The Saudi Fuhrer of Saudi based islamofascist OIC

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".

Mrs Theresa May digging a racist/sexist "British" sharia "empire" under the Brexit cliff

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

Tuesday, March 25, 2014


Klevius' final solution to the problem with islam




Klevius question: How come that BBC (world leading media) and Aftonbladet (Scandinavia leading media) both completely miss the world's biggest fascist organization and its new Fuhrer against Human Rights?

When do we start checking for the oil leaks in these fascism supporting media engines?!




 Klevius suggestion: Dear reader, do contemplate the real meaning of this  world wide media deception!


Aftonbladet has with all its media power relentlessly doped its reader about Sweden's only islam critical party Sverigedemokraterna (SD) - to an extent that the party is now about to fall in pieces because a split on its view on islam. Or put in other words, Aftonbladet's extreme demonizing of islam critics, which Aftonbladet call 'islam haters', has opened up for not only general disgust but also physical violence against SD-members - in short the same tactics as used by Hitler, Pol Pot etc. 



But I've got a muslim friend - don't generalize all muslims and all islam!

 Klevius answer:



 Ask your muslim friend if s/he supports OIC and its Sharia against Human Rights!


At this point you really also need to re-check your knowledge ignorance about islam: If you're not 100% convinced as yet that islam has been by far the worst slave raider/trader ideology in world history - then you need some really serious reading you won't find in yours or your children's school books.


Then ask her/him why s/he is against Human Rights for all! That will force your friend to either abandon islam or reveal that s/he is an islamofascist!



And finally a warning to all girls/women falling in love with a muslim boy/man: Your basic Human Rights are doomed if he is a real muslim and Sharia marries you!


BBC's muslim Sharia presenter Mishal Husain now gets her disgustingly racist/sexist islamofascist Sharia law implemented in Britain - bit by bit. But why doesn't she want to talk about this first important step and its real consequences?! As a taxpayer and payer of BBC's compulsory fees every Brit should pose that question!


Under ground-breaking guidance which would be recognised by UK courts, produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will, in a first real Sharia step, be able to write islamic wills that deny women an equal share of inheritances and exclude unbelievers altogether. The documents will also prevent children born out of wedlock or adopted, from being counted as legitimate heirs. Anyone married in a church, or in a civil ceremony, could be excluded from succession under Sharia, which recognise only islamic marriage.

Baroness Cox, a cross-bench peer leading a Parliamentary campaign to protect girls/women from religiously sanctioned discrimination, including UK Sharia courts in Britain: It's deeply disturbing. This violates everything that we stand for. It would make the Suffragettes turn in their graves.

Klevius question: Who are 'we' in 'everything that we stand for'. Does it include BBC's islamofascist Sharia presenter Mishal Husain?!


To be honest Klevius feels a little nostalgic of the demise of the "Sharia-is-no-threat-but-only-the-fantasies-of-islamophobes" idiots from the crew of funny Sharia clowns but as the world's foremost expert on sex apartheid (and therefore also islam) Klevius has to take responsibilty for what these idiots have already caused and may cause in the future.


Is this the last of the "Sharia-is-no-threat-but-only-the-fantasies-of-islamophobes" idiots?


Michael Smerconish (a Philly "Sharia-is-no-threat-but-only-the-fantasies-of-islamophobes" idiot): How ironic that when Susan Jarema questioned Sohail Mohammed's nomination (as a US judge), she was particularly concerned about whether he would defend the rights of women when under sharia law. I doubt she'd have anticipated how he'd rule in a domestic dispute between an unmarried couple over who could be present in a delivery room.

Klevius: How idiotic that Michael Smerconish didn't notice that neither of them were muslims! Had the man been a muslim in a simple Sharia liason (do you know how simple Sharia "marriage" can be?), then the woman's right had ABSOLUTELY NOT been recognized by "judge"* Mohammed - or, alternatively, judge Muhammed would have become an apostate in no time at all!

And how idiotic that Michael Smerconish (and his dhimmidiotic-alikes)

An other tragic dhimmidiot: What point does it make to say a person is a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Atheist if they do something wrong?

Klevius: The point is whether s/he does it because of religion! Simple as that. Yes, I know I made your day. Btw, Atheists are the only ones without an excusing ideology!


United Kamikaze Islam Protectors

Nigel Farage's (UKIP leader) pledge that he was proud UKIP politicians could "say what they like" lasted all of around 30 minutes at the party's spring conference, with panicked organisers apparently attempting to remove six journalists from a party debate on Sharia law. Journalists from the Financial Times, Bloomberg and the Telegraph were among those told they could not stay in the half-full conference room in Torquay for the party debate on the use of Islamic law in Britain. Jim Pickard, the Financial Times' political correspondent, said he and his fellow journalists had refused to leave when asked to by party staff.


Tags: Iyad Madani, Kent Ekeroth, Linus Bylund, Mishal Husain, OIC, sharia,

Monday, March 24, 2014


'Sharia-is-no-threat-but-only-the-fantasies-of-islamophobes' dhimmidiots


 


BBC's muslim Sharia presenter Mishal Husain now gets her disgustingly racist/sexist islamofascist Sharia law implemented in Britain - bit by bit. But why doesn't she want to talk about this first important step and its real consequences?! As a taxpayer and payer of BBC's compulsory fees every Brit should pose that question!


Under ground-breaking guidance which would be recognised by UK courts, produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will, in a first real Sharia step, be able to write islamic wills that deny women an equal share of inheritances and exclude unbelievers altogether. The documents will also prevent children born out of wedlock or adopted, from being counted as legitimate heirs. Anyone married in a church, or in a civil ceremony, could be excluded from succession under Sharia, which recognise only islamic marriage.

Baroness Cox, a cross-bench peer leading a Parliamentary campaign to protect girls/women from religiously sanctioned discrimination, including UK Sharia courts in Britain: It's deeply disturbing. This violates everything that we stand for. It would make the Suffragettes turn in their graves.

Klevius question: Who are 'we' in 'everything that we stand for'. Does it include BBC's islamofascist Sharia presenter Mishal Husain?!


To be honest Klevius feels a little nostalgic of the demise of the "Sharia-is-no-threat-but-only-the-fantasies-of-islamophobes" idiots from the crew of funny Sharia clowns but as the world's foremost expert on sex apartheid (and therefore also islam) Klevius has to take responsibilty for what these idiots have already caused and may cause in the future.


Is this the last of the "Sharia-is-no-threat-but-only-the-fantasies-of-islamophobes" idiots?


Michael Smerconish (a Philly "Sharia-is-no-threat-but-only-the-fantasies-of-islamophobes" idiot): How ironic that when Susan Jarema questioned Sohail Mohammed's nomination (as a US judge), she was particularly concerned about whether he would defend the rights of women when under sharia law. I doubt she'd have anticipated how he'd rule in a domestic dispute between an unmarried couple over who could be present in a delivery room.

Klevius: How idiotic that Michael Smerconish didn't notice that neither of them were muslims! Had the man been a muslim in a simple Sharia liason (do you know how simple Sharia "marriage" can be?), then the woman's right had ABSOLUTELY NOT been recognized by "judge"* Mohammed - or, alternatively, judge Muhammed would have become an apostate in no time at all!

And how idiotic that Michael Smerconish (and his dhimmidiotic-alikes)

An other tragic dhimmidiot: What point does it make to say a person is a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Atheist if they do something wrong?

Klevius: The point is whether s/he does it because of religion! Simple as that. Yes, I know I made your day. Btw, Atheists are the only ones without an excusing ideology!


United Kamikaze Islam Protectors

Nigel Farage's (UKIP leader) pledge that he was proud UKIP politicians could "say what they like" lasted all of around 30 minutes at the party's spring conference, with panicked organisers apparently attempting to remove six journalists from a party debate on Sharia law. Journalists from the Financial Times, Bloomberg and the Telegraph were among those told they could not stay in the half-full conference room in Torquay for the party debate on the use of Islamic law in Britain. Jim Pickard, the Financial Times' political correspondent, said he and his fellow journalists had refused to leave when asked to by party staff.


And here is the Saudi based OIC's Sharia Fuhrer over all the world's muslims (incl. Mishal Husain), Iyad Madani




Sunday, March 23, 2014

Ask if your pilot is a real muslim before you fly! ALWAYS!

Update: This posting was made on the basis of the information Malaysian authorities gave us. Now alternative info starts coming. Is it real or is it an attempt to cover it up? However 9/11 and thousands of other muslim terrorist attacks were real and sanctioned by islam!


There's no way for you to know whether a muslim is a mosque rat or a mosque mouse. But you do know that muslims commit most of religiously motivated crimes against humanity and Human Rights!

Muslim pilot/s (Zaharie Ahmad Shah and/or Fariq Abdul Hamid) may have caused the death of over 200 on  MH370. Why? Because of islam and "islamic studies"? Because of sloppy checks of landing gears etc?

We do know these pilots previously behaved in a way completely inappropriate for pilots responsible of human lives. 

Fariq Ab Hamid's neighbourhood mosque's imam, Ahmad Sharafi Ali Asrah, defends Fariq - the youngest son of Selangor public works department deputy director Abdul Hamid Mad Daud - as a mild-mannered "good boy" who also attended islamic courses.

Fariq Ab Hamid is also said to be "community-minded".

It has also been reported that Fariq often played futsal with neighborhood youngsters and even paid for their sports shirts.

Fariq was reportedly planning to marry a muslim pilot from another airline.

A report said that Captain Nadira Ramli, 26, who is attached with AirAsia, is a daughter of a senior Malaysia Airlines pilot.




Klevius question: But, after all, is there only one sort of real muslims?


Saturday, March 8, 2014

Girls/women! If you really want equality (and why wouldn't you?), then challenge the treacherous use of the deceptive 'gender' concept!


If your feminist professor keeps talking about 'gender' as synonymous with 'sex', then you know for sure she is part of the problem!


Below you can see some previous writings by Klevius on the not only stupid but also extremely dangerous 'gender' concept. However, here's a very brief clarification of what it's all about. I use football (soccer) as an example because it happens to be the most contentious of sports in this respect.

Female football is defined by the biological sex of the players - not by their cultural or grammatical gender. No one would even consider questioning the right of a biological female to play in a women's football team no matter how "screwed up" her "expected gender appearance" or "femininity" or her physical appearance would be. Yes, she would possibly get the usual lesbian label, and demands to get more 'feminine' (gender) etc. but her status and rights as a player would still be rock solid.

Girls, whoever or wherever you are: Heterosexual attraction and reproductive capacity need not to confine/suppress your human being in your female body. As the Human Rights Declaration says, sex ought not to restrict any of your freedoms. However, islamic Sharia (in whatever* existing or future form) is an intrusion on your Human Rights! And remember: Human Rights give you and all others the freedom of choice - even if your choice is to live in accordance with Sharia. However, if you ask for Sharia you also commit an imposition on others incl. girls not even born as yet!

* Islam becomes immediately meaningless if girls/women are given equality. This is why all muslims' world organization, Saudi based, and Saudi led (Iyad Madani) OIC via UN has abandoned Human Rights and replaced them with Sharia. According to this world-Sharia girls'/women's rights are restricted by sex "duties", sex "obligations" etc. And don't let yourself get confused by people telling you that everyone has duties and obligations - that's completely beside the islamic point and could easily have been dealt with within the 1948 Universal Human Rights Declaration that islam opposes.



Religious fascism - the curse of today

The fanatic boosting of religion today always favors the worst of them and in them! Hint: Saudi islamofascist Iyad Madani is now the Fuhrer of the most powerful totalitarian religious fascism (Wahabism, Salafism - or whatever you prefer to call it).

These women are no different from others applauding the suppressing of girls/women. Compare e.g. all compulsory veil supporters. Compulsory because if the veil is supported in reference to it as a symbol for religion (i.e. evil islam) then it can't simultaneously be defended as the wearers "personal choice". Why? Because there is no choice! If the individual chooses not to wear the veil in a religious (evil islamic) "veil community" she is immediately stepping out of the religion (evil islam) of her "community".




belong to the female patriarchy


Klevius sex and gender tutorial




Freedman (a Stanford professor teaching about feminism):
Defining Feminism
A. Today the term “feminism” is quite loaded politically. We will put
aside contemporary stereotypes and caricatures of feminism to
understand its history.
B. Feminism as a term in modern Western culture has very recent histori-
cal origins, as well as diverse contemporary meanings.
1. The French word feminisme first appeared in the late nineteenth
century—from the word femme (woman) and isme (social movement
or ideology)—as part of broader campaigns for social justice, includ-
ing labor and socialist movements.

3. After the rebirth of the women’s movement in the 1960s, more
activists in Western societies began calling themselves feminists.
Feminism gradually became an umbrella term for a variety of social
movements that challenged gender inequality in law and culture.



Klevius comment: Would you believe it! Not even a hint at the fact that there were two completely opposite "feminist" movements at the time Freud came up with his ridiculous "psychoanalysis" (see Klevius psychosocial Freud timeline) now lumped together under the 'feminism' label. One wanted equality with men and the other wanted separatism (incl. the rejection of the right to vote). And what the heck is 'gender inequality in law and culture'?! It's sex gender inequality in law and culture, dude! Gender is already inequal because it's unequal so how could it challenge its own premises?! Gender is an unequal relation 



Here's some very old and less old stuff Klevius pleads guilty of having come up with:



Thursday, December 12, 2013


Peter Klevius is the world's foremost expert on sex segregation - and it's easy because of a total lack of competition!




 Islamosexist women on UK universities



Dear reader, if you, like Klevius, agree that it's sexist not to let women do what they want, then you also share Klevius view that these women are not only deeply sexist, but also alarmingly hypocritical.

Moreover, these kind of influential women truly support Klevius (and Weininger's) conclusion that women constitute the main obstacle against women's emancipation.

Or how else would you explain these two women and many others who state that allowing women freedom is against women's rights? In other words, they want to force all women to conform to their view.

And of course, to become an influential sexist woman is today supported by the most sexist of ideologies, i.e. islam. An ideology that openly violates basic Human Rights by replacing them with Sharia, especially regarding girls and women.


The disastrous "separate but equal" doctrine

Africa was suffering under a disastrous Koranic/islamic slave raid/trade Umma imperialism for some 800 years before the first Europeans arrived. Was Africa then "separate but equal"?

In 2013, Universities UK published the document "External speakers in higher education institutions" which provoked controversy over its acknowledgement that audiences might be segregated to satisfy the demands of muslim speakers. The guidelines follow the principle that segregation is permissible if the Equality Act 2010 is followed and equal priority is given to all groups, in a manner similar to the former "separate but equal" doctrine in United States constitutional law.

However, this is just the starting point of a slippery slope.

A well paid "specialist in equality" spits out the most unbelievable non sense in her desperate effort to cover up her support for islamosexism




http://www.youtube.com/feature=player_embedded

Listen to this guttural babbling Nicola Dandridge, Chief Executive of Universities UK, vomited in a BBC interview when asked why she doesn't want to defend women's right to sit were they want: 'You're the one who suggests that they don't have the right to sit where they want'. I.e. she actually meant that all women's right to sit where they wanted was an infringement against those women who wanted to be segregated!



the whole interview is here


And here some more from the same woman in an other interview:


 Nick Cohen to Nicola Dandridge:

    Why not go further? Why not segregate all lectures at universities? Or as, I said to Dandridge, why not segregate by race?

    Well she replied, Universities UK cannot recommend racial segregation because Parliament has banned it.

    What about speakers insisting that homosexuals sit on one side of a hall and heterosexuals on another?

    Dandridge did not want to see gays singled out, she said. Not in the least.

    ‘What’s your problem with women, then? Why should they come last?’

    ‘Because gender difference is visible.’


Klevius comment: And by 'gender' she stupidly meant e.g. breasts, which do not belong to the gender category at all. Female breasts belong to the female sex, not to gender. You don't call a breast 'she', do you!

Warning to you girls who want to decide over your lives - and let other girls decide over their lives! Watch up for this woman!














Leicester University is one of the world's most sexist (i.e. islamized) universities. You may not believe me but the truth is (an other professor witnessed it) that a female professor, Barbara Misztal (an East European immigrant? as BBC uses to put it), when presented with criticism against islam's rejection of women's full Human Rights via Sharia, said "Why don't you want to let women lead their lives as they wish". Yes, you got it right. She saw Sharia restrictions of women's rights as a right! Why hasn't anyone taught her that impositions are not rights, and that Human Rights don't hinder muslim women from choosing to live under these impositions whereas Sharia denies them the choice to freedom. Moreover, she also blamed the messenger for not allowing women to NOT HAVE THEIR FULL RIGHTS!

Barbara Misztal's  female students need to know this, and as usual, it seems that Klevius is the only one daring to really address this ultimate and extremely disastrous and even dangerous sexism.



Sharia sex segregation or Human Rights for girls/women?



In every possible form of Sharia girls/women are forced to lead their lives in sex apartheid of varying degrees. And that includes OIC's all muslims covering Sharia law via UN. But according to Human Rights every girl/woman has the right to decide herself what kind of life she wants to lead - incl. a sex segregated life if she so wishes. So to live in a society where Sharia rules doesn't really give any fair options.

In islam women and non-muslims are all "infidels", and the only thing that really distinguishes a woman as muslim is her "duty" towards islam to reproduce (physically and/or culturally) as many new muslims as possible - and of course to have the Sharia duty to serve as a sex slave for her muslim husband.

Isn't that funny, muslims need a law to get sex while for me such compulsory sex equals rape!



In John Peters Humprey's world view "infidels" didn't exist


John Peters Humphrey (peace be upon him and Human Rights) is the last prophet of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights - and he is utterly defamated by muslim Humanrightsophobes - yet all the Billions of Human Rights followers take it (too?) calmly.

John Peters Humphrey (who actually existed and who wasn't a pedophile or a murderous scumbag or a fanatic warlord or a terrorist) wrote the first draft of the Universal Human Rights Declaration (peace be upon him and Human Rights).


So what is modern islamofascism?


The main purpose of OIC is to gather all the world's muslims under a worldwide Umma that is protected from Human Rights criticism. And for that purpose OIC (ab)uses UN, and in an extension, via UN tries to implement national laws all over the world that not only keep islam out of scrutiny but even makes criticism of islam a crime! This lobbying is going on all the time with weak and vulnerable and/or just traitor politicians while most of the people are kept in deep ignorance about islam through extremely Saudi biased education and the threats of being accused of racism or "islamophobia".

And no, it's not a conspiracy theory. It's all to be found in UN's official documents and on the web.

And no, it's not the question of some "minor adjustments". No, this is big and OIC's own actions (e.g. officially abandoning some of the most basic Human Rights) in the UN easily proves Klevius right on this point.

And basically it's all about sanctioning islamic racism and sexism, i.e. the very original pillars that in the first place made islam attractive for the lowest of human behavior!



And finally


It's sex segregation, not gender segregation! It wasn't their gender but their female bodies that were segregated. No one asked them about their gender views before they were seated!

Peter Klevius has relentlessly for a long time tried to point out these stupidities surrounding sex segregation. Take a look at this for a starter:




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!


Klevius sex and gender tutorial



Judith Butler's* ultimate naivity/ignorance (or?!) on HSA & kinship & islam: "But in actuality, the burka...can be a sign of private faith; it can be a way of signifying a certain belonging to community; the burka can be a way of negotiating shame and sexuality in a public sphere, or preserving a woman’s honor, and even a way of resisting certain western modes of dress that signify a full encroachment of fashion and commodity dress that signifies the cultural efforts to efface Islamic practice. I cannot imagine that it only signifies one thing...Klevius comment: "Can be"!? Would you believe it, she misses (sic) the only relevant point namely that the burka signifies Islamic Sharia confinement of the female muslim reproducer - not resistance! In fact, the burka proper IS the opposite to resistance. Furthermore this "signifier" is un-democratic and hence unable "to undo restrictively normative conceptions of sexual and gendered life"! Btw, how many single-sex couples out there just name themselves lesbians for the sole purpose of being accepted as living together in a household for more than a period of studies etc? Also compare the tragedy of David Reimer (male "made female" and discussed in Butler's Undoing Gender) who suffered from social and physical mutilation caused by sex segregation now and then. He later committed suicide just like his schizophrenia suffering twin. Contrary to offered (s)explanations David could have been equally bullied as a non-mutilated boy. Furthermore, he was only in second grade when he became bullied etc. Perhaps his "secret" had leaked out. However, when HSA (heterosexual attraction) begun affecting him many years later it was easy for him to take the decision to not try to become a women. Also we don't know how much social sex pressure affected his short marriage. But we do know that Butler misses all of this precisely because she lacks essential knowledge and understanding of biology (i.e. kinship and HSA - see Marriage, Kinship and Friendship).

Butler's heterophobia is (mis)directed against the Freudian (hoax - see
From Freud to bin Laden and From Klevius without love and Klevius love letter to Edith Södergran) oedipalised family structure (see Klevius psycho(social timeline). Butler: "In other words, the authorative force that shores up the incontestability of the symbolic law is itself an exercise of that symbolic law, a further instance of the place of the father, as it were, indisputable and incontestable" Klevius: No, not the "father" but HSA and sex segregation! Feminism IS genderized "heteronormative binariness" precisely because it has to be bio-essential for its own survival, yet also avoiding an identity based on the concept sex segregation because of its revealing characteristics, for example the burka.
"...should be in favor of opening the public schools to those who wear the burka, since it will be in those schools that cultural encounters will take place that allows both Islamic and non-islamic students the chance to learn something about how various people actually live... the particular cultural negotiations that an Islamic woman makes in the context of rural and urban Germany in these times."

Klevius comment: With Gender Trouble I thought abt Judith as a promising new female liberator from sex segregation. However, it turned out that she merely rode on a wave of "discourse confusion" in the aftermath of the feminist realization that focusing on sex would ultimately undermine feminism per se. And the more we hear from Judith the more conservative she sounds. And what would be more safe a positioning for a crypto-essentialist if not Islam. So perhaps her ending up as a sexist fundamentalist shouldn't surprise anyone. No, there's no place for "cultural negotiations" in a burka! Furthermore Butler (like many women) denies the existence of HSA (an uneven evolutionary bio heterosexual attraction) hence missing another important issue about the burka.

Gametes have no sex


Although it is almost trivial today to criticize Freud, child psychiatry and issues in sex-segregation still seem to be something like the last resorts for otherwise out-dated mainstream and reactionary psychoanalysis (e.g. GID - gender identity disorder). Freud’s all-embracing libidinal power of males and penis envy of females thus constitute excellent openings for sex/gender criticism. A considerable part of this criticism occurs within a continuously changing psychoanalytic movement itself. In this respect one can seriously question its internal coherency (For an alternative.view read about
Childless female child psychoanalysts in search for motherhood and femininity).* Judith Butler, for example, questions the dichotomy of sex as well as the necessity of heterosexuality, and, contrary to S. Freud, presupposes that masculine and feminine are not dispositions. One of the most anxious aims of desire is hence to elaborate the difference between him and her, and to discover and install proof of that difference (1997:132-137). Despite a considerable body of ”evolutionary” speculations, however, there seem to be only two distinct facts to rely on in sexual reproduction: heterosexual attraction (HSA, for example what makes: a fish deliver his sperms on top of a heap of roe; a bee to carry pollen to the pistil etc.) and biological kin recognition/altruism. These, however, are almost extinct in the discourse of today. Both Freud and Butler seem to have neglected their essential relevance, maybe partly because of a general (unconscious) ambiguity towards modernity, and partly because of a view on sexuality that does not fully discriminate this most basic evolutionary aim of sexuality. Recognizing pure HSA (as separated from its popular and all-embracing cultural form**) would make controversies about sexual identity, homo-sexuality etc. less controversial, not the least because there seems to be limited access to what it really is except for that it has to be there because of how we conceptualise evolution itself (also compare L. Irigaray 1985).

As a conclusion Butler establishes that what is called power is in fact what makes one’s ambivalent emergence possible and, subsequently, a strict identity impossible (1997:198)! So where's the room of feminists' own? Or the door to, or, more importantly, out of it?

**)  Compare the fact that the class of women ultimately rests on the essentialist sex-interpretation formulated in the delivery room. The feminine hence belongs to a sub-class of "biological" women.

Gender trouble solved
Although gender, seen as an emphasise of a social, cultural or psychological dimension, is usually used in contrast to sex (seen as an emphasis on a biological dimension), there is no agreement on, not only where to draw the line but also on the internal  positioning of the concepts. Although (social) gender describes the state of being female or male in a social context the same can be said about sex. Sex ascribed to a living being may be described by assumed reproductive potential or plainly as a visual comparison to what is considered the other sex. However, these are clearly not the ones under consideration when we talk social gender. What we have to evaluate is whether sex is compared on an equal footing. What exactly is the meaning of having a concept, gender, that shares the conceptualization of another concept, sex, but also expands it, allegedly beyond its limits? But are there limits for ‘biological sex’ as a concept? In fact, it seems that its only limit is in the direction of its own essence, i.e. how precise or “biological” a body can possibly be in the interpreter’s eye while still keeping its distance to gender? A fair comparison  needs to account for both the comparative status of the concepts, i.e. that the initial purpose (dicholtomy) of the comparison is upheld, and that no additional “stretching” of the concepts are allowed. With such a ruling it will be argued that there is no meaningful difference between sex and gender. An insistence on a difference may then be interpreted as an extension of one of the compared concepts on the behalf of the other while still keeping in touch with the mutual base, i.e. the "biological" body.
To what extent are gender and sex social or biological constructs?
What does it mean that sex is biological? Do other factors not solely limited to biological sex count? What about HSA (heterosexual attraction)? Whereas "femininity", "identity", "gender" etc. not well articulated (or at least not coherently used) concepts dominate "gender studies" (a cover name for academic
neo-sex segregation) debates and political forums, HSA isn't even considered in the equation, whereas kinship is counter-productive.

Of course, social or personal gender identity  or other characteristics may not be related to sexuality at all. However, this option seems quite limited in the discourse of today





2013:

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.







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 defence 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 processes, 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 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.


Femininity and feminism


Feminism and psychoanalysis as oppressors

According to Collier and Yanagisako (1987), Henrietta Moore (1994) and other feminist anthropologists, patriarchal dominance is an inseparable socially inherited part of the conventional family system. This implicit suggestion of radical surgery does not, however, count on unwanted secondary effects neither on the problem with segregated or non-segregated sex-worlds. If, in other words, oppression is related to gender segregation rather than patriarchy, or perhaps that patriarchy is a product of sex segregation, then there seems to be a serious problem of intellectual survival facing feminists themselves (Klevius in Angels of Antichrist 1996). If feminism1 is to be understood as an approach and/or analytical tool for separatism2, those feminists and others who propose not only analytical segregation but also practical segregation, face the problem of possible oppression inherent in this very segregation (Klevius 1994, 1996). In this sense oppression is related to sex segregation in two ways:

1. As a means for naming it (feminism) for an analytical purpose.
2. As a social consequence or political strategy (e.g. negative bias against, for example, female football or a separatist strategy for female football).

It is notable that the psychoanalytic movement has not only been contemporary with feminism, but it has also followed (or led) the same pattern of concern and proposed warnings and corrections that has marked the history of ‘feminism’ in the 20th century. According to S. Freud, the essence of the analytic profession is feminine and the psychoanalyst ‘a woman in love’ (L. Appignanesi & J. Forrester 1992:189). But psychoanalytically speaking, formalized sex and sex segregation also seem to have been troublesome components in the lives of female psychoanalysts struggling under a variety of assumed, but irreconcilable femininities and professional expectations.

In studying the history of feminism one inevitable encounters what is called ‘the women’s movement’. While there is a variety of different feminisms, and because the borders between them, as well as to what is interpreted as the women’s rights movement, some historians, incl. Klevius, question the distinction and/or methods in use for this distinction.

However, it could also be argued that whereas the women’s rights movement may be distinguished by its lack of active separatism within the proposed objectives of the movement, feminism ought to be distinguished as a multifaceted separatist movement based on what is considered feminine values, i.e. what is implied by the very word ‘feminism’3. From this perspective the use of the term ‘feminism’ before the last decades of the 19th century has to be re-evaluated, as has every such usage that does not take into account the separatist nature underpinning all feminisms worth carrying the name. Here it is understood that the concept ‘feminism’, and its derivatives, in every usage implies a distinction based on separating the sexes - e.g. addressing inequality or inequity - between male and female (see discussion above). So although ’feminism’ and ‘feminisms’ would be meaningless without such a separation, the ‘women’s rights movement’, seen as based on a distinct aim for equality with men in certain legal respects, e.g. the right to vote, could be described as the opposite, i.e. de-sex segregation, ‘gender blindness’ etc.

As a consequence the use of the word feminism in a context where it seems inappropriate is here excepted when the authors referred to have decided to do so. The feminist movement went back to Mary Wollstonecraft and to some French revolutionaries of the end of the eighteenth century, but it had developed slowly. In the period 1880 to 1900, however, the struggle was taken up again with renewed vigour, even though most contemporaries viewed it as idealistic and hopeless. Nevertheless, it resulted in ideological discussions about the natural equality or non-equality of the sexes, and the psychology of women. (Ellenberger 1970: 291-292).

Not only feminist gynocentrists, but also anti-feminist misogynists contributed with their own pronouncements on the woman issue. In 1901, for example, the German psychiatrist Moebius published a treatise, On the Physiological Imbecility of Woman, according to which, woman is physically and mentally intermediate between the child and man (see Ellenberger 1970:292). However, according to the underlying presumption of this thesis, i.e. that the borders between gynocentrism and misogyny are not well understood, these two approaches are seen as more or less synonymous. Such a view also confirms with a multitude of points in common between psychoanalysis and feminism. As was argued earlier, the main quality of separatism and ‘complementarism’ is an insurmountable border, sometimes contained under the titles: love, desire etc.

 

Saturday, March 1, 2014

Klevius history lesson: The "Tatar yoke" of Crimistan is directly connected to the evil origin of islam


Dear reader, the islamic enslavement of people throughout its history is of such monumental proportion that it's easy to understand that many hesitate even to think the very thought - that the only explanation to this and islam's history of violent emergence and expansion can only be understood if reading the Koran literally. But, after all, islam is a religion and isn't a religion the very guarantee for less evil? The answer is NO. Religion is the best excuse for evil. And of the Judaic traditions islam is now the worst simply because it's the last and most elaborated "Abrahamic" religious ideology purely for parasitism and rapetivism.
Islam made the enslavement of others (the "infidels" and women) its very basis and therefore continued when the rest of the world stopped. And even in medieval times the enslavement of others  would have been far less without an ideology that expressly sanctioned and asked for it.



Islam, Turkey and OIC the real factors behind violence in Ukraine?




 Let Klevius explain:



Is this the new scimitar flag of Crimistan?

The islamic scimitar stands for pure evil in history (yet sometimes the real meaning of it has been conflated).







 In line with Astrachan (and others)



To understand this you need to understand Finland's original flag which shows the islamic scimitar (symbolizing the "Tatar* or Turk yoke") in a completely opposite light (the Finnish lion trampling evil islam**).

* Meaning those Tatars who followed islam's original parasitic path of looting and enslaving.

** The scimitar on the Finnish coat of arms was without any doubt seen as a symbol for the islamic evil represented by the "Turk" who was back then understood as both Ottoman muslim Turks as well as Turkic speaking muslim Tatars out of the Golden horde. - No? Oh sorry, Klevius forgot you are so full of prejudices against anything that doesn't paint islam neat and nice. So, why not try the words Nazism and Nazis when considering those evil muslims who under islam pillaged, murdered, raped and enslaved more people during 1400 years than any other ideology whatsoever (and always remember that most German Nazis were not that evil at all - just like most muslims)! And as a bonus you may add that islam from its origin and still today sanctions slavery, racism and sexism. And if you don't trust Klevius, just take a thorough read of OIC's (all the world's muslims Umma) Sharia declaration against Human Rights in UN!


The original Finnish flag based on a 16th century coat of arms.





This (below) is Finland's contemporary coat of arms. A Finnish researcher tried in vain to "explain" (on a thousand pages) away the islamic symbolism of the scimitar.



This (below) is Karelia's old coat of arms.


Karelia bordered the medieval Novgorod republic which was ransacked by muslim Bolgars who hunted for slaves. The southern part became an important hub in the islamic slave finance as Vikings and Kazar Jews etc served the islaic caliphate in the south and later on the Ottoman Turks.


Fair skinned female sex slaves from northern Europe were the by far most valuable according to islamic price lists

(see more about this here)



Most of what you read about Vikings on the web is wrong. The Viking age started already before 750 in the east (because of islamic demand for sex slaves). So forget about Britain 786. Also remember that if you see the words Norway or Norwegians mentioned re. Vikings then throw the link/book away. There was no Norway or Norwegians or a Norwegian language during the Viking age! Educate yourself on Origin of the Vikings.

In 882, Rurik's successor, Oleg of Novgorod, conquered Kiev and founded the state of Kievan Rus.




After the Kievan Russian state began to disintegrate in 1132, slaves became much more numerous as inhabitants of neighboring East Slavic principalities (much of the territory between Poland-Lithuania and the Volga River) became fair game for enslavement.

Jewish merchants took East Slavic slaves from Novgorod to western destinations. Other East Slavic slaves were continuously "harvested" by the Turkic peoples (Tatars) inhabiting the southern and eastern frontiers of Rus' and subsequently sold to buyers mainly in the Arab countries.

The Mongol invasions into Rus' from 1236-1240 accelerated the disintegration of Kievan Rus' that had commenced in 1132.

Continuous Tatar slave raids replaced those of the pre-1240 Turkic peoples who had roamed the Ukranian steppe. In these centuries the word "slave" was borrowed from the ethnonym "Slav."

During the ensuing period of the "Tatar yoke" (1237-1480), the export of slaves through Novgorod continued and the Novgorodian slave market at the intersection of Slave and High Streets was the most active business locale in the entire Republic of Novgorod, which encompassed much of Russia north of the Volga to the White Sea.


The Crimean Tatars had converted to islam in the 1300s and in 1475 the Crimean Khanate became a protectorate of the Ottoman Empire while itself still clinging to power over the Duchy of Muscovy.  In 1480, the Muscovites threw off the "Tatar Yoke" and began the unification of Russia under Slavic rulers.  By 1503, those rulers would declare Russia the Third Roman Empire, and take the title of Tsar.

The Crimean Tatars made use of their strategic position between the Ottomans and the Russians and supplied slaves for the Ottoman Janissary corps from the neighboring peoples to an enormous extent yet to be fully mapped.



Greedy rulers either married a muslim and naively agreed* to convert or just found islam the perfect sword for evil but profitable slave finance


* Islam is an evil dead end. A totalitarian harpoon that has only one direction unless it's stopped. This is one of the many reasons why islam is completely out of sync with Human Rights - a fact that not only Klevius but also OIC has realized!

Little is known about the timeline of the islamization of Inner Asia and the Turkic peoples who lay beyond the bounds of the caliphate. Around 7th century and 8th century, there were some states of Turkic peoples like Turkic Khazar Khaganate and Turkic Turgesh Khaganete who fought against the caliphate in order to stop Arabization and islamization in Asia. From the 9th century onwards, the Turks (at least individually, if not yet through adoption by their states) began to convert to islam. The Bulgars of the Volga, to whom the modern Volga Tatars trace their islamic roots, are noted to have adopted islamic evil early on. When the Friar William of Rubruck visited the encampment of Batu Khan of the Golden Horde, who had recently completed the Mongol invasion of Volga Bulgaria, he noted "I wonder what devil carried the law of Machomet there".



Different political functions of the islamic myth to legitimate power



Quite contrary to the populist academic discourse that within an islamic worldview, the production of "eventually" correct ritual behavior can be a gateway for "the grace of Allah" to produce "correct belief", the crude reality of islam's own tenets points clearly - and without the slightest anomaly from non-islamic history in sight - to a profitable parasitic formula crudely chiseled on pre-existing Judaic dogmas. This formula, which in one sweep eliminates otherwise "puzzling" historical events, goes like this (taken from www.klevius.info):

The root formula of Islam (Klevius 2001)

Slavery+"infidel" racism+sex segregated rapetivism+anti human rights Sharia/apostasy ban.

Why isn't the worst crime ever against humanity criminalized, but instead protected by the very Human Rights islam opposes?!






Converts to islam don't have to understand anything to be a "good muslim" simply because accepting totalitarian islam is the only proof needed. However, other muslims might not approve of it...

Some researchers think that until the islamization of Central Asia the main motif of conversion narratives was that of the "holy war"/jihad.

If jihad as a metaphor for the internal struggle of the individual to submit to Allah, should have been a main pillar of original islam then islam would never had emerged in the first place.

Tukles conversion narrative is evidence of a common syncretic production between evil (but parasitically profitable) islamic tenets and indigenous Central Asian motifs. Hence conversion stories are the result of what the convert brings with him mixed with some chosen forms of utilizing islamic evil tenets. This is the simple truth behind the blabbing about "many faces of islam".

There is only one face of true islam - and it's ugly!



Submitted by Ianus (Poland), Mar 1, 2012 at 15:09

Mozere writes :

> after all this talk of turkish atrocities etc you can still see on a map ,after 500 years of Ottoman rule,the countries ,languages,cultures of Serbia,Bulgaria,Romania,Armenia,Albenia etc ,<

With the exception of Albania - which had a privileged position in the Ottoman Empire and which was forced by the great Powers to become independent of her master in 1913 for otherwise it would have been partitioned between Serbia and Greece, and in which after "independence" uprisings were started with the jihadist Turkish flags hoisted up and slogans "Back to Turkey" circulated - all the other nations mentioned had to go through ordeals of massacres, genocides, horrors and wars before they got rid of the Turkish nightmare. They regained freedom, retained language and culture not because but despite their Turkish oppressors. The Skull Tower of Nis, the Bulgarian horrors, the Armenian genocide and the Greek genocide are the bloody landmarks in the long struggle against the Moslem oppressors from Asia.

> but where are the countries of Crimean Tartars<

S. Herberstein, an ambassador from Emperor Charles V to Muscovy wrote about Mehmet Ghirey's slave-hunting expedition of 1521 "He took with him from Muscovy so great a multitude of captives as would scarcely be considered credible; they say the number exceeded eight hundred thousand, part of whom he sold in Kaffa to theTurks, and part he slew. The old and infirmed men, who will not fetch much at a sale, are given up to the Tatar youths, either to be stoned, or to be thrown into the sea, or to be killed by any sort of death they might please."

Mikhalon the Lithuanian wrote around 1550 in his book "De moribus Tatarorum Lituanorum et Moscorum" : "The Crimean Tatars have much more slaves than livestock. Therefore they supply them also to other lands. Many ships loaded with arms, clothes and horses came to them one after another from beyond the Pontus and from Asia, and left always from them with slaves. ……. So these plunderers always are in possession not only of slaves for trade with other people but also have slaves for their own estates and to satisfy at home their cruelty and waywardness. In fact we often find among these unfortunate people very strong men, who, if not castrated, are branded on the forehead or on the cheek, and are tormented by day at work and by night in dungeons."

The Crimean Khanate existed as a slave-hunting outpost of the Ottoman empire. Its whole economy was based on slave raids and slave trade. As one scholar points out in his work "The Crimean Tatars and their Russsian captive slaves" "From the beginning of the 16th century until the end of 17th century the Crimean Tatar raider bands made almost annual forays into agricultural Slavic lands searching for captives to sell as slaves... the slave trade was the most important basis for the Crimean Tatar economy in the 16th and 17th centuries. During these centuries, the Crimean Khanate remained the main supplier of Slavic slaves, almost all of which were captured in southern Poland or Muscovite Russia, and brought back to the Crimea by their raiders. Most of their raids seemed neither to have had any military purpose, nor politico-territorial ambitions. The taking of captives and the selling them as slaves for the Crimean Tatars was purely an "economic" activity. R. Hellie refers to the Crimean Tatar's raiding activities as their "industry":

Slave raiding into Muscovy reached crisis proportions after 1475, when the Ottomans took over the Black Sea slave trade from the Genoese and the Crimean began slave raiding as a major industry, especially between 1514 and 1654....The sale of slaves brought great profit to the Crimean raiders, because they were in great demand from the Ottoman Empire."

As long as the victims didn't learn how to defend their lives, their property and their families the slave hunters' system worked perfectly "well".

"The Crimean raiders have to hand over ten percent of their human booty to the government as a kind of custom tax at the frontier of the Crimean Khanate. Most captives were usually driven to Kaffa, the largest slave market of the Crimea under the direct administration of the Ottoman Empire, and were sold there to the slave merchants....Nearly seventy percent of the slaves sold in Kaffa were driven onto ships and dispatched to Istanbul... When they arrived, the Ottoman officials first examined the new "cargos" and chose the best slaves: the most beautiful women for the sultan's harem, the most handsome and the strongest men for his palace service. The remaining ones were purchased either by the government for navy, or by the slave merchants of Istanbul..."

It is estimated that c. 1 000 000 Poles were captured by the Tatar slave-hunters to be sold into Moslem slavery and a corresponding number of Russians. The problem of slave hunting was so acute and desperate for the Russian state that there existed a special "Ministry of Ransom" and a special permanent tax was collected to redeem Slavic slaves from the Tatar/Turkish captivity whose horrors are hard to imagine today for a civilized person that is rarely confronted with contemporary historical sources and grim realities.

But now with all the brutal reality of what the Crimean Khanate stood for, Mozere dares ask with a complaint and innocence of a wounded Moslem angel : "Why is there no Moslem slave-hunting state in the Crimea? Where are the slave hunters of Bakcisarai? Why are the once overcrowded slave markets of Kaffa empty? Why are no Polish,Russian and Lithuanian slaves drudging in the fields and tending herds of their Tatar masters? Why don't young Tatars learn cruelty by tormenting their defenseless Russian slaves, stoning the ill ones, cutting the noses and castrating the recalcitrant ones ? What a historical "injustice"! " Well, we should cherish no illusions as to the deep value system of the Turk, be his name Erdogan, Mozere or Ataturk !

> the Circassians<

What applies to the Tatars, applies also the Circassians. They lived also off banditry and kidnappings. The Bulgarian horrors started as the Circassian brigands that had fled to Turkey from Russia (the Russians tolerated no slave markets and kidnappings) were resettled to Bulgaria and started their normal "lifestyle" of slave hunters and parasitic sadists there. It provoked a rebellion that was drowned in Bulgarian blood but this brutality provoked Russia and even temporarily silenced the most faithful and devoted admirers of Turkey and Turkishness in Great Britain who could no longer deny the Turkish barbarity that was displaying its best "skills" under the eyes of the entire world !

> Pomaks of West Thracia,all exterminated, who cares they are only muslims. <

"All exterminated" ? ;) I wish you were right !

"In 1922 the Muslim minority in Thrace numbered 86,000 people. According to the latest general census (1991) it numbers approximately 98,000 to a total of 338,000 inhabitants of Thrace, i.e. 29% of the population. The minority is composed of three ethnic groups : 50% of the minority are of Turkish origin, 35% are Pomaks (an indigenous population that speaks a Slavic dialect and espoused Islam during Ottoman rule) and 15% are Roma. Each of these groups has its own spoken language and traditions. It was for this reason that the drafters of the Lausanne Treaty defined it as a religious minority...

It must also be mentioned that in Thrace and in the remote mountainous area in Xanthi where the Pomaks live, in particular, the State has set up and is financing the operation of Greek speaking secondary education schools (Gymnasiums) in which the teaching of the lesson of religion in the Turkish language and the teaching of the Koran in Arabic have been introduced."