While Klevius is forcing islam into a Human Rights corner, Obama continues supporting islamofascism

Apostate (?) Obama's bio- and adoptive dads were both muslims

BBC smears China while bolstering Saudi islamofascists - the worst spreaders of hate and terror

BBC smears China while bolstering Saudi islamofascists - the worst spreaders of hate and terror

May's secret love affair with Saudi islamofascists - while rejecting Chinese

Choudary and May both want more sharia - so what about "British values"?

Michael Morell (ex-CIA) is/was a knowing agent for Saudi wahhabism and its Koranic hate jihadism

Trump: Why wouldn't we? Theresa May: I would!

Sharia muslim London mayor voted in by his islamist friends

Sharia muslim London mayor voted in by his islamist friends

Theresa May is for sharia and EU - but against EU's Human Rights Court which condemns sharia

Muslims and Hillary against Human Rights

Muslims and Hillary against Human Rights

OIC and NOI are muslim extremist organizations

Origin of islam and an ignorant white Western nun

Samantha Lewthwaite, Mishal Husain and Michael Adebolajo have sharia islam in common

Samantha Lewthwaite, Mishal Husain and Michael Adebolajo have sharia islam in common

God is an escape route from Human Rights

First sophisticated art by the first truly modern humans

Oldest real portrait ever found (>29,000BP Central Europe, dated by the latest space technology)

Finland's lion tramping the islamic scimitar 1583

We're all born unequal - that's why we need Human Rights, not islam!

Origin of the Vikings

A victim of rapetivism - and an interfaith messenger of rapetivism

A victim of rapetivism - and an interfaith messenger of rapetivism

Japan 10 yrs ahead of Europe in hybrid/fuelcell cars, space tech etc

Native Brits from Doggerland spoke a proto-Finnish/Uralic language

We non-muslims need to honor racist islam's victims - cause muslims won't

We non-muslims need to honor racist islam's victims - cause muslims won't

The islamic extermination of Jews

Modern humans originated in Siberia

Alwaleed bin Talal, a rape accused muslim who's never worked & spends oil Billions on sexist Sharia

Alwaleed bin Talal, a rape accused muslim who's never worked & spends oil Billions on sexist Sharia
Klevius is probably now the world's foremost expert on sex segregation, and islam (the worst cime ever) is the foremost expression of sex segregation. By 'islam' Klevius means Sharia as described by Bill Warner and the Saudi based and steered muslim world organization OIC and its Cairo declaration (sharia) imposed on all muslims via UN (meaning basic Human Rights are criminalized).

Burn OIC's islamic anti-Human Rights declaration!

Tuesday, October 25, 2016

A recorded public time-line of Peter Klevius original insights on human evolution 1992-2012 - and some thoughts about self-citation

Why trust an individual like Peter Klevius more than academic peer constellations? 

Because Klevius is a free individual - and because he (unlike islamists, socialists etc) accepts full Human Rights equality (so called 'negative rights') hence making him immune against bias common among many scientists! And it certainly doesn't hurt that Klevius happens to have an IQ far beyond most professional academics - while also featuring a rock stable mentality combined with no political, religious or academic hindering ties.

Peter Klevius biological father, Olof Kinnmark, was one of Sweden's best chess players (he managed to win the Gothenburg championship over a span of some four decades), and Klevius half-sister (same mother but less intelligent father) managed to top IBM's European IQ test (IQ 167) in their brain hunt in the early days of computing. Klevius mother's two brothers both had engineer as well as economy degrees and had leading occupations in some of Finland's biggest companies.

So..., as Klevius was told after having done the military IQ test (they never gave the actual numbers though): 'If you ever have any difficulties - don't blame your brain for it!' However, that's precisely what Klevius has kept doing ever since by calling himself mentally impaired - meaning it's not always easy to communicate with people of average IQ - not the least because first you have to lower the bar so you can communicate, and when doing so your partner starts easily disrespecting/belittling what you say, and when you explain it a little deeper then they usually get hurt. But to those who really know Klevius he defends himself by pointing to the fact that they have all the time they need to check him out afterwards and possibly correct and embarrass him -, if they can (compare Klevius writings). As a close friend of Klevius used to say: 'I hate when you give up so quickly when you're wrong. That leaves me with too little space to really enjoy my victory. And when I'm proven wrong I can't give up equally quick'.

The photo below was taken after Finland, as the first country in the world, got full* suffrage for women - but long before the US, UK, and most other countries got the same right.  

* Meaning they could also be elected.

Now we have the unbelievable situation that the US not only lacks full equality for women in the Constitution (due to religious prejudices - see the tragic history of the Equal Rights Amendment) but also that US women let themselves be cheated by a sharia supporting crooked money puppet who just happens to have a Vagina. So Trump's alleged kisses and hugs and statements to some women mean more than EVERY woman's right to equality?! Good job done by Saudi sponsored politicians and media - and easily duped US women.

These four Finnish/Finland-Swedish mothers in Klevius maternal line have just buried a fifth.

US women fighting in vain for equality some 70 years after Finnish women got full equality.

Drawing (1979) and photo (2012) by Peter Klevius.

Only stupid or emotionally unstable people need to boast - Klevius is neither. So why does he "boast"? Well, he doesn't, he only boosts info about himself as a service for his readers.

Self-citing is self-advertising, but necessary if important knowledge is kept hidden from the people. However, the real problem is deliberately biased out of focus "research".

The quality of research is determined by how well it keeps its alleged focus. However, scientific "doping" happens within peer constellations and filtered citation lists used to alter the focus while "sharpening" it with misleading academic semantics resulting in more or less nonsense "research" where the "red line" is that very bias it aimed to achive for political, religious or whatever purpose other than science.
Drawing by Peter Klevius

Forgive Klevius for self-citing his book which, btw, warns about citations even in general* (see chapter Science and citations). However, self-citation is neccessary for the people serving under-dog who is declared pariah because of being "islamophobic" (i.e. defending basic Human Rights against sharia islamofascism) and/or not scientifically PC despite more IQ and less bias than main stream science - and most importantly, offering scientific insights that could straighten up many costly research paths. However, as with everything, even science is heavily influenced by personal, religious and/or political bias. Therefore, acknowledging this fact, Klevius main scientific methodology is sniffing bias - even within himself.

* Klevius warned 1992 (pp. 40-44) for automated scientific papers where the coherence lies in deliberate bias based on citation filters rather than scientific research focus (compare drawing above). Unlike nonsense papers produced by SCIgen type programs, citation steered (i.e. academic "cherry picking" for political, religious etc reason)

Please, fact-check Klevius - if you can! Your IQ may be too low for the task, and the originality of Klevius insights (i.e. insights better in line with known facts than main stream academic ones) may seem confusing precisely because of an inevitable lack of other scientists saying the same.
Klevius isn't boasting - just boosting. What some might think is Klevius boasting about himself is in fact the very opposite, namely Klevius criticizing dumb/biased "scientists" sitting in an ivoy tower guarded by prestigious academic dogma, greed and conceit - not to mention peer and citation cartels etc. 

1988 Met with a deserting South African soldier and other people with knowledge about Bushmen (who possess mongoloid features).

1992 Published Demand for Resources (ISBN 9173288411) in which Klevius pointed to Northern Eurasia and mongoloid cold adaptation (incl. the remarcable 280,000 bp Jinniushan in northern China) as the possible source of the evolution of the truly modern humans (meaning the one that clearly differed from its predecessors when it comes to intelligence, i.e. what started that very cultural change we still experience).

2002 Spencer Wells points to Central Asia as the genetic node for M45 (however, Wells continued to propose out of Africa).

2003 Klevius theory of a better packed brain shaped by climatological changes (e.g. up and down through Central Asian channels to the cold but protein/fat rich Siberia - see Klevius old and since 2006 unchanged Out of Africa as pygmies and back as global mongoloids).

2004 Homo floresiensis was announced and gave Klevius a better glimpse of how the packaging actually might had taken place - while other scientists declared it "a sick human" and having a "too small brain" for doing what it did.

2010 Klevius art track map connected the Denisova bracelet (the oldest and most sophisticated known truly modern human achievement) with other Eurasian paleo-art and noted a band from Baycal to the Pyrenees with a new level of sophistication not seen anywhere else in the world, and fitting well into a picture where the truly modern human spread out from northern Eurasia - now with a better packed brain in a bigger skull.

2012 The announcement of the archaic looking Red Deer Cave people (11,500-14,500 bp) existing in Southern China just like the extremely modern looking but much older (70,000-155,000bp) Liujiang skull, long after the birth of the truly modern human (45-50,000 bp?).

2014 The announcement of the hitherto oldest genome (45,000 bp) of a modern human, the Ust-Ishim man in North-western Russia didn't add anything to Klevius understanding. Nor did the announcement of an other Russian find, the 37,000 year old Kostenki 14 found on a place with truly modern human habitation at least 45,000 years ago.

What is called 'anatomically modern human' in biased PC language is in fact nothing more humanlike than what we call Neanderthals when it comes to tool technologies and behavior. In fact, Klevius thinks we have to question the whole early homo/Neanderthal picture and rather see tool technologies and varying grades of "archaic" feature in the light of hybridization from the north instead of from the south. It's actually quite embarrassing how serious looking anthropologists keep telling you that there was a one way grid between Africa and EurAsia that worked 100% for tens of thousands of years - even though the alternative view presented here ticks all the boxes.

Klevius wrote:

Wednesday, July 08, 2015

Skulls and genetics out of east Asia/Siberia and into Europe, Mideast and Africa

Skull development, tools, art, genes, all go in the very opposite direction of what main stream PC science tries to propose in its eagerness to please its own invention*, Afrocentrism.

* An ashamed Klevius admits that he also used to be an Afro-centrist until he realized the awful crypto-racism it contained - back in the 1980s.

And when data don't fit the wanted picture it's called "mysteries". However, the biggest mystery seems to be the axiomatic "Adam" haplogroup A00 which was not created by a god but by biased OOA people.

Most "mysteries" in genetics disappear by abandoning OOA and changing direction of HSS evolution. Only South East Asia offered a combination of tropical island/mainland fluctuations needed to put pressure on size reduction paired with evolutionary isolation in an environment where only those survived who managed to shrink their heads while keeping the same intelligence as their mainland kins with some double the sized brain. Homo floresiensis is evidence that such has happened there.

Early modern human settlement of Europe north of the Alps occurred 43,500 years ago in a cold steppe-type environment long before similarly skilled humans appeared in Mideast.

Kostenki on the Don river in the European part of Russia has layers associated with culturally modern humans underneath the ~40,000 bp Campanian eruption.

The clearly modern human (we have even his DNA) called Ust-Ishim man is ~45,000 bp and found at the Irtysh River near Ural mountains.

Early Ahmarian culture and the Protoaurignacian culture, living in south and west Europe and west Asia around 40,000 years ago used small stone points as tips for hunting weapons like throwing spears, and they appeared in Europe 3,500 years earlier than in the Levant. This is logical if those humans came from the Altai area in Siberia and followed the Mammoth steppe which went all the way to central Europe and never came even close to Mideast.

The oldest HSS skull ever found is from east Asia.

Liujiang HSS, 1567cc, est. 70,000 bp to more than 150,000 bp. Even the lowest possible estimate is far earlier than anything similar in Africa, Mideast or Europe.

Do consider the multitude of techniques in use to blur the physical HSS definition. However, this skull can't be confused with anything from Africa before 70,000 bp.

The Liujiang skull most probably came from sediment dating to 111,000 to 139,000 bp but there is a small chance that it came either from a deposit dating from around 68 000 bp or from one dating to more than 153 000 bp. However, even the loweat est. combined with its very modern shape and size would even then make it the first of its kind.

Early modern human settlement of Europe north of the Alps occurred 43,500 years ago in a cold steppe climate - and 3,500 years earlier than in Mideast.

Some 37,000-42,000 bp Neanderthals in Romania/Europe are supposed to have disappeared. Oase 1 is within the Aurignacian cultural tradition, which was the first wave of modern humans in Europe est. 45,000-35,000 bp. Compare this to the 45,000 bp modern HSS at Ust-ishim in western Siberia, of whom we have a full DNA.

For comparison, Mladeč 1, an early Upper Paleolithic skull from the Czech Republic, dating to around 36,000 bp compared to Manot 1 from Mideast 55,000 bp cranial capacity 1100 cc.

John Hawks: The morphology of the skull is very comparable to those that come from the early Upper Paleolithic of Europe. Its parietal bones bulge outward and upward into distinct bosses, which place its maximum breadth relatively high on the parietal bones, not at the midpoint of the skull as in Neandertals. But like many early Upper Paleolithic crania, it has Neandertal-like features. In the case of Manot 1, the occipital bone projects backward into a bun-like structure and there is a slight erosion of the surface of bone at the cranial rear called a suprainiac fossa.

Oase 2 Romania, 40,000 bp.

Oase 1 from the same site and time as Oase 2, was clearly human but had some 5 to 11 percent of his genome originated from Neanderthals. This individual's Neanderthal ancestry was more recent than that of any modern human tested previously. Some half of its chromosome 12 sequence coincided with Neanderthals rather than modern humans and it had a Neanderthal ancestor within the past four to six generations, pointing to later than anticipated admixture between Neanderthals and the modern human population to which Oase 1 belonged.

Tampa Ling (Laos) skull (TPL1) and jaw (TPL2) est. 46,000-63,000 bp.

Recent discoveries in Laos, a modern human cranium (TPL1) from Tam Pa Ling‘s cave, provided the first evidence for the presence of early modern humans in mainland Southeast Asia by 63-46 ka. In the current study, a complete human mandible representing a second individual, TPL 2, is described using discrete traits and geometric morphometrics with an emphasis on determining its population affinity. The TPL2 mandible has a chin and other discrete traits consistent with early modern humans, but it retains a robust lateral corpus and internal corporal morphology typical of archaic humans across the Old World. The mosaic morphology of TPL2 and the fully modern human morphology of TPL1 suggest that a large range of morphological variation was present in early modern human populations residing in the eastern Eurasia by MIS 3.


 TPL2 has a significantly smaller dental arcade breadth than all modern and archaic samples, including the closely contemporaneous mandible from Tianyuan cave (64.5 mm) or any other East Asian early modern humans (66.4 ± 2.2, n = 5) [29]. The only other Homo fossils that are similarly small in bigonial breadth and dental arcade breadth at the M2 are LB1 (83.0 mm (estimated) and 55.0 mm, respectively) and LB6 (71.0 mm and 53.0 mm, respectively) from Liang Bua, Flores (Homo floresiensis).

Jaw from Tam Pa Ling in the Annamite Mountains, Laos, dating to between 46,000 and 63,000 ybp. Missing teeth mirrored by Klevius.

Niah skull, Sarawak (Malaysia) est. 39,000-45,000 bp.


Friday, October 21, 2016

Which country, Russia or US "ally" Saudi Arabia, has actually bombed the US (incl. Pentagon)? And which presidential candidate has got an advisor with ideological as well as family roots in that country?


Media biased? Really! Oh yes...

 Places in Mideast suffering under islamic terror are described in quite different terms depending on who is involved. In Ḿosul and Kirkuk the muslim terrorists are keeping civilians as 'human shields' and in Yemen they are 'violating ceasefire', whereas in Aleppo they aren't even mentioned but Russia, who is fighting them, is accused of 'war crimes'.

BBC gave approximately 100 times (check it out on BBC Radio 4 Today 06:00 Thursday) more space for Clinton than for Trump in its first early news hour Thursday after the latest debate. Moreover, everything Clinton said in the clip was hawkish accusations about some senseless Trump and Putin connection. Of course, Hillary Clinton's real connection with the war crime committing and muslim terrorism supporting islamofascist Saudi dictator family didn't come up.

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

It's not about Clinton or Trump - it's about sharia vs. basic Human Rights!

The smear campaign against Trump is all about covering up institutionalized general sharia sexism with particular "locker room sexism" - while Hillary's dirty affair with Saudi islamofascism constitutes the real problem

No, it's not about 5-10% US muslims, NOI supporters, Christian and Jewish fundamentalists etc - it's about the threat it constitutes against US girls/women who already lack full equality due to the failure of the Equal Rights Amendment which was opposed by religious groups.

The anti-fascist 1948 Human Rights declaration guarantees Human Rights equality for women - but the US Constitution doesn't. However, the resistance was all about sex segregation - just like sharia islam. 

    Drawing (1979) and photo (2012) by Peter Klevius

To start working as a president in the US is a piece of cake compared to most other job positions because of the well oiled machinery already in place - incl. all the judicial "dampers" etc. A Hollywood b-actor successfully managed it so why not Trump. Even a gray Illinois guy with dubious black supremacist connections* has managed to sit for two periods - albeit ending up with a lot of blood on his hands. 

* Obama and his wife sat for some 20 (TWENTY) years listening to his personal mentor and pastor, the racist, anti-American, and anti-Semitic Reverend Jeremiah Wright! How could Trump's worst records possibly trump that?!

German Trump smearer  cherry picked today by BBC: Americans can't be that easily bought.

Klevius: No, it has indeed cost a lot of make up to present a medieval sharia fascism as a better alternative than Human Rights equality.

Women watch up! The most determined Trump attacks come from Saudi Arabia - and Utah! Does it mean anything to you that Hillary supports Saudi islamofascism rather than women's Human Rights equality?

And don't you think Donald Trump would be a more reliable defender against Human Rights violating sharia than Hillary Clinton.

It's all about sharia - from US to UK and Mideast

UKIP leadership battle in EU headquarter (left) is all about sharia or "islamophobia".

The islamic sharia elephant in the political PC shop

No matter how BBC/politicians try to twist it - "islamophobia" equals defense of the most basic Human Rights and is therefore against Human Rights violating sharia. Criminalizing "islamophobia" is therefore also a direct support to Saudi islamofascism and the Saudi based and steered sharia organization OIC.

OIC's "islamophobia" campaign has resulted in muslim hate crimes against Jews being made invisible although they are the most common. How come? Simply because of the PC "diversity education".

William Kilpatrick: The more that Jews in Germany learned about the Nazis, the more they justifiably feared them.  The ones who fully understood the Nazi mentality left Germany while there was still time.  Jews are again leaving Europe to escape the threat of anti-Semitism.  This time they are faced with Islamic anti-Semitism -- an anti-Semitism that is rooted in Islamic scripture and tradition.

It’s true that Americans need to be better educated about Islam.  But that’s because they’ve been subjected to a decades-long disinformation campaign designed to make Islam look like a slightly exotic variant of the Unitarian Church.  That disinformation campaign has had the effect of lulling Americans into complacency about a religious-political system that aims to subjugate all other systems of belief and governance.

One frequently repeated bit of disinformation is the argument that terrorists act out of ignorance of Islam.  According to the bien pensants, the terrorists suffer from the same malady that supposedly afflicts the Reverend Obi:  they don’t understand the Islamic faith and its message of peace.

That sort of talk sounds good in the faculty lounge, but it isn’t supported by the facts. Indeed, studies have shown that jihadists are better educated on Islam than the average Muslim.  And that goes double for terrorist leaders.  The Ayatollah Khomeini, the leader of the Iranian Revolution, was the author of over forty books.  Abdullah Azzam, the founder of MAK (later renamed al-Qaeda), had a doctorate in Islamic jurisprudence from al-Azhar University.  Omar Abdel-Rahman (“The Blind Sheik”), who masterminded the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, also has a doctorate in Islamic jurisprudence from al-Azhar.  The late Anwar al-Awlaki, the chief propagandist for al-Qaeda, was studying for a doctoral degree at George Washington University.  Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the founder of ISIS, has a Ph.D. in Islamic studies.

Klevius: As long as sharia islam violates the most basic Human Rights equality, it constitutes the true big Satan - no matter how "reformed". And if sharia would be compatible with the most basic of Human Rights - then Klevius would immediately stop criticizing islam - or whatever is left of islam, if anything when its racist/sexist allure is cut off.

Friday, October 14, 2016

BBC abuse children in their war propaganda, and (like pathetic Michelle Obama) generalize about women and Trump - all in an effort to protect Saudi Sunni sharia islamofascism

BBC abuse children in their war propaganda, and (like pathetic Michelle Obama) generalize about women and Trump - all in an effort to protect Saudi Sunni sharia islamofascism

How could it possibly be more important to get rid of Assad than getting rid of the Saudi backed muslim terrorists who are the only ones hindering a peace process?

The two words behind the majority of atrocities that BBC etc. don't want you to think about: Saudi and sharia! In their place BBC etc. have placed Trump and Russia.

BBC's bigotry/hypocrisy seems to have no limits whatsoever anymore in their eager/desperate effort to pave the way for Saudi (Sunni/Salafist/Wahhabist) sharia islamofascism. 

Every day now BBC send children's voices from Syria/Aleppo asking Assad to stop the war - but not a single mentioning about the Saudi backed muslim terrorists (al-Nusra/al,-Qaeda etc) who keep the the terror ticking. And not a single child voice from Yemen complaining about the Saudi atrocities there. And after the children's voices BBC put forward Boris Johnson (the guy the US administration laught at just a few month ago when informed he would stand as a PM candidate) asking for an escalation by proposing UK military intervention for the purpose of protecting the Saudi backed muslim jihadis from air attacks.

Interestingly, BBC always talk about "people" killed in Syria by Russia, without showing any effort to specify that they in most cases are muslim terrorists who usually use hospitals, schools etc. as their main basis for launching attacks - precisely because they know its propaganda value. And they can't care less about the suffering of Syria's children as long as it can be used against Assad and Russia. And they know for sure that BBC will support them in this evil method. Moreover, it could beargued that BBC together with other Western media themselves have invited muslim terrorists to this form of child abuse.

Is Michelle Obama US most bigoted and hypocritical woman?

Her records may speak for themselves. She sat for some 20 years (TWENTY YEARS) with her husband listening to one of US worst racist supremacist preacher - only stopping because it didn't look great in her husband's presidential campaign.

Now she, like BBC, generalizes about Trump and women when to our knowledge Trump has never said what sharia islam always has said, i.e. that women are inferior to men.

All the Trump hate is nothing else than a smoke cover to avoid the real issue for US women: Their low status in the US Constitution, which gaping legal hole invites for sexist sharia.

Klevius is pretty sure that Donald Trump at this time and age, and after this enormous smear campaign, would be a much better advocate for women's rights than sharia supporting Saudi steered Hillary Clinton.

Will US adopt Sharia before/instead of an Equal Rights Amendment?

US women have less rights than most women in the civilized world. And this is precisely because of a fanatic religious strain that has kept US women strangled by sexism. The countries first to give women full freedom and equality in a meaningful way were those in Fennoscandia (Nordic countries). And what was common to them all was Atheism (we're not talking abt Communist "atheism" here but Human Rights equality for all) and the lack of powerful religious fundamentalism. Against this background it's a pity that OIC's "islamophobia" campaign has again started to undermine women's freedom in the Nordic countries.

Klevius wrote:

Friday, March 08, 2013

Klevius on women's day: The worst ever "president" paves the way for OIC/Sharia in a US where women still have less rights than former male slaves had long ago!

US' women locked in inequality* - and a "president" whose Shariagate may keep them there forever

* No, the US Constitution still doesn't guarantee women equal rights with men, although most women are quite unaware of it.

Jane Fonda: Stop violence against women!

Klevius: Islam is (and has been for some 1400 years) the worst institution for violence/rapetivism against girls/women!

Will US adopt Sharia before/instead of an Equal Rights Amendment?

US is one of very few civilized countries were women are still not equal to men. Just as they were among the very last to get the right to vote. Compare this to Finland (the land where both men and women are 'hän'*) which was first in the world to give its ladies full franchise.

* Sweden has also proposed to use a unisex pronoun instead of 'han'/'hon' (he/she) but why on Earth have they settled for stupid 'hen' when it would have been much more natural to use the Finnish 'hän', especially considering that the Finnish language is also part of Sweden's history (see Kvenland/Queenland, the home of the Goths). And the vowel ä is used in both languages! 

The reason for the US' backwardness is of course religious sex segregation. And with muslim born (apostate?!) Mr X "president" Barry Barakeh Barack Hussain Obama Dunham Soetoro (or whatever) applauding islamofascism and with a majority of the Supreme Court being Catholics, and with the administration full of Sharia enthusiasts, the future for US girls/women seems equally dark as for truly free women in Hollywood productions.

The weird formula behind the denial of islam's crystal clear evilness explained by Klevius

First of all, never trust a religious "scholar". Then consider the following nonsense, which is actually quite racist:

'Muslims and islamic countries may be evil or backward but islam is always good'.

'Let's not look at evilness in islam but rather focus on what we may share'.

Klevius comment: Reminds me of my former friend Max Scharnberg (when he hinted he'd be a suicide bomber if he only had the courage to do it, I immediately finished our friendship) to whom I presented Hitler's Nationalsocialist party program after having erased the mentioning of Jews and some few too revealing words. After having read the text Max Scharnberg thought it was a Social-democratic party program.

In other words, if assessed with the same tools as islam, the Nazi program would have easily found lots of points for "mutual understanding" and "tolerance".

Klevius suggestion: Only focus on the evil parts of islam, i.e. those parts which collide with Human Rights and which constituted the only reason why the most powerfyl muslim world organization, Saudi based OIC, replaced them with Sharia (the so called Cairo declaration).  

There is no future for islam because the very essence of islam is precisely those parts were it differs from basic Human Rights (the so called negative Human Rights). And an imaginary "reformed" islam castrated from politics and legislation etc would be of no interest neither for Klevius or for true (Sharia) muslims.

Read Klevius - your intellectual bedrock in a confused world!

Klevius wrote:

Thursday, March 08, 2012

Klevius on Women's Day: If you respect islam then you don't respect women's Human Rights!

This muslim born apostate (?!) says he respects the worst ideological crime ever against humanity!

While islam continues its Millennium+ of genocides, slavery and rapes in Sudan etc  Mr X "president’s" envoy to Sudan, Princeton Lyman declares: “Frankly we do not want to see the ouster of the [Bashir - wanted by ICC for crimes against humanity] regime, nor regime change... It is not in our interests to see the ouster of the regime in Sudan, for this will only create more problems.”

Klevius comment: Obama hence also supports Kony's LRA via Bashir.

Some old news (1870) from the same area and same islam

S W Baker: It is impossible to know the actual number of slaves taken from Central Africa annually; but I should imagine that at least fifty thousand are
positively either captured and held in the various zareebas (or camps)
or are sent via the White Nile and the various routes overland by Darfur
and Kordofan. The loss of life attendant upon the capture and subsequent
treatment of the slaves is frightful. The result of this forced
emigration, combined with the insecurity of life and property, is the
withdrawal of the population from the infested districts. The natives
have the option of submission to every insult, to the violation of their
women and the pillage of their crops, or they must either desert their
homes and seek independence in distant districts, or ally themselves
with their oppressors to assist in the oppression of other tribes. Thus
the seeds of anarchy are sown throughout Africa, which fall among tribes
naturally prone to discord. The result is horrible confusion,--distrust
on all sides,--treachery, devastation, and ruin.

 It appeared that slavery and the slave trade of theWhite Nile were institutions almost necessary to the existence of
Egyptian society.
It was obvious to all observers that an attack upon the slave-dealing
and slave-hunting establishments of Egypt by a foreigner--an
Englishman--would be equal to a raid upon a hornets' nest, that all
efforts to suppress the old-established traffic in negro slaves would be
encountered with a determined opposition, and that the prime agent and
leader of such an expedition must be regarded "with hatred, malice, and
all uncharitableness." At that period (1869) the highest authorities
were adverse to the attempt. An official notice was despatched from the
British Foreign Office to the Consul-General of Egypt that British
subjects belonging to Sir Samuel Baker's expedition must not expect the
support of their government in the event of complications. The
enterprise was generally regarded as chimerical in Europe, with
hostility in Egypt, but with sympathy in America.

It was freely stated that an Englishman was placed in
command because an Egyptian could not be relied upon to succeed, but
that the greed of new territory was the actual and sole object of the
expedition, and that the slave-trade would reappear in stupendous
activity when the English personal influence should be withdrawn. Such
unsympathetic expressions must have been a poor reward to the Khedive
for his efforts to win the esteem of the civilized world by the
destruction of the slave-trade in his own dominions.

Few persons have considered the position of the Egyptian ruler when
attacking the institution most cherished by his people. The employment
of an European to overthrow the slave-trade in deference to the opinion
of the civilized world was a direct challenge and attack upon the
assumed rights and necessities of his own subjects. The magnitude of the
operation cannot be understood by the general public in Europe. Every
household in Upper Egypt and in the Delta was dependent upon slave
service; the fields in the Soudan were cultivated by slaves; the women
in the harems of both rich and middle class were attended by slaves; the
poorer Arab woman's ambition was to possess a slave; in fact, Egyptian
society without slaves would be like a carriage devoid of wheels--it
could not proceed.

In the year 1870 the slave-hunting of Central Africa was condemned.
Since that time Englishmen have been honoured with the special attention
of the Khedive, and have been appointed to posts of the highest
confidence. European tribunals were established in the place of consular
jurisdiction, British government officials have been invited to reform
the financial administration, and Mr. Rivers Wilson has been induced to
accept the responsible office of Minister of Finance. Nubar Pacha has
been recalled to office, and he must regard with pride the general
confidence occasioned throughout Europe by his reappointment. The
absolute despotism hitherto inseparable from Oriental ideas of
government has been spontaneously abrogated by the Khedive, who has
publicly announced his determination that the future administration
shall be conducted by a council of responsible ministers.

I found lands varying in natural capabilities according to their
position and altitudes--where sugar, cotton, coffee, rice, spices, and
all tropical produce might be successfully cultivated; but those lands
were without any civilized form of government, and "every man did what
seemed right in his own eyes."

In this dislocated state of society, the slave trade prospered to the
detriment of all improvement. Rich and well-populated countries were
rendered desolate; the women and children were carried into captivity;
villages were burnt, and crops were destroyed or pillaged; the
population was driven out; a terrestrial paradise was converted into an
infernal region; the natives who were originally friendly were rendered
hostile to all strangers, and the general result of the slave trade
could only be expressed in one word--"ruin."

The slave hunters and traders who had caused this desolation were for
the most part Arabs, subjects of the Egyptian government.

These people had deserted their agricultural occupations in the Soudan
and had formed companies of brigands in the pay of various merchants of
Khartoum. The largest trader had about 2,500 Arabs in his pay, employed
as pirates or brigands, in Central Africa. These men were organized
after a rude military fashion, and armed with muskets; they were divided
into companies, and were officered in many cases by soldiers who had
deserted from their regiments in Egypt or the Soudan.

Klevius wrote:

Sunday, March 27, 2016

The Devil's pact

How 1.6 Billion "muslims" are used as a single tool to feed the Saudi "guardians of islam".

The "close ally" the Saudi dictator family's spread of religious hatred can convincingly be traced to the muslim terrorist attacks in France and Belgium because Belgium from which they departed, in 1974, a year after the oil crisis, bowed the Saudi dictator family's demand to "respect" and "tolerate" islamofascism.

However, long before that occasion the Saudi dictator family has, as with so many other countries, thoroughly tied up a disastrous islamofascist relationship with Belgium "based on mutual respect and common interests and non-interference in the internal affairs of each other". In other wordds tolerating islamofascism.

Belgian Embassy in Jeddah (where OIC's Human Rights violating sharia headquarter recides) opened in 1954 at a level of chargé d' affaires. The first ambassador of Belgium was Ronald Watteeuw in 1964, and the first ambassador of the Saudi dictator family to Brussels was Fouad Nazer a year earlier in 1963. Mohamed Hamza Charara followed him in 1972, Ibrahim Bakr in 1982, Abdallah Al Mouallimi in 2007 and Faycal Trad in 2011. Abdulrahman Alahmed started on 18 February 2014 as the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Saudi dictator family to Belgium, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, to the European Union and to the European Society of Atomic Energy.

The official exchange between the Saudi dictator family and Belgium at the highest levels, started by the visit of the islamofascist "king" Abdul Aziz Al-Saud in 1967. Due to a visit of King of Belgium Baudouin, a piece of land was given to the muslim community where the Saudi steered and influenced Islamic and Cultural Centre in Brussels has been established, and is considered one of the most important islamic centers in Europe.

Eight high-level Belgian economic and trade missions visited Saudi Arabia in the years 1967,1974,1975,1982,1993,2002,2009 and the most recently one was the economic and trade mission to Saudi Arabia headed by Princess Astrid in March 2014. More than 350 economic and trade participants accompanied her. During the mission, several contracts and agreements have been signed between businesspersons from both Saudi and Belgian sides.

In Riyadh on March 16, 2014 a memorandum of "understanding" was signed pertaining political consultations between the Foreign Ministries of the Saudi dictator family and Belgium. It was signed by "prince" Saud Al Faisal, Minister of Foreign Affairs on behalf of the Saudi dictator family and by Mr. Didier Reynders, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign and European Affairs on behalf of Belgium.

Saudi based and steered OIC with its sharia Fuhrer, Saudi dictator family member Iyad Madani.

Klevius advice if you are so stupid so you don't trust Klevius: If you don't know about OIC and its Human Rights violating sharia declaration via UN and how this sharia is connected both to sharia finance from London to the Islamic State etc. then please look it up for yourself!

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

Whereas UK's Jeremy Corbyn was elected by party members - not the mass of general voters, Donald Trump is the opposite - a man of the people, not the party

What would the polls have revealed were it not for media and politicians smearing him more than any presidential candidate to date?

Donald Trump may actually now constitute the best possible (after Ayaan Hirsi Ali, of course) raw material to be trimmed into the oval office. His background is as different from that of Ayaan Hirsi Ali you can imagine, yet they have both ended up opposing sharia islam, state socialism and shrewed politicians.

Klevius wrote:

Monday, July 11, 2016

Klevius: Jeremy Corbyn has to go because he's an undemocratic racist/supporter of racsim/sexism. However, will that change Labour's cooperation with islamofascists?

Some 150,000 Labour party "members" can't overrun the parliamentarians voted in by some 9 million voters. Moreover, Jeremey Corbyn is a dumb, or alternatively, shrewed, racist/racism supporter.

If Labour voters were informed that Corbyn's use of "islamophobia" doesn't mean their cultural non-sharia muslim friend but something way more sinister, then probably only islamic sharia extremists would give him their "vote", i.e. a "vote" from a "voter" who is against democracy and "British values":. 

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 his suppressed memory. Is he demented or something much worse?

Jeremy Corbyn's attacks on Human Rights defenders (calling those critical of Human Rights violating sharia, "islamophobes") while supporting racist and sexist islamofascists, fulfills not only the most common criterion on racism, but also mirrors the very same socialist "radicalization" that created the Nazi party, i.e. the socialist workers party that departed from its mother party, the German social democrats. Only now it's the islamic sharia Umma that constitutes the "national" part of the movement. So whereas conventional Labour voters may still associate it with NHS, welfare etc. (however, remember that Labour acted exactly in line with the conservatives about cutting benefits), the party has now become a dis-proportional power base for Human Rights violating sharia islam.

Whether Jeremy Corbyn is just so dumb (let's hope so), or just so canny (i.e. a typical shrewed politician selling out his alleged incentives for the purpose of cheap votes)  remains to be seen. However, as Klevius wrote in a previous post, he might just stick to the evil of state socialism which tramples the rights of the individual, hence constituting a perfect partner for e.g. islamofascism.

Klevius wrote:

Friday, May 06, 2016

Ryan can't endorse Trump - because that would be against sharia and the Saudi dictator family


Klevius: People entangled with the islamofascist Saudi dictator family and/or* its rape accused Wall Street terrorist scumbag Alwaleed bin Talal, usually have problems endorsing Trump.

 * Muslim rape accused scumbag Alwaleed bin Talal in essence constitutes the Saudi dictator state's unofficial department for spreading islamofascist hate mongering around the world by channelling Saudi oil funds - especially targetting media, education and politicians.

Paul Ryan unmasked:

 By declaring that it would not be “proper” or “appropriate” for the United States to consider the religion of a visa applicant— or whether the applicant supports Sharia law or Muslim theocracy— Ryan is effectively suggesting that the United States should not be allowed to select whom we admit based on likelihood of assimilation.

This view is consistent with Ryan’s two decade long history of pushing open borders immigration policies. As NumbersUSA President Roy Beck has said, “[Ryan] has spent his entire adulthood ideologically connected to the open borders crowd. Open Borders is in his ideological DNA… Open borders seeps out of every pore of his being… It’s just who he is.”

In 2013, Ryan insisted that it is the job of a U.S. lawmaker to put oneself in the shoes of a foreign national—who does not live in the United States, but would like to come here— and then work to find solutions to improve the life of that foreign citizen:

    Put yourself in another person’s shoes, which if you’re in elected office, that’s what you kind of have to do that almost every single day. The job we have– and what we do is we take different people’s perspectives. The gentleman from India who’s waiting for his green card… We take all these different perspectives. We process it through our values and our morals and our principles. And then we come up with the answer to try and solve this problem. That’s basically what we do in our jobs.

Indeed, Ryan was instrumental in defeating an effort to cut visa issuances during the mid-90s, thus derailing the effort to codify into law Civil Rights leader Barbara Jordan’s plan for substantial immigration cuts in order to protect the American worker. As Game Change author John Heilemann wrote in 1996, “[Ryan’s] ties to the pro-immigration mafia ran deep.”

Hannity pressed Ryan specifically about the House’s legislation that will allow Obama to continue the Syrian refugee resettlement plan, which is opposed by a majority of all voters. Hannity asked Ryan about Babin’s amendment, which as Breitbart News reported, was “blocked [tonight] by House Rules Chairman Pete Sessions (R-TX) – that would have placed a six-month moratorium on allowing refugees into the United States.”

Hannity asked:

    Are you including the Babin amendment, which would put a pause for six months on it, or are you not including that part [to the House’s legislation]?

Ryan replied:

    This would put a pause, I believe, for longer than that. This effectively puts a pause on the program and it will take longer than six months, I believe, to put these kind of security…

However, Sen. Sessions specifically debunked this claim in a statement released earlier on Wednesday. Sessions explained that Ryan’s plan—far from blocking Obama’s refugee resettlement project—would allow for unlimited immigration and does nothing to strengthen the security of the American people:

    The current proposal being considered in the House in response to the President’s dangerous refugee plan – the American SAFE Act – fails to defend the interests of the American people… The American SAFE Act allows the President to continue to bring in as many refugees as he wants from anywhere in the world. With respect to Syria and Iraq, the American SAFE Act requires only that the President direct his Secretary of Homeland Security, Director of National Intelligence, and FBI Director (all his appointees) to sign off on the administration’s screening process – a process that the White House continually asserts is adequate and ‘ensures safety.’ The plain fact is that this bill transfers the prerogative from Congress to President Obama and ensures the President’s refugee resettlement initiative will continue unabated.

NumbersUSA, a pro-security immigration group, echoed Sessions’ criticism of the Ryan’s plan:

    NumbersUSA is extremely disappointed in the legislation that the House intends to put on the floor on Thursday to respond to the threat of Islamic State-inspired terrorists infiltrating the refugee flow to the United States… Instead of legislating that pause, or even bringing to the floor an existing bill (H.R. 3314 by Rep. Babin) that would pause the refugee flow, the House instead will vote to cede its responsibility for America’s safety to the FBI, the DNI, and DHS in the hopes that they can pick and choose correctly from a limited number of “covered” aliens.

In the interview, however, Ryan seemed determined to convey that the House’s bill would, in fact, “pause” refugee resettlement—despite the contrary analyses of Sen. Sessions and NumbersUSA.

Throughout the course of the short interview, Ryan specifically declared seven times that the House’s legislation would “pause” refugee resettlement.

Breitbart News has compiled Ryan’s uses of the word “pause” throughout the interview:

    He [Obama] just said he’s going to veto our bill putting a pause on the refugee program… We obviously know that ISIS wants to infiltrate the refugee population, that’s very clear, so we need to put a pause on this program… We have to put this bill in place which pauses the program effectively… This [legislation] would put a pause, I believe, for longer than [the Babin measure]. This effectively puts a pause on the program and it will take longer than six months, I believe, to put [in place] these kinds of security… The FBI cannot right now certify these standards, so this [legislation] does pause the program… We are asking all of our colleagues to support fixing this— pausing this— and getting this right.

Ryan’s emphatic insistence that the legislation will “pause” the refugee resettlement program may be fueled by polling data, which shows that the American people overwhelmingly want to see the program blocked.

As Hannity explained:

    Here’s my question though… Why don’t we just cancel it? Why don’t we just say, ‘You cannot come here, it’s too big a risk to the American people.’ I don’t think we can fully ascertain what’s in people’s hearts. I don’t think anybody can assure us that ISIS wouldn’t lie and create documents and the document trail, I think they would do anything to get here. Why don’t we just end the program and that might mean defunding the program. Wouldn’t that be a better idea? […] We have two polls— two polls that are out that show two-to-one the American people are against Obama bringing in Syrian refugees altogether. I would prefer— I don’t know if we can really fully vet anybody like this. Nor do we have the resources. I personally am of the belief that we shouldn’t taking them in. I think it’s too big a risk.

Ryan said, in part, that the reason the program could not simply be canceled is because, “We’re a compassionate country. The refugees laws are important laws and we don’t want terrorists to dictate how we run—whether we have a law or not.”

While throughout the interview Ryan seemed to ground his argument on the premise that we cannot apply a religious test as a basis for admissions to the United States, both Rush Limbaugh and Andrew McCarthy have explained how U.S. law does, in fact, require a religious test when it comes to making considerations about visa issuances.

McCarthy explained:

    Under federal law, the executive branch is expressly required to take religion into account in determining who is granted asylum. Under the provision governing asylum (section 1158 of Title 8, U.S. Code), an alien applying for admission must establish that … religion [among other things] … was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant. Moreover, to qualify for asylum in the United States, the applicant must be a “refugee” as defined by federal law. That definition (set forth in Section 1101(a)(42)(A) of Title , U.S. Code) also requires the executive branch to take account of the alien’s religion: The term “refugee” means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality … and who is unable or unwilling to return to … that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of … religion [among other things] …[.] The law requires a “religious test… it is downright dishonest to claim that taking such religious distinctions into account is “not American”…  How can something American law requires be “not American”?

Limbaugh said:

    When I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which a person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted, that’s shameful. That’s not American. That’s not who we are.  We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.”  I would venture to say that virtually everybody who hears him say that probably has to nod their head in agreement.  “Yeah, yeah, that’s probably right.”  Except you’d all be wrong…  It’s in federal law.  There are religious tests and requirements through the United States law.. the law requires a religious test, and the reason for the religious test is obvious… Asylum is a discretionary national act of compassion directed by law, not a whim to address persecution… There is no right to emigrate to the United States of America… Nowhere does the law say we must put ourselves at risk in order to exercise this compassion…Therefore, us — we — by maintaining our standards as established by law, protecting our national security and sovereignty are not violating anybody’s rights by standing up for our own.

Moreover, a provision in the Immigration and Naturalization Act states, “In general – any immigrant who is or has been a member of or affiliated with the communist or other totalitarian party (or subdivision or affiliate thereof), domestic or foreign, is inadmissible.”

This arguably could apply to individuals who hold theocratic or totalitarian ideologies. In fact, in recent video footage captured on the streets of Cedar Riverside, Minnesota, showed a number of U.S. Muslims explaining that they preferred Sharia Law to American law.

Regardless, every year, under Ryan’s vision the United States can expect to continue to bring in two Muslim migrants for every one Iowa Republican primary voter. According to Pew, by 2040, the United States’ Muslim population is expected to surpass the nation’s Jewish population. It is unlikely that the Muslim migrants brought in under the nation’s current federal policy will support Ryan’s limited government platform as only 11% of U.S. Muslim, according to Pew, are Republican or lean-Republican. Ryan’s continued support for the visa gusher, however, is consistent with his past statements on the matter.

When radio talk show host David Webb asked Ryan last year whether he thought, “immigrants from the third world are more likely or less likely to support conservative policies,” Ryan answered that he thought “immigrants from the third world” were “some of the best Americans”.

Ryan declared:

    Some of the best Americans are the newest Americans. People who left former Communist countries, people who left scandalous nations that are crony capitalism that deny them their rights. So people who come from those kinds of systems and those kinds of governments can make the best patriots because they finally see and taste what freedom is like, and they want to fight for it. So that kind of a person can make the best American. And the way I look at it, from our Party’s perspective, is we have to do a better job of going into these communities and exposing people to a different mindset– to these principles that they may not even have ever heard or seen before. This is a challenge that conservatives have to answer.

Klevius declared:  So Paul Ryan thinks sharia muslims want to fight for a non-sharia US Constitution. Really? Isn't it more likely that they continue to fight for a sharia US Constitution? With all means available. As they have relentlessly been doing all the time.

The first amendment doesn't protect sharia islamofascism although it's definitely the original islamic religion which started with the slaughtering of all the Jews in Medina.

Saturday, October 08, 2016

What's more important: Bragging about seducing women - or robbing them of their Human Rights? A vote on Hillary is a vote favoring sharia over Human Rights!

How much bigoted hypocrisy can Americans take from the appalling Clinton supporters who can't come up with any real criticism but have to create it themselves

President Bill Clinton used to sleep on a sofa on the second floor of the White House for three months during the Lewinsky affair.

Some on the staff have said that Hillary knew about Lewinsky (and the others) long before it came out, and that what really upset her was not the affair itself but its discovery and the media feeding frenzy that followed.

Klevius: So what about the media feeding frenzy against Trump? So far he hasn't come even close to the Clinton scandals - yet media create "scandals" out of trivialities in comparison.

Bill Clinton to the American people: Now, I have to go back to work on my State of the Union speech. And I worked on it until pretty late last night. But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you.

Hillary Clinton: "The great story here for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president.

Linda Tripp: Hillary Clinton not only knew about her husband's sexual misbehavior against young interms, she also made it her personal mission to disseminate information and destroy the women with whom he dallied.

Tripp said Hillary Clinton is inappropriately presenting herself as 'a champion of women’s rights worldwide in a global fashion, and yet all of the women she has destroyed over the years to ensure her political viability continues is sickening to me.'

Klevius: However, what is even more sickening is her support of sharia islam that robs girls and women around the world of their Human Rights equality. Every decent person who cares about sexism should vote for Trump - if not for any other reason than that he is positive to vetting islam and muslims for sexist and racist sharia.

This disgustingly bigoted and hypocritical muslim sharia presenter at BBC today eagerly misinformed the Brits about Trump again. And why shouldn't she, because she has to defend sexist sharia islam against its biggest threat, Human Rights equality.

Swedish school "comforting" parents to 9-year old girl who was the subject of horrifying sexism by (mostly muslim? - they'll never tell you if they are) boys: 'She is blond and pretty and therefore exciting as a target.'

Klevius has told the world about these school atrocities in Sweden since 9/11. So, how are things at your end of the world?

Here's an other appalling mis-reporter about sharia islamofascism:

Christopher Mathias National Mis-reporter, The Huffington Post: A recent report from the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino, documented at least 260 hate crimes against Muslims in 2015 ― a nearly 80 percent rise from the year before and the highest annual number of such crimes since 2001. The Huffington Post has also documented over 260 instances of anti-Muslim violence, harassment, discrimination and political speech so far in 2016.

Klevius: What a load! Those numbers say absolutely nothing before compared to hate crimes by muslims against non-muslims or "wrong-muslims".

Compounding this rise of Islamophobia in the U.S. is the fact that most people in the U.S. simply don’t know their Muslim neighbors. Last year, nearly 70 percent of Americans reported not having any Muslim friends. Perhaps not coincidentally, most Americans polled also have an unfavorable view on islam.

Klevius: Are there even enough friendly muslims in America to cover more than that?! And why would it be surprising that a religion/ideology that has taught enslavement, genocides, racism and sexism for 1400 years and still today causes most of the worlds terrorism, wars, racism and sexism would not be look upon with a critical eye? The dreamed up Western islam that doesn't tick all these boxes isn't shared by many muslims outside the "friendly" Westernized muslims - and often not even by them, although they won't mention it other than when they can share values with fundamentalist Christians etc..

Christopher Mathias: Wajahat Ali ― a writer and former Al Jazeera America host who happens (sic) to be muslim ― wants Americans to know that islam does not promote hate, and that he is not “commanded to kill the infidels.”

Klevius: He's right. Not 'compelled to kill' but compelled to support (in whatever way) those "defending" islam when it's "attacked".

Christopher Mathias: Wajahat Ali recently joined HuffPost to dispel (SIC) some of the most pervasive and pernicious anti-muslim myths Americans see online.

The Quran? On the whole, it’s a book that promotes faith and peace. Scary quotes you see attributed to the Quran are often fake or taken out of context.

Klevius: Islamic "peace" is a totalitarian utopia that is behind most of historical as well as today's terror and wars.

Wajahat Ali: Sharia? It’s not a strict set of laws as much as a set of guidelines for how Muslims can live their lives. (And no, lawmakers aren’t trying to implement Sharia in the U.S.)

Klevius: Guidelines that clash head on with the most basic of Human Rights - which fact lies behind the Saudi based and steered OIC's campaign (supported by Hillary Clinton) to silence criticism of islamofascist sharia islam.

Wajahat Ali: Jihad? It doesn’t always mean violence. It’s an Arabic word that means “exerted effort” or “struggle.” It can be a Muslim’s jihad to exercise more, or to go on more dates.

Klevius: Right again. It doesn't "always" mean direct physical violence - in most cases it means institutionalized racism and sexism against non-muslims, as well as using whatever means available to spread Human Rights violating sharia islam.

Wajahat Ali: Hijab? It’s a traditional way Muslim women choose to express their faith. (Hijabs aren’t mentioned in the Quran.) Are some Muslim women limited by their faith? Some are, yes. Yet there have been far more female heads of state in Muslim countries than in the U.S.

Klevius: However, they have all had to abandon Human Rights for women to get to the top - just like Hillary Clinton.

Wajahat Ali: “But the most important thing to know is that Islam, like any religion, is complex and requires more than just one video to understand,” Ali said. “So keep reading. Talk to actual Muslims! Visit a mosque! And remember: An entire religion can never be summed up in just one meme.”

Klevius: Yet, this "entire religion" is always summed up in just one meme when it comes to defending its own diverse atrocities.

Wednesday, October 05, 2016

Swedish school campaign against "islamophobia" (i.e. against Human Rights) is paying off

Saudi supported Hillary Clinton and her muslim sharia advisor Human Abedin - not to mention Huma's islamofascist mother who teaches sharia in Saudi Arabia - must love this Swedish child convert.

And Swedish social service doesn't lift a finger despite of her parents desperate plea. And why should they? After all, as sharia islam is declared "a great religion", how could it then possibly not be "in the best interest of the child"?

Emma has also said that she doesn't support terrorism.

Klevius comment: Neither does the islamofascist Saudi dictator family. They chop the heads off "terrorists", incl. Human Rights defenders, Atheists, Shia muslims (whom they don't consider real muslims anyway etc.

The evil of true islam and true sharia muslims can easily be made visible through the categories: Original muslims, neo-muslims, and "cultural muslims"*.

* The category 'ignorant muslims' could be found all over the place.

Mishal Husain type of "muslims" helps covering up the true evil of true original parasitic robbing, slaughtering, enslaving and raping jihad islam.

If decent (i.e. civilized, i.e. meaning Human Rights equality supporting) people knew what sharia is, they would condemn it without hesitation.

The legal status of "muslim"* women in India came into focus recently after a women’s group called for a ban on sharia courts. The Muslim Women’s Quest for Equality petitioned the Supreme Court to abolish the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), which oversees the application of muslim sharia in India.

* according to original islamic sex segregation/apartheid, only muslim men can be true muslims. "Muslim" women are seen as an other categoy of humans, defined by sharia "duties" and "obligations", which makes islam in complete opposition to the most basic of Human Rights.

Siobhan Lambert-Hurley is Reader in International History, University of Sheffield: Prevailing interpretations of the sharia in India today — institutionalized in the AIMPLB — allow gender inequality to be justified and upheld in the name of Islam. But Islamic law should not be presumed to be static or unchanging. History points to how more favorable interpretations have been employed to advocate Muslim women’s legal rights in India. In the light of the political controversy that surrounds proposals for the abolition of Muslim personal law in favour a uniform civil code, building on these historical precedents may offer a pragmatic way forward.

Klevius: So why not eliminate islam from the equation and replace it with the 1948 Universal Human Rights Declaration which gives women same rights as men? The inflammation resides in islam - not in Human Rights!

Sunday, October 02, 2016

Trump dislikes some women - but sharia islam dislikes every* woman. And Hillary puts her own career far ahead of women's Human Rights

* Islam is against the most basic of women's Human Rights. Muslim women are islam's Dhimmis. Time for a female "last messenger"? However, islam is already killed by modernity, i.e. by so called "Western culture", which is nothing else than a more or less inevitable consequence of technological evolution. And in its wake muslims desperately (or out of pure ignorance) keep hanging to a creed that has been the world's most destructive ideology throughout 1400 years.

Shame on you America if you let Saudi whores rule you!

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family who not only rule (and monetize) 'the holy places of islam', also rule over OIC (Organization of islamic cooperation), the world's main sharia organization which is behind UN's "blasphemy" resolution 16/18 and US corresponding resolution tailored by Obama and Hillary Clinton. The main objective of these resolutions is to criminalize criticism of islamofascism.

Klevius question: What kind of religion/ideology is it that needs such eager editing away with its own origin?

Islam was spread by muslim (mujahedin) terror, which started with the slaughtering of all the Jews in Medina.

In Judaims and its copycat islam, "god" is put totally away from the human realm, whereas in Christianity "god" steps down to humans in the form of his suffering son (the 'anointed', i.e. MHMD).

Moses, the messenger of Judaism, didn't have a land - only a people. However, he met with "god" who gave him the law and instructions.

Paul, a Roman citizen, was the first messenger of Christianity which became the Roman state religion which in Arabia metastated into a Jewish/Christian synergism as the precursor of islam. An islamic MHMD never existed before Malik long after connected him with the Koran that he created out of older Judeo-Christian texts spiced with conquest, booty, enslavement, killing and rape of "infidels" etc. common Koranic themes the Saudis and Hillary Clinton do not want us to mention.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg lost her temper and had to apologize for her remarks on Donald Trump. However, more importantly, her (religiously motivated?) lack of insight in sex segregation/apartheid is stunning.

Klevius wrote:

Thursday, March 14, 2013

Klevius sex and gender tutorial

Klevius quest of the day: What's the difference between the Pope and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

Klevius hint: It's all about 'not sameness' and Human Rights! Human Rights IS 'sameness' stupid!

When God was created he was made like Adam.

When the basic idea of Universal Human Rights was created it was made like Adam AND Eve.

And for you who think heterosexual attraction, i.e. that women are sexier than men, could be (exc)used as a reason for depriving women of legal sameness. Please, do think again!And read Klevius Sex and Gender Tutorial below - if you can!

                           The Plan of God

A Cardinal, a Pope and a Justice "from medieval times"

Keith O'Brien has reiterated the Catholic Church's continued opposition to civil partnerships and suggested that there should be no laws that "facilitate" same-sex relationships, which he claimed were "harmful", arguing that “The empirical evidence is clear, same-sex relationships are demonstrably harmful to the medical, emotional and spiritual wellbeing of those involved, no compassionate society should ever enact legislation to facilitate or promote such relationships, we have failed those who struggle with same-sex attraction and wider society by our actions.”

Four male members of the Scottish Catholic clergy  allegedly claim that Keith O'Brien had abused his position as a member of the church hierarchy by making unwanted homosexual advances towards them in the 1980s.

Keith O'Brien criticized the concept of same-sex marriage saying it would shame the United Kingdom and that promoting such things would degenerate society further.

Pope Francis, aka Jorge Bergoglio: Same-sex is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God." He has also insisted that adoption by gay and lesbian people is a form of discrimination against children. This position received a rebuke from Argentine president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who said the church's tone was reminiscent of "medieval times and the Inquisition".

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: 'Sex' is a dirty word, so let's use 'gender' instead!

Klevius: Let's not!

As previously and repeatedly pointed out by Klevius, the treacherous use of 'gender' instead of 'sex' is not only confusing but deliberately so. So when Jewish Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg proposed gender' as a synonyme for 'sex' (meaning biological sex) she also helped to shut the door for many a young girl's/woman's possibilities to climb outside the gender cage.

The Universal Human Rights declaration clearly states that your biological sex should not be referred to as an excuse for limiting your rights. Is Justice Bader Ginsburg aware of this? Although the question might seem provocative, it's not, precisely because the US Constitution still lacks such full equality between the sexes. Against this background US is extremely vulnerable to islamofascist sharia, especially keeping in mind the strong emphasis on "the right to free exercise of one's religion".

Islam (now represented by OIC and its Sharia declaration) is the worst and most dangerous form of sex segregation - no matter in how modern clothing it's presented!

Klevius Sex and Gender Tutorial

What is 'gender' anyway?

(text randomly extracted from some scientific writings by Klevius)

 It might be argued that it is the developing girl, not the grown up woman, who is the most receptive to new experience, but yet is also the most vulnerable. Therefore we need to address the analysis of the tyranny of gender before the point at where it's already too late.  I prefer to use the term ‘female’ instead of ‘woman’ so to include girls, when appropriate in this discussion. I also prefer not to define women in relation to men, i.e. in line with the word 'universal' in the Human Rights Declaration. In short, I propose 'gender blindness' equally as, for example, 'color blindness'. And keep in mind, this has nothing to do with biological differences.

According to Connell (2003:184), it is an old and disreputable habit to define women mainly on the basis of their relation to men. Moreover, this approach may also constitute a possible cause of confusion when compared to a definition of ‘gender’ which emphasizes social relations on the basis of ‘reproductive differences’.

To really grasp the absurdity of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's and others habit of confusing 'gender' with 'sex' one may consider that “normal” girls/women live in the same gender trap tyranny as do transsexuals.

The definition of ‘acquired gender’ is described in a guidance for/about transsexuals as:

Transsexual people have the deep conviction that the gender to which they were assigned at birth on the basis of their physical anatomy (referred to as their “birth gender”) is incorrect. That conviction will often lead them to take steps to present themselves to the world in the opposite gender. Often, transsexual people will undergo hormonal or surgical treatment to bring their physical identity into line with their preferred gender identity.

This evokes the extinction of the feminine or women as directly dependent on the existence of the masculine or men. Whereas the feminine cannot be defined without the masculine, the same applies to women who cannot be defined - only described - without men.

Female footballers, for example - as opposed to feminine footballers, both male and female - are, just like the target group of feminism, by definition distinguished by sex. Although this classification is a physical segregation – most often based on a delivery room assessment made official and not at all taking into account physical size, strength, skills etc. - other aspects of sex difference, now usually called ‘gender’, seem to be layered on top of this dichotomy. This review departs from the understanding that there are two main categories that distinguish females, i.e. the physical sex belonging, for example, that only biological women may participate in a certain competition, and the cultural sex determination, for example that some sports or sporters are less ‘feminine’ than others.

‘Gender’ is synonymous with sex segregation, given that the example of participation on the ground of one’s biological sex is simply a rule for a certain agreed activity and hence not sex segregation in the form of stipulated or assumed separatism. Such sex segregation is still common even in societies which have prescribed to notions of general human freedom regardless of sex and in accordance with Human Rights. This is because of a common consensus that sex segregation is ‘good’ although, as it is seen here, its effects are bad in the long run.

In Durkheim’s (1984: 142) view ‘organized despotism’ is where the individual and the collective consciousness are almost the same. Then sui generis, a new life may be added on to that of the main body. As a consequence, this freer and more independent state progresses and consolidates itself (Durkheim 1984: 284).

However, consensus may also rest on an imbalance that is upheld and may even strengthen precisely as an effect of the initial imbalance. In such a case ‘organized despotism’ becomes the means for conservation. As a consequence, the only alternative would be to ease restrictions, which is something fundamentally different from proposing how people should live their lives. ‘Organized despotism’ in this meaning may apply to gender and to sex segregation as well.

According to Connell (2003) whose confused view may be closer to that of Justice Ginsburg, gender is neither biology, nor a fixed dichotomy, but it has a special relation to the human body mirrored in a ‘general perception’. Cultural patterns do not only mirror bodily differences. Gender is ‘a structure’ of social relations/practices concentrated to ‘the reproductive arena’, and a series of due practices in social processes. That is, gender describes how society relates to the human body, and has due consequences for our private life and for the future of wo/mankind (Connell 2003:21-22). However, the main problem here involves how to talk without gender.

Sex should properly refer to the biological aspects of male and female existence. Sex differences should therefore only be used to refer to physiology, anatomy, genetics, hormones and so forth. Gender should properly be used to refer to all the non‑biological aspects of differences between males and females ‑ clothes, interests, attitudes, behaviors and aptitudes, for example ‑ which separate 'masculine' from 'feminine' life styles (Delamont 1980: 5 in Hargreaves 1994:146).

It seems that 'masculine' and 'feminine’ in this definition of gender is confusingly close to the ‘mystique about their being predetermined by biology’ when compared to the ‘reproductive arena’ and ‘reproductive differences’ in Connell’s definition of gender. However, although gender, according to Connell (2003: 96), may also be ‘removed’ the crucial issue is whether those who are segregated really want to de-sex segregate? As long as the benefits of a breakout are not clearly assessable, the possible negative effects may undermine such efforts.Hesitating to run out through an opened door to the unknown doesn't necessarily mean that you don't want to. Nor does it mean that you have to.

According to Connell (2003:20) the very key to the understanding of gender is not to focus on differences, but, instead, to focus on relations. In fact, this distinction is crucial here because relations, contrary to differences, are mutually dependent. Whatever difference existing between the sexes is meaningless unless it is connected via a relation. On the one hand, big male muscles can hardly be of relational use other than in cases of domestic violence, and on the other hand, wage gaps cannot be identified without a comparative relation to the other sex.

Biological determinism is influential in the general discourse of sports academia (Hargreaves 1994:8). However, what remains to analyze is whether ‘gender’ is really a successful concept for dealing with biological determinism?

‘To explain the cultural at the level of the biological encourages the exaggeration and approval of analyses based on distinctions between men and women, and masks the complex relationship between the biological and the cultural’ (Hargreaves 1994:8).

With another example: to explain the cultural (driver) at the level of the technical (type of car) encourages the exaggeration and approval of analyses based on distinctions between cars, and masks the complex relationship between the car and the driver. However, also the contrary seems to hold true;. that the cultural (driver/gender) gets tied to the technical/biological. The ‘complex relationship’ between the car and the driver is easily avoided by using similar1 cars, hence making the driver more visible. In a sex/gender setting the ‘complex relationship’ between sex and gender is easily avoided by distinguishing between sex and culture2, hence making culture more visible. The term ‘culture’, unlike the term ‘gender’ clearly tries to avoid the ‘complex relationship’ between biology and gender. The ‘complex relationship’ makes it, in fact, impossible to distinguish between them. On top of this comes the ‘gender relation’ confusion, which determines people to have ‘gender relations’, i.e. to be opposite or separate.

This kind of gender view is popular, perhaps because it may serve as a convenient way out from directly confronting the biology/culture distinction, and seems to be the prevalent trend, to the extent that ‘gender’ has conceptually replaced ‘sex’, leading to the consequence that the latter has become more or less self-evident and thus almost beyond scrutiny. In other words, by using ‘gender’ as a sign for ‘the complex relationship between the biological and the cultural’, biological determinism becomes more difficult to access analytically.

The distinction between sex and gender implied in these quotations, however, does not seem to resolve the issue, precisely because it fails to offer a tool for discriminating biological aspects of differences from non-biological ones, i.e. those that are cultural. This is also reflected in everyday life. ‘Folk’ categories of sex and gender often appear to be used as if they were the same thing. Although 'masculine' and 'feminine' are social realities, there is a mystique about their being predetermined by biology. Furthermore the very relational meaning of ‘gender’ seems to constitute a too obvious hiding place for a brand of essentialism based on sex. Apart from being ‘structure’, as noted above, gender is, according to Connell (2003:20), all about relations. However, if there are none - or if the relations are excluding - the concept of sex segregation may be even more useful.

In Connell’s analysis, gender may be removed (Connell 2003:96). In this respect and as a consequence, gender equals sex segregation. In fact it seems that the 'masculine' and 'feminine’, in the definition of gender above, are confusingly close to the ‘mystique about their being predetermined by biology’ when compared to the ‘reproductive arena’ and ‘reproductive differences’ in Connell’s (2003:21) definition of gender. The elusiveness of gender seems to reveal a point of focus rather than a thorough-going conceptualization. So, for example, in traditional Engels/Marx thinking the family’s mediating formation between class and state excludes the politics of gender (Haraway 1991: 131).

What's a Woman?

In What is a Woman? Moi (1999) attacks the concept of gender while still emphasizing the importance of the concept of the feminine and a strong self-conscious (female) subject that combines the personal and the theoretical within it. Moi (1999: 76), hence, seems to propose a loose sex/gender axis resting on a rigid womanhood based on women’s context bound, lived experience outside the realm of men’s experience.

Although I share Moi’s suggestion for abandoning the category of gender, her analysis seems to contribute to a certain confusion and to an almost incalculable theoretical abstraction in the sex/gender distinction because it keeps maintaining sex segregation without offering a convincing defense for it. Although gender, for example, is seen as a nature-culture distinction, something that essentializes non-essential differences between women and men, the same may be said about Moi’s approach if we understand her ‘woman’ as, mainly, the mainstream biological one usually classified (prematurely) in the delivery room. If the sexes live in separate spheres, as Moi’s analysis seems to imply, the lived, contextual experience of women appears as less suitable for pioneering on men’s territory.

This raises the question about whether the opening up of new frontiers for females may demand the lessening or even the absence of femininity (and masculinity). In fact, it is believed here that the ‘liminal state’ where social progression might best occur, is precisely that. Gender as an educated ‘facticity’ then, from this point of view, will inevitably enter into a state of world view that adds itself onto the ‘lived body’ as a constraint.

It is assumed here that we commonly conflate constructs of sex, gender, and sexuality. When sex is defined as the ‘biological’ aspects of male and female, then this conceptualization is here understood as purely descriptive. When gender is said to include social practices organized in relation to biological sex (Connell 1987), and when gender refers to context/time-specific and changeable socially constructed relationships of social attributes and opportunities learned through socialization between women and men, this is also here understood as descriptive. However, when description of gender transforms into active construction of gender, e.g. through secrets about its analytical gain, it subsequently transforms into a compulsory necessity. Gendering hence may blindfold gender-blind opportunities.

In conclusion, if gender is here understood as a social construct, then it is not coupled to sex but to context, and dependent on time. Also it is here understood that every person may possess not only one but a variety of genders. Even if we consider gender to be locked together with the life history of a single individual the above conceptualization makes a single, personal gender impossible, longitudinally as well as contemporaneously. Whereas gender is constructive and deterministic, sex is descriptive and non-deterministic. In this sense, gender as an analytical tool leaves little room for the emancipating girl - the Tomboy.

The Tomboy - a threat to "femininity"

Noncompliance with what is assumed ‘feminine’ threatens established or presumed sex segregation. What is perceived as ‘masculinity’ or ‘maleness’ in women, as a consequence, may only in second place, target homosexuality. In accordance with this line of thought, the Tomboy embodies both the threat and the possibilities for gendered respectively gender-blind opportunity structures.

The Tomboy is the loophole out of gender relations. Desires revealed through sport may have been with females under the guise of a different identity, such as that of the Tomboy (Kotarba & Held 2007: 163). Girls throw balls ‘like girls’ and do not tackle like boys because of a female perception of their bodies as objects of action (Young 2000:150 cited in Kotarba & Held 2007: 155).

However, when women lacking experience of how to act in an effective manner in sport are taught about how to do, they have no problem performing, quite contrary to explaining shortcomings as due to innate causes (Kotarba & Held 2007: 157). This is also opposite to the experiences of male-to-female transsexuals who through thorough exercise learn how to feminize their movements (Schrock & Boyd 2006:53-55). Although, according to Hargreaves (1994), most separatist sports philosophies have been a reaction to dominant ideas about the biological and psychological predispositions of men and women, supposedly rendering men 'naturally suited to sports, and women, by comparison, essentially less suited (Hargreaves 1994:29-30), the opposite may also hold true. Separatism per definition needs to separate and this separation is often based on biological differences, be it skin colour, sex or something else.

From this perspective, the Tomboy would constitute a theoretical anomaly in a feminine separatist setting. Although her physical body would possibly qualify as feminine, what makes her a Tomboy would not.

The observation that in mixed playgrounds, and in other areas of the school environment, boys monopolize the physical space (Hargreaves 1994:151) may lack the additional notion that certain boys dominate and certain boys do not. Sports feminists have 'politicized' these kinds of experience by drawing connections between ideas and practice (Hargreaves 1994:3) but because of a separatist approach may exclude similar experience among parts of the boys. Moreover, a separatist approach is never waterproof and may hence leak Tomboy girls without a notion.