Peter Klevius stands for these "stops" and due huge implications - all shame on him if you can prove him wrong (click links if you need to educate yourself before saying something stupid): Stop using the misleading 'gender' instead of sex (sociology)! Stop islam's abuse of Human Rights (jurisprudence)! Stop saying humans came "out of Africa" (anthropology)! Stop talking about "consciousness" when you don't know what you're talking about (philosophy/ai).

Peter Klevius: BBC supports the islamofascist Saudi dictator family's strategic use of supremacist islam which has spred muslim hate all over the world's streets, institutions etc. (and usually not correctly, if at all, reported by BBC which instead doesn't hesitate to give long coverage of "alternative news" that better suits its propaganda) - while muslim terrorist organizations keep it within muslim territories. So if true Salafists became the "gurdians of islam's holy places" then that would mean less muslim terror elsewhere. And less to cover up for BBC. How big a contributor to the suffering of islamic supremacist hate crimes has BBC's fake (and lack of) info been? Will we in the future see BBC in an international court accused of crimes against humanity? As it stands now the spill over effect of BBC's cynical support of proxy evil is stained in blood and rape etc. over innocent people. And if true Salafists took over in muslim countries, they would quickly become non-muslim countries. A better option than today's prolonged suffering caused by the hopeless effort to "adapt" a medieval slavery ideology to a modern world based on everyone's Human Rights equality. And if it's so important to keep islam in name only - then islam would loose all of its racist and sexist "we and the other" appeal anyway.

Why is BBC aiding islamofascism?

Why is BBC aiding islamofascism?

UK's islamic and Sinophobic Parliament

UK's islamic and Sinophobic Parliament

Statues of football player Nilla Fischer and Caroline Seger vandalized in Sweden

Statues of football player Nilla Fischer and Caroline Seger vandalized in Sweden

Islam (represented in UN by Saudi based and steered OIC and its sharia called “islamic human rights”) is against Human Rights!

Sweden’s Supreme Court has found a man guilty of rape for having sex without explicit consent from a "teenage woman" who had been passive and gave no clear expression that she wanted to participate in the sexual acts. Lack of a partner’s spoken agreement or any other clear approval can hence be considered rape. However, islamic sharia gives a muslim man the "right" to have sex with wives and and concubines his "right hand possesses" (e.g. "infidel" girls/women). The neo-islamist rational (original openly supremacist islam didn't need one) is that "it satisfies the sexual desire of the female". Peter Klevius wonders if Swedish Courts will accept this reasoning - perhaps only for muslims?!

Peter Klevius also wonders whether BBS's leading presenter, the alcohol drinking and not Ramadan fasting, Pakistan rooted and Saudi raised muslim, Mishal Husain, approves of sharia?


UK introduced face recognition after for many years accusing Chinese for having it. Peter Klevius wonders how this fits UK's face covered muslims and others who utilizes it?

So how do you vote for someone critical of islam's Human Rights violations if parties don't allow "islamophobia"? Is it democracy?

What do BBC and Jeremy Hunt have in common? Both support the islamofascist murderer and war criminal Mohammad bin Salman.

The murderous war criminal, Saudi muslim "custodian of islam" (and OIC) "prince" MBS is OK but Human Rights defender Peter Klevius isn't. Why?! Because the former isn't an "islamophobe", dude!

26 June 2019: BBC's leading presenter, the alcohol drinking and not ramadan fasting Pakistan rooted muslim, Mishal Husain (brought up in Saudi Arabia), worried about Boris Johnson not having cricket as his hobby.

25 June 2019: BBC's leading presenter, the alcohol drinking and not ramadan fasting muslim, Mishal Husain (brought up in Saudi Arabia), sounds desperate when trying to smear Johnson. Is it because Boris 2016 was critical against the Saudis while foreign minister and 2018 critical of muslim women packed in burqas etc.?
BBC thinks the militaristic Saudiphil Jeremy Hunt "is a safer option" as UK PM. What about you?

BBC News 8:00 AM 23 June 2019: Johnson financially unfit because he spilled wine on a couch.

BBC News 8:00 AM 23 June 2019: Johnson financially unfit because he spilled wine on a couch.
Is the Saudi "custodian of islam" a muslim - and is the very question "islamophobic", "muslimophobic" or "Saudiphobic"?

Blinked by BBC's fake "news" which instead boost militaristic confrontation and the smearing of China: The Saudi war criminal "custodian of islam" who murdered Khashoggi is now the world's new Hitler. However, unlike Hitler's Germanic language imperialism, bin Salman's Arabic language imperialism is added by a totalitarian imperialism due to the fact that he is a muslim and as such represents the totality of islam (inc. the Saudi based and steered all muslims world organization O.I.C.'s sharia declaration against Human Rights). Peter Klevius has for long pointed out that we need to distinguish between Human Rights obeying "muslims" and "extremist" muslims, but for some reason they are all bundled as 'muslims'.

Musim double standard.

Existence-centrism (Peter Klevius 1986)


Read this: The "out of Africa" hoax is worse than the Piltdown hoax - and much bigger and more worrisome. When will “out of Africaphobia” be criminalized?

Nothing in Primate/Haplorhini evolution came out of Africa - not even Africa (it was disconnected due to tectonics).

A “definition” of “islamophobia” ought to be balanced with a definition of muslim Human Rightsphobia.

"Diversity" without basic (negative) Human Rights is like having a car without steering - dangerous.

In its senseless and continuous "islamophobia" ranting BBC says to be 'muslim' is the same as to be 'English'. Klevius thinks not. A 'muslim' is one who wittingly or unwittingly adheres to what historical records show being the most evil enslaving ideology ever around (from a Human Rights perspective). And Klevius doesn't count as real muslims those who call themselves "cultural muslims" for the purpose of benefiting from a certain "ethnicity", or those who against their will are trapped in muslimhood because of the evil apostasy tenet in islam. And islamic "modesty" attires is a protected way of calling other women "whores".

The most serious threat to our Human Rights is the hate campaign against "islamophobia" which really is directed against Human Rights.

As long as most muslims in the world are ruled by a sharia (e.g. Saudi based and steered OIC) that gravely violates the most basic of Human Rights, and as long as the most devout muslims do the same by simply following original evil (according to Human Rights) islam, you can't legislate against criticism of islam without simultaneously legislating against Human Rights. Why do you want to hinder muslims from apostating? It's a Human Right! Islam should not be allowed to traumatize apostates. Authentic original (e.g. Wahhabi/Salafi) islam doesn't fit in the boots of "Euro-islam" and Human Rights.

Klevius suggests the UK baby should be named Muhammad. After all, according to BBC, the Queen is related to him and all politicians love islam. And several hadiths describe him as white (one even proposing the killing of anyone who says he was black). Only problem being that he then may be described as a white supremacist. Luckily the baby, according to BBC, is “mix-race”.

Klevius to EU voters: If you respect Human Rights - don’t vote for anyone who supports the islamofascist Saudi dictator family who spreads Human Rightsphobia via the Saudi based and steered OIC’s world sharia!

And if you respect your Earthly home – don’t support a hate ideology that encourages over-population and sex apartheid. We don’t need more workers because the most profitable sectors have the least jobs – a trend that AI accelerates.

No true muslim can be fully human.

Why? Because islam's dividing the world in muslims and (not fully human) "infidels" makes it impossible. Only by fully accepting the basic (s.c. 'negative') Universal Human Rights equality - which islam can't accept (see e.g. Saudi based and steered all muslims world Ummah sharia organization OIC) without committing ideological suicide - can we meet every human as basically equal, in the same way as we can give every road-user a basic equality in traffic, i.e. we have traffic sense. So Klevius asks muslims whether they have "traffic sense"? And for all the rest of you - to be 'human' in a global sense can only be achieved by giving every human you meet basic equality - no matter how alien that human might feel to you. Because every human has the right to be "alien" (and there can't even be any alternative to this as long as we don't accept brainwashed totalitarianism (see e.g. Klevius 1996 paper Angels of Antichrist). This is the only way to meaningfully talk about 'humankind'. And to alien hunters Klevius says you probably meet them every day already.

So when BBC and other fake media talk about xenophobia against muslims, they actually contribute to spread xenophobia themselves.

A "good muslim" is one who suppresses and distorts original islam so to fit Human Rights. However, some just pretend to do so - and some just continue hating the "infidel".


Ultimate bigotry and hypocrisy – spying and meddling 5 Eyes instead of true 5G?

Saudi hate spreading antennas (Salafi/Wahhabi mosques etc.) or Chinese world leading 5G tech? No one knows the amount of street etc. victims of Saudi hate because when the haters are muslims their attacks are not recorded as hate crimes.

The real threat is the US led Saudi supporting spy organization 5 Eyes, which 1) tries to block superior tech, and 2) uses China as a scapegoat for US/UK privacy breaches. It's not China but US that wants to control you! So "securing 5G from Chinese influence" actually means giving US/UK a technical space for spying/influencing etc. In short, trying to hinder US/UK customers from accessing the best technology while spying on them.

Muslim terrorists get legal aid to stay in UK - EU nationals don't!


The crystal clear connection between the surge in knife, rape etc. attacks and islam - and its custodian, the islamofascist Saudi dictator family - is desperately silenced by BBC and politicians (BBC now tries to cover this up by airing long programs about "conventional" knife crimes instead). This means they are directly complicit, doesn't it. Klevius suggests boycotting BBC and Saudi bribed politicians. They constitute the worst security threat.

BBC collected a UKIP hating mob to shout "islamophobia" against islam criticism.

However, the very same BBC also willfully misleads people about islam so that most people in UK are completely unaware of that Saudi based and steered OIC and its extreme Human Rightsphobia is a world guide for (sharia) muslims. Moreover, BBC's top presenter (Mishal Husain) who seems to be muslim in name only (drinking alcohol, not fasting on Ramadan, no muslim attire, no Haji, no sharia, etc) so to dupe the public about islam.

The 1948 Human Rights declaration was created to protect against fascism. Accepting islam without a clear border against sharia that violates the most basic Human Rights, allows space for islamofascism (i.e. original supremacist islam).

However, the new fascist mob is shouting "islamophobia" because islam can't comply with it (compare Saudi based and steered OIC's sharia declaration against Human Rights). This smear is then "enhanced" by connecting it to murderers, Nazis, right wing extremists etc. Islam's sharia sexism and racist supremacism is the problem - so why is addressing it "bad"?!

BBC is also keen on silencing the only truly free media, i.e. bloggers etc. social media.

Muslim terrorists get legal aid to stay in UK - EU nationals don't!

The best explanation to the surge in knife crimes since 2015 is the Islamic State's exhortation to street jihad. However, the police don't record hate crimes as muslim - other than if directed against muslims. And do consider that IS and the Saudi dictator family both rest on the same Salafi islam that most young true muslims in the West follow. Following Salafism (etc. true muslimhood) involves distinguishing muslims from others, to show that one only belongs to islam and that true muslims ought to be strangers to the "infidels". When Klevius sees a muslim woman in burqa, veil etc. he thinks that's a supremacist and rapist attitude towards other women. And certainly contempt of Human Rights.

UK continues even after Brexit to use EU citizens as bargaining chips by placing their rights in an unsafe statutory instrument instead of in the law.

Stop security cooperation with UK whose close connection to the the suspected murderer, war criminal and islamic terror spreading islamofascist Saudi custodian of islam, Mohammad bin Salman, constitutes the by far worst threat against the security of people in EU! Moreover, sharia islam (the only real islam for real muslims) which is a racist and sexist supremacist ideology that violates Human Rights, is supported by UK.

Don't let haters and Human Rightsphobes get away with it by calling themselves 'believers'!

Either religion is (grades of) supremacist hate and sexism and you better become an Atheist (and therefore universal human) - or you keep your "beliefs" for yourself. In traffic you can think what you want about other people, but you can't drive over them!

You muslim should be ashamed of calling Human Rights defenders "islamophobes"

- and take responsibility for your own supremacist sharia, represented by Saudi based and steered all muslims world organization OIC, which violates the most basic Human Rights! And do note the difference between universal impositions and universal freedom! Full respect of the other rests on accepting her/his freedom. This is the only way of being universally human.

Islam is an evil* supremacist and divisive ideology - why isn’t this told by BBC, schools etc.?

* weighed against the anti-fascist, anti-supremacist, anti-racist and anti-sexist Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948 that all civilized people are supposed to build on. Islam doesn't fit these goals, so OIC (the legal world Umma steered from and by the Saudi dictator family) decided to replace them with medieval racist, sexist and supremacist sharia.

Article 24 of the Saudi based and steered OIC's sharia declaration (CDHRI) states: "All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia." Article 19 says: "There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Sharia." CDHRI also fails to guarantee freedom of religion, in particular the right of each and every individual to abandon their religion, as a "fundamental and non-derogable right".

Article 10 of the Declaration states: "Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion or to Atheism." Since in Islamic society all reasons for conversion away from Islam are considered to be essentially either compulsion or ignorance, this effectively forbids conversion away from Islam.

CDHRI denies women equality with men by imposing "own rights" and "duties to perform".

A global world is only possible under the guidance of (negative – i.e. individual freedom from racist/sexist impositions) Human Rights - as outlined in the original anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948. It excludes any religious or other supremacist tenets or impositions on the individual.

Due to the above and due to the West (politicians and media) having locked itself in with the islamofascist Saudi dictator family (the custodians of islam) we now have a deficit of (negative) Human Rights education – but massively more religious propaganda (e.g. Saudi spread “islamophobia” smear) against these rights. Against this background it's utmost hypocrisy to point against wealth spreading China while supporting islamic hate, terror and war crimes spreading hegemonic Saudi dictator family.


If you don't like Klevius (very few do) you may check if it's him or the anti-racist, anti-sexist and anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration you can't digest - but which Klevius stubbornly keeps feeding you.

Do you support Human Rights or sharia? Klevius islam logic: If I is SI and SI is not HR then I is not HR. For those who don't understand formal logic: If islam is sharia islam and sharia islam violates Human Rights, then islam violates Human Rights.

Theresa May & Co defend sharia by saying "it's just a a contract". This is utter lie because any meaningful islam demands sharia and stepping out of the "contract" is the worst sin you can commit as a muslim (s.c. apostasy). Theresa May's and others deception is built on the mass of secular muslims, i.e. not true muslims. And these "secular muslims" get away with it as long as there's not enough true muslims to demand sharia all over the pitch - as yet. Moreover, Saudi led sharia finance demands sharia compliance - as does Saudi based and steered OIC, all muslims world organization.

Klevius supports "secular muslims" - Theresa May supports sharia muslims.

Theresa May & Co and state media BBC play with race cards

Theresa May & Co and state media BBC play with race cards

UK is drowning in sharia islamofascism while BBC is silent

UK is drowning in sharia islamofascism while BBC is silent

Klevius "islamophobic" heroine Nawal El Saadawi from Egypt

Klevius "islamophobic" heroine Nawal El Saadawi from Egypt
BBC isn't much interested in anti-semitism, homophobia etc. but uses them as an excuse for its Saudi/OIC supported "islamophobia" smear campaign against Human Rights.

Is BBC's Pakistan rooted and Saudi raised muslim(?) presenter Mishal Husain an "islamophobe" against evil* islam, or an apostate supporting toothless** "islam"? She doesn't fast during Ramadan but rather drinks some alcohol, and doesn't veil herself and says she doesn't feel any threats to her way of life (Klevius: thanks to Human Rights - not sharia islam), well knowing how muslim and non-muslim women suffer in muslim sharia countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia without Human Rights. What would she say to a muslim terrorist asking her if she's a muslim? Isn't it about time to stop this bigoted and hypocritical indirect support of islamofascism that this Saudi/OIC initiated "islamophobia" smear camopaign against Human Rights*** is all about?

* Human Rights equality violating sharia islam
** in line with the anti-fascist, anti-racist and anti-sexist U.N.'s 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration.
*** Socialists have an ideological problem with individual Human Rights, and are therefore vulnerable for islamism (see Klevius 1994).

Rabbi Sacks: "BBC runs Britain." Klevius: Pro-sharia BBC meddles worldwide.

Rabbi Sacks: "BBC runs Britain." Klevius: Pro-sharia BBC meddles worldwide.

Politicians against people

Politicians against people

Is UK turning into a militaristic unconstitutional islamofascist rogue state?

Is UK turning into a militaristic unconstitutional islamofascist rogue state?

First UK people voted to join and share borders with EU. Then England voted to leave while Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to stay. And now UK politicians want to leave while keeping the Irish EU border open. UK lacks a modern constitution according to which a constitutional issue has to pass at least two majority votes.

Klevius CV

Are you or your representative(s) for or against basic Human Rights equality?

Peter Klevius global morality can only be challenged by violating the most basic of Human Rights.

Everything Peter Klevius writes (or has written) is guided by the anti-sexist. anti-racist, and anti-fascist Universal* Human Rights declaration of 1948. In other words, what is declared immoral and evil is so done as measured against the most basic of Human Rights (the so called "negative" rights - i.e. the rights of the individual not to be unnecessarily targeted with restrictions and impositions). Unlike the 1948 Universal Human Rights (UHR) declaration, islam denies Human Rights equality to women and non-muslims. And violation of such basic Human Rights can't be tolerated just by referring to "freedom of religion".

* This means accepting everyone - without exception due to e.g. sex, religion, lack of religion, "security" etc. - as equal in Human Rights. The individual is protected by negative Human Rights, but of course not against substantiated legal accusations - as long as these are not produced as a means that violates the basic Human Rights (compare "not necessary in a free, democratic country"). The legislator may not produce laws that seek to undermine some individuals rights. This also includes e.g. "freedom of religion", i.e. that this freedom doesn't give the right to unfree others, or cause others to be in an inferior rights position. If by islam you mean something that fully adheres to basic Human Rights equality, then you aren't targeted by Peter Klevius islam criticism. However, if you mean islam accepts violations of the most basic of Human Rights, then you may also call Peter Klevius an "islamophobe" - and he will be proud of it. And when it comes to "security" it can't mean "offending" opponents to basic Human Rights.

This is why any effort to twist or accuse the writings of Peter Klevius as "islamophobia" etc. can only be made from a standpoint against these basic Human Rights. As a consequence, no body of authority can therefore accuse, hinder etc. Peter Klevius without simultaneously revealing its own disrespect for these Human Rights. Conversely, Peter Klevius can not accuse anyone who agrees on these rights - i.e. this leaves e.g. "islamophobia" etc. accusations against Peter Klevius without merit.

Every effort against these basic Human Rights is treason against a country calling itself free and democratic.

Some basic facts to consider about Klevius* (except that he is super intelligent - which fact, of course, would not put you off if you're really interested in these questions):

* The son of one of Sweden's best chess-players and an even more intelligent Finnish mother. He was mentored by G. H. von Wright, Wittgensteins's successor at Cambridge. However, G H v Wright sadly didn't fully realize back then (1991) the true power of the last chapter, Khoi, San and Bantu, in Klevius book. Today, if still alive, he would surely see it.

1 Klevius' analysis of consciousness is the only one that fits what we know - after having eliminated our "pride" bias of being humans (which non-human would we impress, anyway?). Its starting point is described and exemplified in a commentary to Jurgen Habermas in Klevius book Demand for Resources (1992:30-33, ISBN 9173288411, based on an article by Klevius from 1981), and is further explained in a commentary to Francis Crick's book The Astonishing Hypothesis under the title The Even More Astonishing Hypothesis (EMAH), which can be found in Stalk's archive and which has been on line since 2003 for anyone to access/assess.

2 Klevius out of island/mainland fluctuating Southeast Asia Denisovans up to big skulled Siberians as the birth of much more intelligent modern humans who then spread all over the world, is the only analysis that fits both genetic reality as well as tool and art sophistication seen in e.g. the Denisova cave (no dude, Blombos etc. don’t come even close).

3 Klevius criticism of Human Rights violating sharia islamofascism (e.g. OIC) which is called "islamophobia" by islamofascists and their supporters who don't care about the most basic of Human Rights (e.g. re. women). Klevius' "islamophobia" has two roots: 1) UN's 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration, which, contrary to any form of muslim sharia, doesn't, for example, allow sex to be an excuse for robbing females of their full Human Rights equality, and 2) the history of the origin of islam ( e.g. Hugh Kennedy, Robert G. Hoyland, K. S. Lal etc.) which reveals a murderous, pillaging, robbing, enslaving and raping racist/sexist supremacist ideology that exactly follows precisely those basic islamic tenets which are now called "unislamic" but still survive today (as sharia approved sex slavery, sharia approved "liberation” jihad, academic jihad etc.) behind the sharia cover which is made even more impenetrable via the spread of islamic finance, mainly steered from the islamofascist Saudi dictator family.


4 Klevius analysis of sex segregation/apartheid (now deceptively called “gender segregation”) and heterosexual attraction - see e.g. Demand for Resources (1981/1992), Daughters of the Social State (1993), Angels of Antichrist (1996), Pathological Symbiosis (2003), or Klevius PhD research on heterosexual attraction/sex segregation and opposition to female footballers (published in book form soon).

Peter Klevius "islamophobia"/Human Rightsphobia test for you and your politicians

Racist UK Government and BBC

Racist UK Government and BBC

Warning for a muslim robot!

UK PM candidate Rees-Mogg: Germans needed Human Rights - we don't. Klevius: I really think you do.

TheresaMay's racist robbing of EU citizens' Human Rights

The Saudi Fuhrer of Saudi based islamofascist OIC

BBC's compulsory fee funded propaganda for Saudi sharia islam

Support Klevius' Atheist anti-fascism against islamofascism

This is what BBC's muslim sharia presenter Mishal Husain "forgot" to report. Mishal grew up in the very same theocratic medieval dictatorship which now harbors and rules all muslims world organization OIC and its Human Rights violating sharia. While also spreading islamic hatred over the world through a variety of channels.

Klevius to dumb (or just evil) alt-left "antifa" people who support the worst of Human Rights violating evil:

True anti-fascism in its purest form is laid down in the Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948. Islam (OIC) has in UN decided to abandon the most basic of these rights (the so called negative Human Rights).

Fascism is, according to Google's top hit, "a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation*, and forcible suppression of opposition." 23 Aug 2017

So let's face islam with this definition.

A political philosophy, movement, or regime (islam) that exalts nation (Umma) and often race (muslims) above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government (Koran text/Mohammad's example) headed by a dictatorial leader (the caliph - e.g. the Saudi based OIC's Saudi leader), severe economic and social regimentation* (sharia), and forcible suppression of opposition (apostasy ban against muslims wanting to leave islam, and demonizing defenders of Human Rights by calling them "islamophobes").

And islamofascism gets away with it by calling itself a religion and thereby being protected by those very Human Rights it opposes.

* According to Cambridge dictionary, "extreme organization and control of people".

Sayeeda Warsi like all sharia muslims is against basic Human Rights

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

Klevius is probably now the world's foremost expert on sex segregation (sad isn't it), and islam (the worst cime ever) is the foremost expression of sex segregation. By 'islam' Klevius means the same as true sharia supporting (and therefore against the most basic of Human Rights) muslims.

British muslim jihadists: Samantha Lewthwaite, Mishal Husain and Michael Adebolajo (who murdered Le

Thursday, August 1, 2019

Why is new EU chief Ursula Rose Ladson Albrecht von der Leyen's* "conservative conservative" mother removed from Wikipedia?!


Heidi Adele Albrecht Stromeyer had 7 children, just like her daughter Ursula Rose Ladson Albrecht von der Leyen*. 

  However, only Ursula's father is presented in Wikipedia's text.


Peter Klevius questions to Ursula Rose Ladson Albrecht von der Leyen: What do you think about MeToo and OIC's sharia (so called "islamic human rights") that denies muslim women full Human Rights equality? And why do you rather sell weapons to islamofascist war crimes committing dictators than cooperating with peaceful and prosperity spreading China? And how many children do you think is good for planet Earth's health today?



* von der Leyen descends by adoption from Sarah Ladson and her slave owner family.

James Henry Ladson (1795–1868) was an American planter and businessman from Charleston, South Carolina. He was the owner of James H. Ladson & Co., a major Charleston firm that was active in the rice and cotton business, and owned over 200 slaves. He was also the Danish Consul in South Carolina, a director of the State Bank and held numerous other business, church and civic offices. James H. Ladson was a strong proponent of slavery and especially the use of religion to maintain discipline among the slaves. He and other members of the Charleston planter and merchant elite played a key role in launching the American Civil War. Among Ladson's descendants is Ursula von der Leyen, who briefly lived under the alias Rose Ladson.
His sister Sarah Reeve Ladson painted by Thomas Sully; in the portrait "she visually made reference to the taste of the slave women around whom she had been raised" with the turban and bright colours[1]
The front of his town house, the Ladson Ladson in 8 Meeting Street, where he lived with his family and 12 slaves part of the year
He belonged to one of South Carolina's most prominent planter and merchant families, that had played a major role in the British colonization of the Americas and the slave trade in British North America. He was the son of former Lieutenant Governor of South Carolina James Ladson and descended from many former British colonial governors. His maternal grandfather was the merchant banker, politician and slave trader Benjamin Smith. He was mainly of English and Scottish descent, and also had some French ancestors. The Ladson family emigrated from Northamptonshire to Barbados and then to South Carolina as one of the first English settlers in 1679.[2] His great-grandfather Joseph Wragg was the largest slave trader in British North America. Among his other ancestors were governors John Yeamans, James Moore, Robert Gibbes, Thomas Smith and Joseph Blake, and the first European settler of Carolina Henry Woodward. The Gibbes Museum of Art is named for his grandmother's family.
He owned the La Grange and Fawn Hill plantations, which produced around 600,000 pounds of rice each year. He owned over 200 slaves by 1850.[3][4] His business partner William Cattell Bee was a cousin of Barnard Elliott Bee Jr.[5]
Ladson was a prominent community leader in the Charleston area. He was the Danish Consul in South Carolina from 1831.[6][7] He was also a director of the State Bank[8] and held various leadership roles in the Episcopal Church, e.g. as a member of the standing committee of the diocese.[9] The Charleston Mercury noted that he was "respected by all, and disesteemed by none."[10] The Charleston Daily News described him as "an excellent specimen of the old Carolina gentleman, pure in character, and high-toned in his dealings, and was for many years the head of the house of James H. Ladson & Co., now represented by the firm of W.C. Bee & Co. This firm carried on an extensive and lucrative business as rice and cotton factors. He was also a bank director, and for most of his life a leading member of St. Michael's Episcopal Church of our city, where he stood foremost in Christian virtues and active benevolence."[11]
James H. Ladson was part of the oligarchy of elite planters and merchants who controlled Charleston, a city that played a major role in the history of slavery in the United States, and he and several of his family members were actively involved in launching the American Civil War. A proponent of "states' rights," he was a vice-president of the Great Southern Rights and Southern Co-Operation Meeting in Charleston in 1851.[12]
He spent "a portion of the year"[13] on his North Santee plantation, but otherwise lived in a town house in Charleston with 12 domestic slaves.[14] His company's business address was 13 Southern Wharf.[15][16]
His sister Sarah Reeve Ladson was a prominent socialite who was married to the Baltimore merchant, ship owner, East India importer and art collector Robert Gilmor, Jr.[17] Sarah Reeve Ladson was regarded as one of the most fashionable American women of her time, and was the subject of several portraits and sculptures, including a famous portrait by Thomas Sully.[18] Art historian Maurie D. McInnis notes that "she visually made reference to the taste of the slave women around whom she had been raised" with the turban and bright colours.[1]
He was married to Eliza Ann Fraser, a daughter of the merchant and plantation owner Charles Fraser (1782–1860), who owned the Bellevue plantation near the Pocotaligo river and whose grandfather John Fraser had moved from Scotland to South Carolina around 1700. His father-in-law was a nephew of John Rutledge. His wife was also a niece of the painter Charles Fraser, who painted miniature portraits of him and his wife in 1826.[19] Their son, Major William Henry Ladson (1829–1861), was a partner in his father's business J.H. Ladson & Co. and a Confederate officer who was killed during the American Civil War. The latter was the grandfather of Mary Ladson Robertson,[20] who was the great-grandmother of Ursula von der Leyen,[21] who for a year lived under the name Rose Ladson in London to escape terrorists.[22][23]
Ladson, South Carolina, is named in honour of his family.

Views on slavery

In 1845 he described his views on the use of religion to maintain control over the slaves.[13][24][25]
The religious and moral instruction of the negroes has, for several years, been a subject of great interest to me, and I am satisfied that our exertions in their behalf (although much, very much, yet remains to be done) are not only misunderstood abroad, but unappreciated. To improve the negro is a far more arduous task than many, who have no experience in teaching them, are aware. They are naturally dull, and of a weak intellect, but generally possessing good memories; and those who have been engaged in this work of charity, have to lament, after much labour, that the instruction they have endeavoured to give, although remembered, has been perverted and misdirected.
— James H. Ladson, "The Religious Instruction of the Negroes" (1845)
Ladson believed strongly in religious instruction to maintain discipline among the slaves, and built his own chapel on the plantation that could accommodate around 100–110 slaves at a time. He stated that:[13]
I am satisfied that the influence of this instruction upon the discipline of my plantation, and on the spirit and subordination of the negroes has been most beneficial. Their spirits are cheerful, as I judge from their gaiety of heart, and the respect for the overseer, and drivers, is evidenced by, generally, a ready obedience to orders.
— James H. Ladson, "The Religious Instruction of the Negroes" (1845)

Saturday, July 20, 2019

Would Peter Klevius today have qualified as the first human on the Moon? After all, he's been told by strangers in four countries to "go home" - incl. in his country of birth.

Peter Klevius would probably not have qualified today. After all, he's a man with "white" skin and an "islamophobic" Human Rights defender - not a sharia muslim.



So why didn't islam make it to the Moon?

Islam's core idea is parasitism on slaves - which made islam the biggest slave raider and trader the history knows of. And when the West forbade slavery islam went down until the West found oil in muslim countries - especially the Western invention the Saudi "kingdom" whose murderous war criminal "prince" is now the "guardian of islam".

Not only has islam been the most devastating ideology historians have revealed - this evilness now continues via islam's main representative in UN, the Saudi based and steered OIC and its sharia declaration which openly violates the anti-fascist Human Rights declaration from 1948. And precisely because of this inborn evilness islam is now protected against criticism by the islamist invention "islamophobia".

Thursday, July 11, 2019

UK Ambassador Darroch: US presidency is clumpsy, inept, hobbled by infighting, unlikely to improve, dysfunctional, unpredictable, not normal. Trump is insecure, lies, not competent and a disgrace. PM May: Frank and good advise.


Peter Klevius wonders whether this is a good job done by a top diplomat? Moreover, is UK also using the same diplomacy against Saudi Arabia?


Kim Darroch, UK’s ambassador to the US: The Trump administration is, clumpsy inept, hobbled by infighting, unlikely to improve, dysfunctional, unpredictable, and not normal. Trump radiates insecurity, uses false claims and invented statistics, and will never look competent. And when his presidency ends, it may very well come crashing down in disgrace.




UK Parliament seemed to fully approve of Kim Darroch's analysis because he was eagerly supported while the reaction to this tirade was condemned.

PM Theresa May: "good and frank information".

Peter Klevius wonders how this fits some conventional understanding of diplomacy?

An ambassador is the highest-ranking representative to a specific nation or international organization abroad. ... A key role of an ambassador is to coordinate the activities not only of the Foreign Service Officers and staff serving under him, but also representatives of other U.S. agencies in the country.

The definition of diplomatic is someone who can be sensitive in dealing with others and who can achieve peaceful resolutions or facilitate discussion. A person who doesn't take sides in a fight but who instead helps others to resolve their differences is an example of someone who is diplomatic.

An ambassador represent the interests and policies of her/his country and is supposed to build and grow relationships.


Jeremy Hunt wants to grossly increase militaristic meddling around the world and thereby spending less on other sectors while potentially making parts of the world more hostile to UK. Jeremy Hunt also wants to deepen even more UK's already tight connection with the most evil country on the planet, i.e. Saudi Arabia.
State media BBC,s leading presenter, the alcohol drinking and not Ramadan fasting Pakistan rooted and Saudi fostered muslim Mishal Husain (left on the pic) now uses her ivory tower position (paid by compulsory fees) to relentlessly attack Boris Johnson (in the face of the majority of Tory members in England) and to propagate for cricket (in the face of football women and girls) - on top of her never ending campaign against Human Rights and for islamic sharia. Think about it, a lovely sounding presenter who makes people think anti-Human Rights propaganda is just fine.

Saturday, June 8, 2019

Otto Weininger (1903): "The Woman is the main obstacle against women's emancipation." Peter Klevius (watching women's world cup 2019): Feminists tried to stop women from playing football in England and Sweden.


While (mostly "white"*) men tried to help girls/women playing football, one group of feminists stopped it and later feminists blamed it on men.

 * "Colored" or "black" men were (and still are to a high degree) hampered by sexist islam (and other "monotheist cultures").

Right part of the image from Peter Klevius web museum which hasn't been touched for more than a decade.

Peter Klevius PhD research long time ago (added by newer citations below) revealed that the English FA in December 1921 only banned women from playing on its grounds because of strong pressure from feminists.

In Sweden the feminist Group Eight, founded 1968, vehemently opposed girls and women playing football.

Extract from Peter Klevius Born to Play a Sport of Nature exemplifying the above:


Sweden:

An examination of one of Sweden’s foremost feminist organizations in the late 1960s and 1970s, the left wing communism inspired Grupp Åtta (Group 843), reveals that sport was seldom debated in positive terms among its members. Furthermore, football was seen as an ‘unacceptable and uninteresting “masculine” form of culture’ (Hjelm 2004: 277). This is the more contradictory because, according to Hjelm, the same feminists also proposed that women, at an individual as well as at a collective level, should try and learn new activities – such as, for example, amateur painting, and performing political music and theater – things they had not dared to try before (Hjelm 2004: 177). Under the feminist Group 8, Swedish females would most probably not have been encouraged to play football.

For feminists and the political left in Sweden competitive sports in general, and especially football, were ‘hopelessly characterized by masculinity’, and, according to one informant from the original Group 8, sport supervisors and teachers of gymnastics were among the worst ‘indoctrinators of our rigid sex role patterns’ (Hjelm 2004: 276). Another aspect of the female resistance against female football seems related and very consistent over time. Whereas in the 1920s the concern about dangers facing sporting females targeted the reproductive organs, in the 1960s the focus was laid on ‘dangling’ breasts, and more recently on the disturbed menstruation cycle. In England, the concern about female fragility has led to the situation that girls and boys aged 12 are not allowed to play against each other (Kosonen 1991, Seiro 2002 in Paavola 2003: 33). All of these can be seen as different aspects of the same underlying resistance, especially targeting football and seemingly paradoxically including many female critics.

It has been noted that sporting females have not internalized role conflicts (Laitinen 1983, 34). However, asks Paavola (2003: 43), herself a footballer, if sporting females do not experience role conflicts, would it be possible that those women for whom sport does cause such conflicts, do not participate in sport because of this?  This conclusion may be adapted not only to the case of the Swedish feminist Group 8 above but also, and similarly, to all the girls that have avoided football precisely because it poses role conflicts. In this light, the Swedish feminists from the 1970s described above seem to have been basically separatist and hence ‘real feminists’ as it is understood here, and consequently for a  continuing sex segregation. Furthermore, a logical consequence of this reasoning would be that much of the so called ‘equal-feminist’ movement was not feminist after all, but rather a social twin to the early women’s movement for the vote and other equal rights.

England:

During the course of World War I, football in England changed. From having been a tough sport practiced by lower class males, it evolved into a two-sex, and even mixed-sex sport. This development is best exemplified by the case of Lily Parr and Dick, Kerr’s Ladies. Whereas Lily Parr took her first steps towards the position as the first woman in the football’s hall of fame, freed from femininity among males on the rough backyards and streets of St. Helen, Dick, Kerr’s Ladies developed from a mixed-sex factory team to one of England’s most successful female teams. With the young males serving in the war, factory girls continued playing and soon challenged neighbouring teams as well as national teams.
By the end of 1921 it is estimated that some 150 women’s football clubs were active in England, mainly in the North and Midlands (Williams & Woodhouse 1991:93). This pattern is similar as to that of Sweden, i.e. that it was not the biggest cities that functioned as a fertile ground for women’s football but rather the opposite. It may also be noted that the public success of women’s football in the early 1920s just followed a similar boost on the men’s side (Williams & Woodhouse 1991:94). Two main explanations for the English FA ban on women’s football may be suggested:

            ▪ Money and power.
            ▪ Fear of defeminization (or demasculinization).

Initially, and for quite some time, the monetary, as well as other practical aspects of the women’s charity games, seemed to have developed to the satisfaction of all, including the F.A. According to Williamson (1991: 58), ‘because of the level of co-operation shown to the girls by the men's clubs, and the increasingly well-oiled operation of the charities in organising the games in the first place, the F.A. was content with the way things were going.’ This state of the matter, however, lasted only ‘until certain rumours began to filter through to the hierarchy of the Football Association.’ The actual source of these rumours has never been discovered.

The FA had debated the financial repercussions of continuing with women's matches for months before the decision. According to Williams (2003), the decision appeared to be about the Football League and Association's continued attempts to recoup and defend a masculine image for football. It was impossible to stop women playing per se, but those who did participate were simultaneously seen to behave in an inappropriate manner, in places where they ought not to be. The ban spread across Britain quickly (Williams 2003:32). ‘To recoup and defend a masculine image’, of course, simultaneously implies to recoup and defend a feminine image. This relation ought to be considered when making this evaluation.
Throughout his autobiography Fifty Years of Football 1884-1934 Frederick Wall, Secretary of the FA at the time of the ban, clearly expresses his hostile views against professionalism and commercialism connected to football. I was asked, writes Wall, to referee the first women's football match at Crouch End. I declined, but I went to see the match and came to the conclusion that the game was not suitable for them (Wall 1935/2006: 15-16).

Mary Scharlieb, an influential Harley street physician, expressed her opinion as: ‘I consider it (football) a most unsuitable game, too much for a woman's physical frame’ (Williamson 1991:55). This paraphrasing from a woman physician seems well in line with the wording in the FA ban. After all, the ban was based on a previously arranged meeting with experts on women's health.

Another precursor to the ban may have been the publication of London physician Arabella Kenealy's Feminism and Sex Extinction in 1920 which, according to Russell (1997), outlined the supposed ‘sterilizing’ influences of competitive games, at the same time as the National Birth Rate Commission expressed concern over the fall in the rate of childbirth. Iimmediately after 1921 came a debate in the Lancet and in educational circles over the effects on women of athletics and sport in general. The Board of Education's Chief Medical Officer (assumingly a male) called for more of physical education for girls at the same time as other98 contributors to the Lancet suggested that women's health had been permanently damaged by athletics. The 'Sexless gymnast' reached the national press, a focus of complex anxieties about the appropriate role of women. This was potentially as damaging to the movement for women's physical education as the Victorian 'overstrain' argument (Russell 1997: 97 cited in Williams 2003: 35). The male Mayor of Liverpool commented thus on the proposed ban by FA:

I may mention that in the past and present seasons I have watched about 30 ladies' football matches between various teams and I have met the players. I have travelled with them frequently by road and rail ....On all sides I have heard nothing but praise for the good work the girls are doing and the high standard of their play. The only thing I hear from the man in the street is ‘Why have the FA got the knife out for women's football? What have the girls done except raise large sums for charity and play the game? Are their feet heavier on the turf then the men's teams?’ (London Lesbian Kickabouts 2007-04-02).

Wednesday, June 5, 2019

Militaristic England (and BBC) make a lot of war propaganda noise to get more military budget - but "forget" the real D-Day.


UK/US constantly firebombed civilians in Dresden 13 Feb 1945 – 15 Feb 1945 with 722  (RAF) and 527 (USAAF) heavy bombers dropping some 4,000 incendiary bombs over an unprotected city.


It was a war crime but in the 4th Geneva Convention of 1949 UK/US stopped its investigation.



No real military reasons

The journalist Alexander McKee cast doubt on the meaningfulness of the list of targets mentioned in the 1953 USAF report, pointing out that the military barracks listed as a target were a long way out of the city and were not in fact targeted during the raid.[137] The "hutted camps" mentioned in the report as military targets were also not military but were camps for refugees.[137] It is also stated that the important Autobahn bridge to the west of the city was not targeted or attacked, and that no railway stations were on the British target maps, nor any bridges, such as the railway bridge spanning the Elbe River.[138] Commenting on this, McKee says: "The standard whitewash gambit, both British and American, is to mention that Dresden contained targets X, Y and Z, and to let the innocent reader assume that these targets were attacked, whereas in fact the bombing plan totally omitted them and thus, except for one or two mere accidents, they escaped".[139] McKee further asserts "The bomber commanders were not really interested in any purely military or economic targets, which was just as well, for they knew very little about Dresden; the RAF even lacked proper maps of the city. What they were looking for was a big built up area which they could burn, and that Dresden possessed in full measure."[140]

According to the historian Sönke Neitzel, "it is difficult to find any evidence in German documents that the destruction of Dresden had any consequences worth mentioning on the Eastern Front. The industrial plants of Dresden played no significant role in German industry at this stage in the war".[141] Wing Commander H. R. Allen said, "The final phase of Bomber Command's operations was far and away the worst. Traditional British chivalry and the use of minimum force in war was to become a mockery and the outrages perpetrated by the bombers will be remembered a thousand years hence".[142]
A memorial at cemetery Heidefriedhof in Dresden. It reads: "Wieviele starben? Wer kennt die Zahl? An deinen Wunden sieht man die Qual der Namenlosen, die hier verbrannt, im Höllenfeuer aus Menschenhand." ("How many died? Who knows the count? In your wounds one sees the agony of the nameless, who in here were conflagrated, in the hellfire made by hands of man.")

Military facilities in the north weren't bombed.

The Albertstadt, in the north of Dresden, had remarkable military facilities that the bombings failed to hit. Today they are officer's schools ("Offiziersschule des Heeres") for the Bundeswehr and its military history museum (from prehistoric to modern times).

A war crime

    ... ever since the deliberate mass bombing of civilians in the second world war, and as a direct response to it, the international community has outlawed the practice. It first tried to do so in the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, but the UK and the US would not agree, since to do so would have been an admission of guilt for their systematic "area bombing" of German and Japanese civilians.
    — A.C. Grayling.[143]

Frederick Taylor told Der Spiegel, "I personally find the attack on Dresden horrific. It was overdone, it was excessive and is to be regretted enormously," but, "A war crime is a very specific thing which international lawyers argue about all the time and I would not be prepared to commit myself nor do I see why I should. I'm a historian."[123] Similarly, British philosopher A. C. Grayling has described British area bombardment as an "immoral act" and "moral crime" because "destroying everything ... contravenes every moral and humanitarian principle debated in connection with the just conduct of war," but, "It is not strictly correct to describe area bombing as a 'war crime'."[144]

As a war crime

Though no one involved in the bombing of Dresden was ever charged with a war crime, some hold the opinion that the bombing was one.

According to Dr. Gregory Stanton, lawyer and president of Genocide Watch:

    ... every human being having the capacity for both good and evil. The Nazi Holocaust was among the most evil genocides in history. But the Allies' firebombing of Dresden and nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also war crimes – and as Leo Kuper and Eric Markusen have argued, also acts of genocide. We are all capable of evil and must be restrained by law from committing it.[145]

Historian Donald Bloxham states, "The bombing of Dresden on 13–14 February 1945 was a war crime".[146] He further argues there was a strong prima facie case for trying Winston Churchill among others and a theoretical case Churchill could have been found guilty. "This should be a sobering thought. If, however it is also a startling one, this is probably less the result of widespread understanding of the nuance of international law and more because in the popular mind 'war criminal', like 'paedophile' or 'terrorist', has developed into a moral rather than a legal categorisation".[146]

German author Günter Grass is one of several intellectuals and commentators who have also called the bombing a war crime.[147]

Proponents of this position argue that the devastation from firebombing was greater than anything that could be justified by military necessity alone, and this establishes a prima facie case. The Allies were aware of the effects of firebombing, as British cities had been subject to them during the Blitz.[d] Proponents disagree that Dresden had a military garrison and claim that most of the industry was in the outskirts and not in the targeted city centre,[148] and that the cultural significance of the city should have precluded the Allies from bombing it.

British historian Antony Beevor wrote that Dresden was considered relatively safe, having been spared previous RAF night attacks, and that at the time of the raids there were up to 300,000 refugees in the area seeking sanctuary from the advancing Red Army from the Eastern Front.[149] In Fire Sites, German historian Jörg Friedrich says that the RAF's bombing campaign against German cities in the last months of the war served no military purpose. He claims that Winston Churchill's decision to bomb a shattered Germany between January and May 1945 was a war crime. According to him, 600,000 civilians died during the allied bombing of German cities, including 72,000 children. Some 45,000 people died on one night during the firestorms that engulfed Hamburg in July 1943.


Today former allies UK and Russia consider themselves as islam's best friend.

Wednesday, May 29, 2019

Messi thoughts from the messi "Supreme" Court of a messi "country" called UK which plays football as 4 countries - but without a real Messi.


Jonathan Sumption (previous judge in the messi* UK "Supreme" Court) on BBC**: Judges do laws.

* The "Supreme" Court is the final court of appeal in the UK for civil cases, and for criminal cases from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It hears cases of the greatest public or constitutional importance affecting the whole population. Scotland is hence on its own. And does Klevius have to remind you that on top of this the "country" called United Kingdom plays football as four (4) diefferent countries. No wonder Brexit is a Messit.

** BBC seems to be much better at spreading misinformation and propaganda (i.e. fake news) as well as at defending islamofascism against "islamophobic" Human Rights" defenders, than questioning the judge's statements.

Peter Klevius: Judges don't do laws. And if they try they are very bad judges. Judges make interpretations of the law. Only the legislator does laws, and the Supreme Court only assesses whether a law is well enough formulated and/or whether the intention of the legislator is fulfilled in a particular case so to guide future interpretations.

As Peter Klevius wrote in Demand for Resources (1992:43, ISBN 9173288411): Jurisprudence is the purest form of science, because it starts with a given answer (the law) and investigates whether a given problem (a case) fits the law (i.e. the intention of the legislator).

This book by Peter Klevius (1992, Demand for Resources) was philosophically proofread and accepted by Georg Henrik von Wright (Ludvig Wittgenstein's successor at Cambridge University).

Problem with distinctions and gray areas should not be confused with jurisprudence more than e.g. similar tendencies in the scientific process.


Citations ought to be aligned with the problem - not with bias (drawing by P. Klevius).

Monday, April 22, 2019

Klevius to protesters: Protest the murderous hate spreading Saudi dictator family and its Human Rights violating muslim sharia organization OIC!


Indulgence (and funds from the islamofascist Saudi muslim custodians of islam) promotes islam's original evil. If you feel for the victims and want to stop islamofascism - vote against it!

Why did BBC today try to hint it could have been "Buddhist terrorism" when every known fact pointed to muslim terrorism?! Moreover, why should wrong accusations of "Buddhist terrorism" be allowed when correct statements of muslim terrorism are condemned?! And why is it always someone else's fault when jihadi muslims riot or terrorize, whereas it's always the victims fault when they strike back?!

Theresa May:
The acts of violence against churches and hotels in Sri Lanka are truly appalling, and my deepest sympathies go out to all of those affected at this tragic time.
We must stand together to make sure that no one should ever have to practise their faith in fear.

5,759
1:32 AM - Apr 21, 2019

Peter Klevius: As long as you cooperate with your dangerous "close ally" the murderous, war crimes committing and muslim terrorism supporting, and islamic hate spreading islamofascist Saudi dictator family, no one is safe.
And why on earth do you talk about "practicing their faith" when many where in hotels, and when the attackers actually "practiced" their evil Saudi sponsored Salafist "faith"?

How many more Saudi sponsored hateful muslim supremacists will UK have in its army - and elsewhere before some better politicians stop this dangerous trend against UK and EU security?

Klevius: And if IS "has something to do with islam" then all jihadi movements have to do with islam, right.

The hateful islamic supremacist poison that has been spread through thousands of Saudi sponsored mosques around the world, combined with
inaction of administrations (to avoid being "islamophobic") is the formula behind these senseless islamic crimes. However, media always paint a picture of muslims being persecuted no matter muslims themselves have triggered it.

When searching for 'muslim riots' Google gives you the very opposite.

Saudi meddling and hate spreading in Sri Lanka is the main cause to the death of some 300 non-muslims* and some 500 injured. 

 * Because of the "guardians of islam", i.e. the islamofascist Saudi dictator family's worldwide (OIC, muslims as a whole etc.) influence, the right thing to do would be to separate Wahhabi/Salafi etc. sharia type muslims from the rest. However, the very opposite is done by BBC, politicians etc. under the title "islamophobia".

The PM of New Zealand put on muslim attire when condemning the mosque shootings. So what should the PM of Sri Lanka use?

In July 18, 2012, Stephen Schwartz and Irfan Al-Alawi wrote in Colombo Telegraph: But Sri Lanka also counts 7.6 percent of its people as Muslims, and among them, as elsewhere throughout South Asia, the spiritual tradition of Sufism is vigorously present. After 1973, and the Arab oil embargo that enriched Saudi Arabia greatly, the ultra-fundamentalist Wahhabi sect, which is the official religious interpretation in the Saudi kingdom, began to penetrate Sri Lanka's adherents to Islam. The Wahhabis in Sri Lanka act through a movement called Thawheed, or Monotheism. They opened numerous madrasas. They despise Sufis.

According to M.C.A. Hameed, president of the All Ceylon Thareekathul Mufliheen, a Sufi order whose name means "path of the fearless victorious," Sri Lankan Muslims then began to find employment in Saudi Arabia, and many young Sri Lankan Muslims were awarded scholarships by Saudi universities. But "those who completed their studies returned to Sri Lanka and… propagat[ed] the ideology" of Wahhabism, Hameed says. Further, "to pursue their goal the Wahhabis resorted to violence and intimidation culminating in death and destruction. Our religious society… was not spared and had to face untold hardship."

The All Ceylon Thareekathul Mufliheen was founded in the late 1980s by Sheihul Mufliheen M.S.M. Abdullah, known as "Rah," in the southeastern Sri Lanka village of Maruthamunai. It was registered as a cultural society with the civil authorities in 1989. The headquarters of Thareekathul Mufliheen is now located in the small eastern coast village of Kattankudy, which has 42 mosques. The order maintains branches around the island, and claims 15,000 members.

Hameed states that the "vision" of Thareekathul Mufliheen is "to expound the true meaning of 'kalimathuth thayiba,' the 'fragrant sacred words.'" These words are "la ilaha illallah," the essence of Islam, meaning "there is nothing but God." In the teachings of Thareekathul Mufliheen, "This word Allah (God) denotes a great power, unbound by time and space, infinite and beyond human imagination. The creation is only the manifestation of this eternal truth and [is] not separate from it."

This principle underlies the doctrines of Thareekathul Mufliheen, but its founder denied exerting any compulsion anywhere to embrace his views, given that each human being is free to choose a path of faith. In 1980, Abdullah (Rah) published a book in Tamil titled Imanin Unmaiyai Nee Arivaya, or Do You Know the Truth of Iman? – iman referring to Islamic belief. The country's official Council of Islamic Scholars, the All Ceylon Jamiathul Ulama, purportedly without reading the book or holding a hearing to examine it, published a fatwa or religious opinion on September 10, 1989, declaring Abdullah (Rah) and his followers as murtadd or apostates, who renounced Islam, in the judgment of the clerics.

Abdullah (Rah) filed a defamation suit against the All Ceylon Jamiathul Ulama in 1990 in Colombo, the Sri Lankan capital. Many hearings later, in 1996, the All Ceylon Jamiathul Ulama revoked the fatwa and settled the complaint. In a similar act of discrimination, members of Thareekathul Mufliheen were denied registration of marriages and burial of the dead in conformity with Islamic practice, but through legal action these rights were restored, at least on paper. A book by Abdullah (Rah) translated into English, The Court of Reason, was published in 2010.

Thareekathul Mufliheen opened a Meditation Centre at Kattankudy in 1996. On May 29 of that year, at 1 A.M. in the morning, Wahhabi arson struck the building. Abdullah (Rah) and the members of the order were targets of shooting and grenade attacks, and other physical aggression, as well as threats. Worse was to come. On October 31, 2004, at 12:30 p.m., 500 Wahhabis organized under the title "Jihad" again set the Meditation Centre ablaze, destroying its library, along with homes and businesses owned by Sufis. Financial loss to the injured parties was considerable, and one Sufi was shot and killed while another was wounded by gunfire. Thareekathul Mufliheen's president Hameed accuses police of assisting the assailants. Eight alleged perpetrators were arrested, but were released on bail with no further consequences. A complaint was entered at Police Headquarters in Colombo in 2004, and a subsequent protest was filed with the Sri Lanka Human Rights Commission (HRC) in 2005.

The HRC found in favor of the Sufis, stating that their constitutional right to adhere to the belief of their will and choice had been violated, and submitting recommendations for redress to the Inspector General of Police. But Thareekathul Mufliheen asserts, "Sadly, the Police were inactive in implementing these recommendations in an equitable manner." Still, the Meditation Centre and headquarters were rebuilt and a birthday celebration for the founder of the order was held on July 25, 2006, with 15,000 people provided free food.

Sheihul Mufliheen M.S.M. Abdullah (Rah) died on December 6, 2006. Wahhabi preachers from the Thawheed network and the armed "Jihad" incited the local clerics and politicians (Jamiathul Ulama Kattankudy, the Muslim Federation of Mosques, and the Urban Council of Kattankudy) to oppose his burial according to Islamic rites, in the Meditation Centre, as he was a supposed "apostate." Another member of the Sufi order had died on December 1, 2006, was buried that day, and on December 2 was exhumed by Wahhabis on the same pretext and laid out on the soil. According to the Wahhabis and their accomplices, "apostates" could not be buried in Kattankudy.

The Jihadis, armed with lethal weapons, rioted after the death of Abdullah (Rah), bringing life in Kattankudy to a halt by a general work stoppage (hartal). Schools, government and private offices, banks and businesses shut down and some banks and shops were looted and burned. The official clerics of All Ceylon Jamiathul Ulama, Jamiathul Ulama Kattankudy, the Muslim Federation of Mosques, other Islamic organizations, and the Kattankudy Urban Council initiated a judicial argument on December 11, 2006. They denounced the interment of Abdullah (Rah) as defying Muslim norms and traditions and charged that Thareekathul Mufliheen had failed to seek permission from the authorities for the burial. The petition by the official clerics and Wahhabis was dismissed in 2007. But the Sri Lanka HRC declared in 2007 that it could not "interfere in the disputes between various sects of a religion" and recommended the conflict be referred to the Council of Ulemas – All Ceylon Jamiathul Ulama, or to the Ministry of Religious Affairs.

In a separate controversy, the Urban Council in Kattankudy had ordered the dismantling of the minaret at the Meditation Centre, as an "unauthorized structure," in a decision announced on December 13, 2006. Police prevented commencement of the demolition, but Wahhabi fanatics interfered with the officers. Three rioters were shot and killed. A police post and police vehicle were assaulted. On December 15, 2006, nevertheless, members of the Urban Council joined a Wahhabi mob that invaded the Meditation Centre and knocked down the minaret, removing the body of Abdullah (Rah), either burning or reburying it in a location yet unknown. The houses of 117 Sufis were leveled by fire. Many were threatened and fled the district. Two were injured, and one lost an arm.

Evidence of persecution of Thareekathul Mufliheen was submitted to Asma Jahangir, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, during a visit she made to Sri Lanka. In her 2008 Report to the UN, the Special Rapporteur expressed "regrets that she has not received a reply from the Government [of Sri Lanka]" regarding the 2006 incidents. She affirmed that "the Government of Sri Lanka has to fulfill its positive obligation to protect the right to freedom of religion or belief of all its citizens… in most of the cases that have been brought to her attention… these obligations have not been satisfactorily fulfilled by the Government."

The 2007 International Religious Freedom Report issued by the U.S. Department of State noted the Wahhabi interference with Thareekathul Mufliheen. Since then, however, abuses against the Sufis of Kattankudy have continued, with the Wahhabi Thawheed faction in the forefront of violence. Official ulema and the village authorities attempted unsuccessfully to prevent celebration of a Sufi festival in 2008. That year, a Sri Lanka Supreme Court order, providing that 200 members of Thareekathul Mufliheen be allowed to return to their homes in Kattankudy and practice their beliefs in freedom, was obstructed by armed Jihad members.

In February 2009 a 150-year old shrine was destroyed by Thawheed in the city of Ukuwela, in the central hill country of Sri Lanka. Conflict in July 2009 between Thawheed and the Qadiri Sufi order, in the southwestern town of Beruwala, led to two deaths, more than 40 people injured, and 132 arrests. The Qadiri devotees complained that the Wahhabi mosque in their town, named Masjidur Rahman (Mosque of the Merciful) had accused the Qadiris of the Bukhari Thakkiya mosque of being qafirun ("disbelievers" or "concealers of the truth") continuously in the eight years since the Wahhabi mosque was inaugurated.

According to the Sri Lanka newspaper The Sunday Times of August 16, 2009, Muslim Home Guards recruited by the Sri Lankan government to fight the Tamil rebels had deserted with their weapons and joined Thawheed to fulfill its demand for "Jihad" against traditional Muslims. The newspaper described a significant influx of Wahhabi preachers and activists from south India and Saudi Arabia. Riyad S. Al-Khenene, counsellor of the Royal Saudi Embassy in Sri Lanka, denied that official Saudi support was granted to the Wahhabi interlopers, while admitting that "certain wealthy persons… are helping various religious groups in Sri Lanka to put up mosques. But this has nothing to do with the Government of Saudi Arabia," Al-Khenene insisted.

In response to the campaign against it, Thareekathul Mufliheen has appealed to the Sri Lanka authorities for an impartial inquiry into Wahhabi activities in the country; to disarm the Wahhabis; to provide for reconstruction of the headquarters of Thareekathul Mufliheen in Kattankudy; to enforce the revocation of the fatwa issued by the All Ceylon Jamiathul Ulama against Abdullah (Rah) and his disciples, as ordered by the Colombo District Court, and to compensate the displaced Sufis, facilitating restoration of their lost heritage, ruined homes, and businesses. The Sufis of Kattankudy seek "peaceful resettlement with honor."

Thareekathul Mufliheen defines itself as "a peace loving and non-violent Religious Society… The members have displayed their patience and tolerance even in times of grave injustice and calamity... The words of wisdom of our spiritual leader are to detest arms and adopt peaceful means to find a solution in a crisis situation."

The Wahhabi, Deobandi, and Mawdudist jihad trends have revealed their ambition to control South Asian Islam through violence in Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh. In all these countries traditionalists resist them.


A "road rage" produced by the islamofascist Saudi dictator family


On February 22, 2019, a Sinhalese truck driver in Kandy, MG Kumarasinghe, was murdered by a muslim mob after he allegedly didn't give way to muslims in auto-rickshaws.

During the funeral procession of Kumarasinghe, people from Sinhalese community resorted to violence in some of Muslim-dominated areas of Kandy damaging their shops and properties.

The protesters also launched a shutdown against inaction of the administration re. muslim atrocities.

Soon clashes between the two communities erupted all over Kandy. Over two dozen people including 10 allegedly involved in the attack on the truck driver were arrested before emergency was declared.

Before the murderous muslim assault on the driver, clashes between Sinhalese and muslims were already ongoing in Ampara, in South East Sri Lanka, located some 100 km from Kandy.

This indicates that the muslim lynch mob's attack on the driver may not at all have been some random "road rage" as described by officials but rather part of a sinister Saudi influenced systematic islamic terror campaign - i.e. the very soul of original islam.

At Ampara it was believed that muslims were adding something in the food they served to Buddhist customers to make them impotent or infertile.

It's alleged that the birth rate among muslims is higher than those among Sinhalese Buddhists because muslims don't use contraceptives, hence producing higher birth rate among muslims. Islamic leaders have openly campaigned against the use of condoms or other birth control methods, thus making population planning ineffective (something to consider by global warming/extinction activists?).

Proliferation of Saudi islam through institutions created with funding from Saudi Arabia has created a wedge between Sinhalese Buddhists and muslims. The former believe that Wahabi islam is changing the character of Sufi belief of the Sri Lankan muslims.

Increasing trend among muslim women to wear burqas and young men sporting long beards has further fuelled mistrust.

The Sirisena government has done practically nothing to improve the communal equation over the past three years in the country, where any regular fight between two persons belonging to different faith communities may lead to communal riots anywhere.