded not to realize that stupid people in Britain since the WW2 have desperately tried to reinstate a neo-empire - mainly via its connections toIf the world's most powerful nation, "god willing", gets an "islamophobic" anti-sharia president (pbuh) and the UK either becomes ruled by EU and islamist Turkey or standing outside EU and joining its loosing and backward muslim Commonwealth nations - either way it's a way into the dark when the simple solution would be more, not less, "islamophobia".
If you abandon, or is abandoned by the US, then you only have China/Japan/East Asia left as serious partners. However, Sinophobia, Shintophobia etc. is widespread in the UK - on historical grounds, pure old fashioned racism agaoinst mongoloid people - and not the least because of BBC's relentless propaganda for islamofascist muslims and against everything standing in their way.
The "islamophobia" campaign only helps islamofascism. However, Jeremy Corbyn couldn't for his life first remember that he had welcomed this extremist muslim. Only under hard pressure did he later managed to recollect it. How many other Human Rightsophobes has Corbyn met?!
Why isn't Jeremy Corbyn arrested for his racist and hateful agitation against Human Rights defenders, and therefore also promoting islamofascism - no matter how "soft" and non-violent*?!
* "Soft" sharia islamofascism is always connected with so called "hardliners". If politicias really mean what they say about "British values" etc. then they would inevitably be classified as "islamophobes" under the same criterion as those whom they spit on. However, at this very point these racist cowards hide behind "tolerance" and "religious freedom" platitudes.Jeremy Corbyn's agitation against "islamophobia" constitutes the worst form of racism because it denies Human Rights. Criticizing islam's violations of Human Rights (compare e.g. Saudi based and steered OIC's world sharia declaration via UN) can never be stretched to epithets such as "racism" simply because universal Human Rights defense is the purest of anti-racism logic. It's the difference between impositions and freedom.
London's new muslim mayor (voted in via Labour and with the help of muslim extremist votes) didn't answer the question whether he will eliminate Human Rights violating sharia "courts" in London. A "moderate" (but consider his history of defending muslim supremacists etc. muslim extremist connections) muslim who bows the true radical sharia muslims.
Saudi based and steered OIC and its islamofascist Fuhrer, Iyad Madani, associated with the Saudi dictator family.
Klevius suggestion: Ask your muslim friend if s/he supports OIC and its Sharia against Human Rights!
If you have a problem understanding this see more further down.
Klevius brief summary of world economy - and the failure of islam - and a hint where to look if you're more concerned about economy and development rather than islamofascist backwardness:
Secular/Atheist nations are the most successful - muslim nations are the least successful and most likely to have conflicts, persecution, poverty etc. Muslim nations are also the by far most hostile to giving women equal rights with men.
Indonesia (256 million) BDP (official exchange rate): $872.6 billion (2015 est.)
Bangladesh (169 million) GDP (official exchange rate): $202.3 billion (2015 est.)
Pakistan (199 million) GDP (official exchange rate): $247.8 billion (2015 est.)
Iran (82 million) GDP (official exchange rate): $396.9 billion (2015 est.)
Turkey (80 million) GDP (official exchange rate): $722.2 billion (2015 est.)
Saudi Arabia (28 million) GDP (official exchange rate): $681.2 billion (2015 est.) - all of what is the result of Western oil money - not islam.
Klevius comment: Muslim world with a Billion people end up well behind Japan (127 million) in comparison. And the only muslim nation Japan occupied, Indonesia, seems to have fared the best. And Turkey can be explained by its secular (non-Ottoman) period before Erdogan started his neo-islamization program that now constitutes the main artery into Europe of the political cancer called islam.
Some other numbers to contemplate:
Nigeria (182 million) GDP (official exchange rate): $493 billion (2015 est.)
Brazil (184 million) GDP (official exchange rate): $1.8 trillion (2015 est.)
Mexico (122 million) GDP (official exchange rate): $1.161 trillion (2015 est.)
India (1,252 million) GDP (official exchange rate): $2.183 trillion (2015 est.)
UK (64 million) GDP (official exchange rate):
$2.865 trillion (2015 est.)
Germany (81 million) GDP (official exchange rate): $3.371 trillion (2015 est.)
France (67 million) GDP (official exchange rate): $2.423 trillion (2015 est.)
Korea (49 million) GDP (official exchange rate):
$1.393 trillion (2015 est.)
Japan (127 million) GDP (official exchange rate):
$4.127 trillion (31 October 2015 est.)
China (1,367 million) GDP (official exchange rate): $11.38 trillion
note: because China's exchange rate is determined by fiat, rather than by market forces, the official exchange rate measure of GDP is not an accurate measure of China's output; GDP at the official exchange rate substantially understates the actual level of China's output vis-a-vis the rest of the world; in China's situation, GDP at purchasing power parity provides the best measure for comparing output across countries (2015 est.)
US (321 million) GDP (official exchange rate): $17.97 trillion (2015 est.)
Klevius wrote:
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Time to burn OIC's Human Rights violation and to indict the Saudi hate criminals and their supporters
Btw, did England incite hatred against the German Nationalsocialists thus causing unrest and chaos? And was Germany's attack reasonable because of an unfair Versaille treaty? Patrick Buchanan makes the case that, if not for the blunders of British statesmen the horrors of two world wars and the Holocaust might have been avoided? To this one may add that whereas Nationalsocialism was national and hence not totalitarian in a universal sense, islam is truly totalitarian, on a micro level as well as on a macro level.
57 islamic nations (OIC) have here agreed to adopt Sharia!
This man, Saudi "king" Abdullah (aka Mr X "president's" first call) is an oil parasite whose main task in life has been the spreading of evil islamism!
OIC, a Saudi initiated and supporting organization consisting of 56+1 islamist nations who have:
1 decided to violate Human Rights by replacing them with islamist Sharia which denies girls and women their rights given in the 1948 Human Rights Declaration
2 hijacked UN by constituting its biggest voting bloc
3 criminalized criticism against islam by calling it "islamophobia"
The mosque mouse, silenced by islam
Sept 28-30, 2010, the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), is sponsoring Sharia propaganda at the AIC’s Chicago campus.
Founded in 1969 OIC is now a 56 (+ Palestine) state collective which includes every lslamic nation on Earth. Currently headed by Turkey’s Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, OIC thus represents the entire muslim Umma and is the largest single voting bloc in the UN.
John Laffin warned in 1988 that the Jedda-based OIC, initiated and patronized by Saudi Arabia, is persuading Muslim nations to jettison even their inchoate adoption of “Western models and codes,” and to revert to the pre-Western retrograde systems of Sharia.
According to Laffin, the Saudis offered sizable loans and grants in return for a more extensive application of Sharia.
Saudi Arabia also distributed an abundance of media and print materials which extended to non-muslim countries, including tens of millions of Korans, translated into many languages for the hundreds of millions of muslims (and non-muslims) who did not read Arabic.
And now two special US envoys to the OIC later (both the former, Sada Cumber, and current envoy, Rashad Hussain) will attend the Chicago OIC propaganda for the purpose of islamization.
Andrew Bostom : Elizabeth Kendal, in a recent commentary [4] about the plight of brutalized Egytpian Muslim “apostates” Maher el-Gowhary and Nagla Al-Imam, made a series of apt observations which illustrate the most salient aspect of Islam’s persistent religious totalitarianism: the absence of freedom of conscience in Islamic societies. Egypt, Kendal notes, amended its secular-leaning constitution in 1980, reverting to its pre-colonial past and designating Sharia (Islamic law) as “the principal source of legislation” — an omnipresent feature of contemporary Muslim constitutions, including the new constitutions of Afghanistan and Iraq — rendering “constitutional guarantees of religious liberty and equality before the law illusory.” This is the inevitable outcome of a Sharia-based legal system, because:
Sharia’s principal aim concerning religious liberty, is to eradicate apostasy (rejection of Islam) through the elimination of fitna (anything that could tempt a Muslim to reject Islam) and the establishment of dhimmitude — the humiliation and subjugation of Jews and Christians as second class citizens [or non-citizen pariahs]; crippling systematic discrimination; violent religious apartheid …
In Egypt, as in virtually all Muslim states, a person’s official religion is displayed on their identity card. According to Sharia, every child born to a Muslim father is deemed Muslim from birth. According to Sharia, a Muslim woman is only permitted to marry a Muslim man. (This is the main reason why Christian men convert to Islam, and why female converts to Christianity will risk life and liberty to secure a falsified/illegal ID, for without a Christian ID they cannot marry a Christian.)
There is no religious liberty in Islam, for Islam survives as religious totalitarianism that refuses rejection.
Islam’s refusal to abide rejection by its votaries — the global Muslim umma’s strident rejection of freedom of conscience — is now openly codified, and has been for two decades. The 1990 Cairo Declaration, or so-called “Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam”, was drafted and subsequently ratified by all the Muslim member nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.
Both the preamble and concluding articles (24 and 25) make plain that the OIC’s Cairo Declaration is designed to supersede Western conceptions of human rights as enunciated, for example, in the U.S. Bill of Rights and the UN’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The opening of the preamble to the Cairo Declaration [5] repeats a Koranic injunction affirming Islamic supremacism (Koran 3:110; “You are the best nation ever brought forth to men … you believe in Allah”), and states:
Reaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which Allah made the best nation …
The preamble continues:
Believing that fundamental rights and universal freedoms in Islam are an integral part of the Islamic religion and that no one as a matter of principle has the right to suspend them in whole or in part or violate or ignore them in as much as they are binding divine commandments, which are contained in the Revealed Books of God and were sent through the last of His Prophets to complete the preceding divine messages thereby making their observance an act of worship and their neglect or violation an abominable sin, and accordingly every person is individually responsible — and the Ummah collectively responsible — for their safeguard.
In its last articles 24 and 25, the Cairo Declaration maintains
[Article 24] All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia. … [Article 25] The Islamic Sharia is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration.
Michael Hamilton: As noted in Shariah: The Threat to America, Ihsanoglu used the occasion of an earlier speech to an OIC Council of Foreign Ministers’ conclave to declare war on freedom of speech:
In [the OIC’s] confronting the Danish cartoons and the Dutch film “Fitna,” we sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed. As we speak, the official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked.
Of late, the Organization of the Islamic Conference has taken to the United Nations its war against expression that gives offense to Islam. Last September, the Obama administration actually co-sponsored a resolution with Egypt (representing the OIC) in the UN Human Rights Council, calling on the United Nation’s member states to limit such expression, as part of the OIC’s ongoing campaign to have the UN recognize Islamophobia as a form of racism subject to prosecution under international law.
This effort to establish what it calls “deterrent punishments” for shariah slander is only one example of OIC activity at odds with American interests and the U.S. Constitution. Other examples include:
• Disrupting U.S. Efforts in Afghanistan: In the July 2010 edition of the OIC’s “Islamophobia Observatory” Bulletin, the OIC sharply criticized Gen. Petraeus’ counter-insurgency manual as “a manifestation of Islamophobia”;
• Damaging Middle East Peace Negotiations: Since its founding, the OIC has pursued an aggressive anti-Israel campaign, including creating a fund for the intifada in 2001;
• Denies Civil Liberties and Freedom to Muslims and Non-Muslims: The OIC for decades has tried to deny American Muslims and others the protections of the UN Convention on Human Rights and the U.S. Constitution, insisting instead that they comply with the shariah apartheid doctrine formally adopted by the OIC’s members as the so-called “Cairo Declaration of Human Rights.”
According to the conference agenda published by the OIC New York UN Permanent Mission (http://www.oicun.org/9/20100727101615770.html), the executive director of the Chicago franchise of the Hamas-linked CAIR, Ahmed Rehab, will moderate a panel entitled: “The Role of the OIC and the Scope for its Relation with American Muslims.”
In yet another ominous move, the Organization of the Islamic Conference has announced that it will meet on September 30 with American Muslim leaders – many of whose groups the federal government has identified in court as Muslim Brotherhood fronts – for the purpose of creating the “American Muslim Liaison Council to the OIC.”
Question to: Nobel Prize Laureate Shirin Ebadi by David G. Littman (Representative: AWE & WUPJ)
My question is addressed to Madam Shirin Ebadi.
Thank you for your remarkable frank speaking here and your courage - a true lesson for us all.
A year ago, on Human Rights Day 2007, OIC Secretary-General Prof. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu stated that the OIC General Secretariat is considering the establishment of an independent permanent body to promote Human Rights in Member States in accordance with the provision of the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam and to elaborate an OIC Charter on Human Rights.
Four days later, on 14 December 2007, Pakistan's Ambassador Masood Khan - speaking for the OIC at the Human Rights Council -claimed that the 1990 Cairo Declaration was "not an alternative competing worldview on human rights," but failed to mention that the shari'a law was "the only source of reference" in that Declaration's articles 24 and 25 - the same shari'a law in which there is no equality between Muslim men and women and Muslims and non-Muslims. The Final Communiqué of the 3rd Extraordinary Session of the Islamic Mecca Summit on 8 December 2005 had provided a clear message on this - and on the UN system of human rights.
Madam, do you feel that the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam - and a future Islamic Charter based on shari'a law - would clash with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam and the International bill of Human Rights? To give one example: the marriage of girls at nine years old, as in Iran, since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Klevius comment: Islamic “monotheism” is the most evil form of the old Jewish “the chosen people” racism. The only meaningful difference is that whereas old Judaism was spread via the Vagina, islam is spread via the Penis (rapetivism). This fact together with islam’s harsh apostasy ban (meaning leaving islam is considered a crime) and that muslim women are not allowed to marry non’muslims, explains why there are now less than 10 Million Jews but more than one Billion muslims.
OIC’s Cairo declaration clearly violates girls/women’s Human Rights. Under OIC’s islamic Sharia a female doesn’t really count as a fully human (only "truly" muslim men counts) because of islam’s rigid sex segregation. Because of their sex females are, according to islam, forever and in all aspects of life, doomed to legal difference as prescribed by whatever Sharia happens to rule. To make this more simple to understand, just compare to the original Human Rights which expressly state that sex should not be an excuse for limiting girls’ and women’s freedom. And even more simple: Whereas under Sharia women are doomed to sex segregation, under Human Rights a woman can choose to sex segregate herself as well as to refuse to sex segregate herself (However, due to the detrimental effects of psychoanalysis this latter option isn’t always open for girls because they may be labeled as “suffering” from gender identity disorder – see Klevius explanation of this repulsive psychiatyric intervention in girls’ lives).
Negative Human Rights constitute the backbone of the Human Rights Declaration and the US Constitution. Islam/Sharia is the very opposite. This is why OIC violates the most important part of the Human Rights by replacing their freedom with medieval islamofascism.
No comments:
Post a Comment