The Saudi Fuhrer of Saudi based islamofascist OIC

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

Sayeeda Warsi like all sharia muslims is against basic Human Rights

If you don't agree on the most basic Human Rights, then you're a racist/sexist hater

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, February 24, 2015

Islam induced hatred



Obama's and Farrakhan's best hate card spells islam




Klevius to the "islamophobia" shouters: You're the purest of "diversity"* fascists!

* "Diversity" means sectarianism based on skin color, religion, etc., i.e. against the most basic of Human Rights. "Diversity training" means  tolerating intolerance.

Ever thought about how true fascism looks like? One example is the use of the extremely twisted reasoning that traps ignorant "muslims" in the same group as true muslims who deliberately oppose those very American values that these fascists used in the forst place to criticize the defense of American values and Human Rights.


Rudy Giuliani gets death threats after hinting that Obama might be more a muslim than a Christian






Compare Giuliani with Blasio on the police pic below!

Rudy Guiliani: Obama must begin acting and speaking in a way that draws sharp, clear distinctions between us and those who threaten our way of life. He wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up.

Klevius: Meaning he was brought up as a communist muslim.

According to Giuliani, Obama is “criticizing his country more than other presidents have done.” He writes that Presidents John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were, on the other hand, able to provide “constructive criticism” on the United States but still believe in American exceptionalism.

The former New York mayor said that his office secretary had reported receiving death threats since POLITICO first published his remarks about Obama.


Shaun King: 11 years after his autobiography, Dreams from my Father was released, in which he details his Christian faith explicitly, it's preposterous at this point in the game for anyone as public as Walker to deny ever, one single time, hearing that President Obama is a Christian.

Klevius: The desperate voice of King is that of a desperate man. And the desperation emanates from the really troublesome fact that as a born muslim you can't change or give up your religion without committing the worst crime islam knows about. However, you're allowed to lie if it's in the best interest of islam.

Frank Gaffney: President Obama on Wednesday said “it is a lie” when leaders of the Islamic State and al Qaeda describe themselves as “holy warriors in defense of Islam.” He insisted that they are “terrorists” who have “perverted Islam.” We are not, he proclaimed, “at war with Islam.” Mr. Obama even declared “no religion is responsible for terrorism.”

Someone is lying, all right. Unfortunately, it is our president, not our jihadist enemies.

The truth was recently exposed by another president, muslim Egypt’s elected leader Abdel Fattah el-Sisi.  He blamed the authorities of islam, not terrorists, for “antagonizing the entire world.” In other words, it is their practice of the faith, not “terrorists,” who are the problem.

Our president’s lying to the American people about that reality amounts to material support for our enemies.


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

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

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



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

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

How many police officers and civilians have been assaulted and murdered by young black haters because of muslim clown Farrakhan's and others continuous hateful agitation?


NYPD officers turning their back against NY mayor Blasio who together with muslim born (apostate?!) Mr X "president" Hussein Obama Soetoro (or whatever) has been agitating in support of black racism. NYPD officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos (top left) were murdered by a black thug (with a long criminal record) while sitting in their patrol car. Whereas every muslim is tied to Human Rights violating islam via islamic sharia, a black police has no such a tie to black criminals. However, because blacks in certain areas are hugely over represented in crime stats (hence also proportionally in general stats), it would be quite strange if equally many whites were pulled over, arrested etc. in such areas.


The black clown* "Minister" Louis Farrakhan for the audience on the pic: You grew up a privileged devil on the sweat and blood of black people who made America before your fathers got here. All you recent Europeans, you're so happy here but you're walking on our blood. We picked the cotton till our fingers were cut and bruised. And you sold it all over the world so you got rich and we got nothing.

If we hypothetically consider so called "African-Americans" as a group having the same intelligence as other groups - then what we see here would be a segregation based on intelligence, i.e. that dumb blacks are clustered together via hate speech while the smart blacks keep away - or just benefit on these dumb blacks. Although one might expect that most of the audience are quite privileged (enjoying money from the Obama administration etc) and that the dirty guides this agitation is meant for listen to it via Youtube.



However, the one and only hook that keeps up Farrakhan's hate speech is something that has absolutely nothing to do with the audience or the Youtube consuming haters. And without that slavery hook Farrakhan's racist rant becomes completely meaningless in every other sense except as a pure invitation to hate - and to politically/financially benefit on it - thanks to the Obama administration.

Blacks are not the only ones whose forefathers and mothers suffered and it's ridiculous to connect 1/8 of one's genetics into a skin color that encompasses everything (even albinos?) but not "white" and then categorize it as "black" for segregational hate usage. If blacks have claims against history then they will end up in an endless cue of other "sufferer heirs" as well. And could they even stand a cue filled also with white people?!

Moreover, there are no groups of sufferers other than sufferers and sufferers can't be distinguished by 1/8 genetics that occurred many hundred years ago.  And the only ones in the group of sufferers who can suffer are individuals, not the group. And "whites" isn't and has never been a self conscious group. On the contrary, it's a group created recently and mainly by segregationalists outside that "group" as a target for hatred.

However, what is totally lacking in Farrakhan's retarded theatrical rant is the self conscious group that enslaved practically the whole of Africa, i.e. islam. And not only did the Arab muslims based their entire finance on slavery, they did it so consciously that they even wrote a book about it in Arabic that said they could do so, and used Arabic language imperialism as an interface to segregate the "infidels" and to "educate" other Africans in how to "justify" the taking and trading of African slaves to the islamic slave markets. Zwahili is one remnant of that slavery interface.

Islam is the worst ideological crime history knows about. That's why criticism of islam is called "islamophobia" (i.e. "blasphemy"). And it's the very same reason why the defense of the most basic of Human Rights inevitably becomes "islamophobic".


Islam is today OIC and its world sharia


Saudi based OIC - and its islamofascist Saudi sharia Fuhrer Iyad Madani - constitutes islam today, and it's against the most basic of Human Rights!


 Klevius wrote:

Monday, August 08, 2011

Islam/Shariot (sharia riot) taking over London thanks to "sensitivity ("diversity") policing" and cooperation with islamofascist OIC. And BBC calls the thugs "protesters" and their crimes "general anger"!

BLACK RACISM AIDED BY THUGS AND ISLAM
A European version of the disgusting ultra-racist American black fascist movement Nation of Islam - you know, the very same movement that was rewarded by Obama's minister. Their leader Louis Farrakhan also supports Qadhafi and threatens: "You will be drowned in your own blood" (read what he vomitted in July 2011 below).

You really don't seem to get it. Islam is hate mongering racism and parasitism based on sexism! The (Sha)riot coordination of the UK riots was islamist! Got it dude?! And the answer will most probably AGAIN be more appeasement for parasitic racist islam (the by far worst ideological crime ever)! You will again be taught islam got nothing to do with it.Yes, islam can appear in many forms but the basis of it is shared by all from more timid variants to Nation of Islam (NOI) etc.

Btw, Iran's president asks British government to "restrain" from using violence against the "protesters".

Polis and politicians ask parents to take their kids home. But Klevius says many of the parents actually sent them out there in the first place!

Youth jihadists terrorizing the infidels and getting rewarded through looting, while their hypocrite and bigot teachers (other family members, imams, politicians, media, academics etc) suck their share of it. And all this precisely because people can't comprehend the simple truth that this "moral" excuse is pure evil in its true essence.

Klevius comment: This is EXACTLY how islam originally emerged. And in every detail in accordance with those parts of the Koran that YOU don't want to read! Islam has ALWAYS combined rioting/looting/intimidation/humiliation with a white collar "diplomacy" (i.e. blackmailing)! "Sensitivities" and "cooperation" only worsen the case. In pre-democratic times, when slave trade was the main currency of islam, influential non-muslims were directly bought into islam (see Klevius description of East-African and Indian Arabic/islamic slave system, as well as The Origin of the Vikings). Today the process is (sometimes) a little more complicated but follows essentially the same pattern.

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

An, irony, isn't it, that Blackberry, which was forbidden in Saudi Arabia because it threatened the islamofascist leadership, now are used in London by islamofascists who are the product of Saudi hate mongering via racist/sexist islam!

Sadly, many (most?) "muslims" don't understand the evilness of islam but rather let their own inferiority complex evolve into racism against non-muslims and as a consequence support that very evil.






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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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






Muslim females: We speak for ourselves!


 Klevius: Do you really?
.

Monday, February 23, 2015

How can anyone be fooled by this islamofascist* whom Cameron naively made a peer and party chairman?


* Due to lack of info paired with a heavy load of mis-info about islam - such as e.g. that Warsi herself supports the muslim extremist organization OIC and its sharia that is diametrically against the most basic of Human Rights, Sayeeda Warsi has managed to undermine British and Human Rights values for the purpose of replacing them with sharia. OIC has officially abandoned the most basic of Human Rights in the UN and replaced them with sharia and, consequently criminalized Human Rights where sharia is the rule.

OIC is a muslim extremist organization that has criminalized the most basic of Human Rights - and wants to force others to do so as well



Muslim Sayeeda Warsi, unelected "Minister for Faith islam", has stated that the UK is 'committed to working with the United Nations Human Rights Council (where Saudi Arabia is participating) to implement blasphemy resolution 16/18.' However, the majority of Brits don't have a clue about this because no one has informed them about it - especially not BBC whom even Klevius has beaten when it comes to informing about OIC.

Resolution 16/18 calls upon UN member states to combat "intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against, persons based on religion or belief." It was initially introduced in March 2011 at the UN Human Rights Council by the OIC.

Anne Marie Waters: Baroness Warsi's commitment (on behalf of the UK) to work with the OIC to implement Resolution 16/18 seems to be grounded in the idea that the OIC are equally committed to religious freedom. In making such claims, Warsi shows herself to be either a) completely stupid, b) a damn liar, or c) both.

Sayeeda Warsi calls the defense of Human Rights "islamophobia" and wants it criminalized under a blasphemy law as it is in muslim countries such as e.g. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan




Daily Mail Comment: 'Sayeeda Warsi's abilities have never matched her estimation of them.'

Klevius: A bit like islam itself! Apart from pure violence ignorance and deception have always been intimate partners with islam.


Daily Mail Comment: 'Indeed, she was lucky to escape police attention over her expenses – and to avoid graver censure after taking a business partner on an official trip to Pakistan.'

Sayeeda Warsi: 'The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) also remains a key partner in our quest to promote religious freedom.'

Klevius: As OIC promotes islamofascist sharia over Human Rights the oxymoron "religious freedom" means a ban on "blasphemy" i.e. a ban on criticism directed against islam.


Whereas Ayaan Hirsi Ali proposes reformation of islam, Sayeeda Warsi's recept is to criminalize criticism of islam 


Ayaan Hirsi Ali: How does one tackle misguided religious devotion of young Muslims? The answer lies in reforming Islam profoundly—not radical Islam, but mainstream Islam; its willingness to merge Mosque and State, religion, and politics; and its insistence that its elaborate system of Shariah law supersedes civil laws created by human legislators. In such a reform project lies the hope for countering Islamism. No traditional Islamic lobbying group committed to defending the reputation of Islam will recommend such a policy to the U.S. government. Yet until American policymakers grapple with the need for such reform, the real problem within Islam will remain unresolved.

However, Sayeeda Warsi condemns the lack of ministerial engagement with a cross-government working group combating "anti-muslim hatred" aka "islamophobia" (read criticism of muslim sharia that is against the most basic of Human Rights). Chief whip Michael Gove is singled out for particular criticism for his criticism of the Birmingham muslim schools Trojan horse affair. She also criticizes the attitude of government ministers towards the cross-government anti-muslim hatred working group against "islamophobia" (read against criticism of muslim sharia that is against the most basic of Human Rights), set up in 2012 to ensure "islamophobia" (i.e. criticism of muslim sharia that is against the most basic of Human Rights) receives the same support as previous campaigns to tackle anti-semitism, anti-black racism and homophobia.

Warsi's attack came after communities secretary Eric Pickles wrote to more than 1,000 islamist leaders calling on British muslims to “explain and demonstrate how faith in islam can be part of British identity”.

Pickles also said that he was proud of the way British muslims had responded to the Paris terror attacks, but the letter was condemned by many sections of the muslim community. Pickles was accused of treating muslims as in some way “apart” from the rest of British society. Warsi says this reaction graphically illustrated the gulf that has grown between the coalition government and muslims.

Klevius clarification: The "gulf" is called sharia and it violates the most basic of Human Rights and British values!


Saudi based OIC - and its islamofascist Saudi sharia Fuhrer Iyad Madani - constitutes islam today, and it's against the most basic of Human Rights!

 

 Sayeeda Warsi with OIC's former Fuhrer Egyptian born Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu


Donna Rachel Edmunds: Baroness Warsi, the first Muslim woman to sit in Cabinet, used her position to set up a government advisory panel stuffed with Islamist ‘entryists’, it has been claimed. The Cross-Government Working Group on Anti-Muslim Hatred, set up by Warsi and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, includes a number of people with links to extremist organisations.

Some members are using their positions on the Working Group to push for bans on hate preachers entering Britain to be lifted, including Zakir Naik, who has stated that “every Muslim should be a terrorist”. Another has links to the anti-Semitic group which has been lobbying for a hardline Muslim mega-mosque to be built in London; yet another has links to an organisation described as a “political front from the Muslim Brotherhood,” The Times has reported.

Fiyaz Mughal, the head of Tell Mama, a national organisation which monitors anti-Muslim attacks, resigned from the group in protest at it’s activities. He told the Telegraph: “I was deeply concerned about the kinds of groups some of the members had connections with, and some of the groups they were recommending be brought into government. It seemed to me to be a form of entryism, by people with no track record in delivering projects.”

Another member said: “The working group was Sayeeda [Warsi]’s personal project and she was responsible for the appointments. There was very little transparency about who was put on.”

One of the most prominent members of the group is Muddassar Ahmed, a former senior activist of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, an extremist militant organisation which waged anti-Semitic campaigns against “Zionist” Labour politicians Jack Straw and Lorna Fitzsimons. Ms Fitzsimons, former MP for Rochdale, lost her seat after MPAC delivered thousands of leaflets to her Muslim voters saying that they should sack her because she is Jewish, although she is not.

Mr Ahmed defended himself on the grounds that his “regrettable” MPAC involvement had been “many years in the past”, and claimed not to have been involved in the campaign against Ms Fitzsimons, concentrating on the campaign against Mr Straw instead. He claimed to be a “very different person from what I was then”, and drew support from the government, who insisted that Mr Ahmed had “disassociated himself” from MPAC and it’s “approach” to politics.

But Mr Ahmed, through his PR company Unitas Communications, has more recently been involved in the Newham People’s Alliance, a campaign group formed to press for the creation of a mega-mosque in East London which Tablighi Jamaat, a conservative Islamist sect wants to set up. The NPA conducted an anti-Semitic campaign against Newham Borough’s Mayor, Sir Robin Wales, whom they nicknamed “dirty Robin”, branding him a “Zionist” and racist, and saying that no Muslim should vote for him. It also blockaded Newham Town Hall when the plans for the mosque were refused planning permission.

Meanwhile the NPA has also shown support for Lutfur Rahmen, the Mayor of neighbouring borough Tower Hamlets who has been linked to extremism and accused of vote rigging, saying that Newham should be more like Tower Hamlets.

“It was a very vicious campaign, with a lot of lying and making things up, and they were close allies of Lutfur,” said Sir Robin last night. “Muddassar Ahmed wanted to stand as candidate for us [Labour], but we blocked him because of his background.”

The NPA was represented at the planning enquiry into the mosque last June by Mr Ahmed and others from Unitas Communications. “The NPA were very unpleasant and bullying people to deal with,” said Alan Craig, a former Newham councillor who led a rival campaign MegaMosque No Thanks at the inquiry. The planning appeal will be decided by the Department for Communities and Local Government, the department in which the Working Group on which Mr Ahmed sits is based.

Mr Ahmed has since distanced himself from the NPA, saying that he was not responsible for their behaviour and that they were a “very loose group, a group of guys we grew up with who asked us to help them out at the planning inquiry. Tablighi Jamaat have never been linked to any sort of extremism and we have got to be careful not to alienate them from mainstream discourse.” He insisted that he and Unitas had not been paid by the sect nor anyone else.

Other members of the working group include Iqbal Bhana who has repeatedly praised the Islamic Human Rights Commission for their work. The IHRC has spoken in defence of Abu Hamza, claiming that he was “demonised” and calling his conviction for terrorism in America an example of the “double standards of the British justice system in relation to Muslims”.

Also on the working group is Iftikhar Awan, a former trustee of Islamic Relief, which has links to the Muslim Brotherhood, and Sarah Joseph, a former spokesperson for the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), which the government broke ties with thanks to its association with Islamists.

Other members have tried to get the government to rebuild the relationship with the MCB, and also with the Cordoba Foundation, which was described by David Cameron as a “political front for the Muslim Brotherhood”.

One group member who has opposed these attempts has said “Civil servants in the DCLG resisted strongly. They kept saying that there was nothing showing a change in the voice and opinions of these groups. But they were under tremendous pressure from Warsi.”

Lady Warsi, a former solicitor who stood unsuccessfully for Parliament in 2004, was elevated to the Peerage in 2007. Three years later, Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron appointed her to the Cabinet as Minister without Portfolio; she later joined the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as a Senior Minister before her resignation in 2014 over what she termed the Government’s “morally indefensible” policy on Gaza.

During that time she sparked controversy with her views on the integration of Muslims into British life; in 2011 she claimed that Islamphobia had “passed the dinner table test” and was “widespread and rising”. despite police figures showing that anti-Muslim hate crimes are very much in the minority.

In fact, anti-faith hate crimes, which include hate crimes directed at people of all faiths, make up just 5 percent of the total, and figures from the Metropolitan Police Force, which is the only force to categorise hate crimes by target, found that Jews and gays were four times more likely than Muslims to be targeted.

Nonetheless, by 2012 Lady Warsi, along with Nick Clegg, had put together the Working Group, which still continues despite her resignation. It is based in the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and includes officials from there, the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office, the Department for Education, the Foreign Office and the Crown Prosecution Service.

Thursday, February 19, 2015

Klevius (unnecessary*) correction

* It doesn't alter anything of what Klevius has written about islam since 9/11 but reveals an extreme helplessness among Klevius readers who haven't dared to point it out in all these years! Or are you really so scared to comment on Klevius' "islamophobic" Human Rights defending  blogs?! And when it comes to Kennedy and Hoyland and their view on early islam they are almost intellectual twins in this respect.


"Before Abd al-Malik (caliph 685-705) Muhammad (allegedly dead 632 but see Pourshariati) is never mentioned on any official document whatsoever..."

This oral statement Klevius has previously attributed to Hugh Kennedy. However, it was overheard in a discussion where also Robert G. Hoyland participated. Now when I've heard Hugh Kennedy again I realize it was probably not him but Robert G. Hoyland who said it. There's no doubt about the authenticity of the statement itself though, and it alters nothing of what Klevius has written. Just something for you who can't use your own brain and therefore is incapable of reading and trusting Klevius.

Klevius analysis of the origin of islam is as rock solid as it was when he first presented it after Georg W Bush humiliated* himself by stating that 'islam is a peaceful religion'

* However, Bush had nothing to do with the fact that muslims supported by hate mongering Saudi Arabia were incapable of living in peace after their dictator had been elegantly toppled.


There are two simple reasons why Klevius understands islam equally well as whoever muslim:

1  Only the Koranic texts about pillaging, enslavement, rapetivism and booty from the "infidels" fit the historical facts about early islam and muslims.

2  Only muslim one way reproduction via rigid religious sex apartheid explains islam's growth. And as you already know, Klevius is the world's foremost expert on sex segregation (sad isn't it). Btw, you will get a sex tutorial here soon that will probably alter your view on sex equally much as Einstein altered our view on physics.

However, to these points you have to add what differs Klevius from muslims, i.e. the fact that Klevius has chosen as his axiomatic point of departure the equality principle of the 1948 Human Rights declaration instead of muslims' hateful racist/sexist sharia.


UK (diversity trained or muslim?) officers raid shops asking for names and addresses of those who have bought Charlie Hebdo. And not a word about it from BBC




Albert Einstein: "For me the unaltered Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most primitive superstitions.

Klevius quiz: Which of the Judaic branches do you think would have been first in line trying to murder Albert Einstein as of today?

Origin of islam - some hasty random notes for you to chew on


An eighth-century manuscript of a seventh-century text in Syriac, attributed to Thomas Presbyter contains the earliest known mention in a non-muslim text of Muhammad.

    'In the year 945 [=634], indiction 7, Friday 4 February at the ninth hour, there was a battle between the Romans and the Arabs of Muhammad in Palestine twelve miles east of Gaza. The Romans fled, leaving behind the patrician bryrdn(?), whom the Arabs killed. Some four thousand poor villagers of Palestine were killed there, Christians, Jews and Samaritans. The Arabs (i.e. muslims) ravaged the whole region.'

The Arabic script as we know it today was unknown in Muhammad’s time

The construction of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem in 691–92 represents the earliest known dated passages later found in the Koran. In these inscriptions, some letters are provided with diacritical points.

There can be little doubt that the first contacts between nascent islam and the Christian world were one-sidedly violent and bloody and that they brought much suffering on the populations of the Christian Countries that the muslims attacked.

These accounts show that offensive sword-jihad was the modus vivendi of the early muslims and that sack, pillage, the taking of (sex-)slaves and the ravaging of the land were commonplace.

The sources also show that the muslim sense of a “god-given” entitlement to Judea-Samaria, and thus modern Israel, goes back to the foundations of islam itself.

There is evidence of the establishment of Dhimmitude and payment of Jizya and other taxes that destroyed the wealth of the non-muslims.

The explanations for much of this can be found within the Koran, Biographic and Hadith literature.

Some muslims of today are inclined to say that the Hadith and Biographies are “inaccurate” or that they “reflect the views of the muslims of the times [a century or more after Muhammad] rather than the truth about islam”. What the above demonstrates is that the “views” expressed in the Ahadith and Biographies reach back to, if not the time of Muhammad himself, then to within a year or two of his death.

Given that the early records date to before the time of the textus receptus of the Koran and thus pre-date by centuries other muslim sources and further that they reflect the actions of the Sahaba, we can be quite certain that the attitudes in the later muslim sources which reflect these earlier sources are genuine in that they are accurately accounting the beliefs of the Sahaba.


Muslim born (apostate?!) Mr X "president" Barakeh Hussain Obama Soetoro (or whatever) now proposes Human Rights in his fight against original islam


However, the question is whether he means Human Rights or islamic "human rights" i.e. sharia? If the former he betrays all muslim OIC countries and in the latter case he betraysUS and the free world.

The muslim finger (shahada) problem




 .


The shahada hate finger is protected by


Saudi based sharia OIC - and its islamofascist Saudi sharia Fuhrer Iyad Madani - constitutes islam today, and it's against the most basic of Human Rights!

Wednesday, February 18, 2015

The muslim problem is that their hate ideology can't survive under Human Rights equality


 The muslim finger (shahada) problem




 .


The shahada hate finger is protected by


Saudi based sharia OIC - and its islamofascist Saudi sharia Fuhrer Iyad Madani - constitutes islam today, and it's against the most basic of Human Rights!

A hateful ideology incompatible with Human Rights


SPCJ: 40% of racist violence in France is directed against Jews who constitute 1% of the population.

Dagens Nyheter ("today's news") is a main daily newspaper in Sweden. 14/1 2015 its editorial read: Jews are again targeted. In France Jews live under constant threat from muslim extremists. Apart from the many lesser crimes committed against Jews by muslim extremists, some are exceptionally appalling.

Klevius: Remove the word 'extremist' and the islamopologists will shout "hate speech". However, in fact, it's a mirage word already removed via its internal (il)logic. Compare 'extremist Nazis' or 'extremist Jews'.






Here is what you don’t know about what it’s like to be Jewish in the UK. “Maybe not as bad as in France, but Jews in England are attacked on a constant basis but it just goes unheard.”



    Dear Pamela,

    I can’t tell you how much i envy your courage and guts to say and do the right thing.

    I don’t know weather you are Jewish yourself or not but its more about freedom for the free world not just the Jews as history has proven.

    The reason your story is so personal to me is that i was born in England and grew up there till my late teens when for Jewish educational reasons i needed to find other schools, so i ended up in the US where i now live with my family but my parents and siblings are still living in the UK.

    As a child, my memories of school are being called a “Jewbag” and dodging glass bottles in recess coming from the Muslim school kids that across the street from our school. The hate mongering and education that they get has been brewing for many years but governments did nothing to stop it, Now they are dealing with the consequences. even on one of my recent visits, i was verbally attacked for my religion and when i called the police to give them the licence plate of the vehicle they did nothing with it.

    Maybe not as bad as in France, but Jews in England are attacked on a constant basis but it just goes unheard.

    I am begging my family out there to quit and run as thousands in France have already have done but its not easy.

    On another note-

    I keep thinking about Micheal Savages comments the other day regarding the lack of voices and expression of outrage heard from major Jewish organizations regarding the slaughter of innocent Christians around the world as a result of their faith.

    The only conclusion i can come up with is, that they are afraid of becoming the next targets which unfortunately due to the lack of protection provided even in this country for such organizations makes it a legitimate fear.

    That only increases my respect for you that you have not taken those fears into consideration and have nevertheless done the right thing.

    G-D will bless you no doubt and may he protect you and give you the strength to continue your noble efforts.

    Best Wishes,

    XXXXXXXXX


UK seeks more diversity muslims as police. How will that affect non-muslims and "wrong-muslims"?


UK (diverse?) officers raid shops asking for names and addresses of those who have bought Charlie Hebdo. And not a word about it from BBC.









Albert Einstein: "For me the unaltered Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most primitive superstitions.

Klevius quiz: Which of the Judaic branches do you think would have been first in line trying to murder Albert Einstein as of today?




So what should muslims do to avoid Klevius' criticism?

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



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


Magna Carta Libertatum is the first rudimentary effort in a long struggle towards the final 1948 Human Rights declaration which PM David Cameron now again seems to betray by giving in for Human Rights violating sharia.



Back in 1215 Magna Carta (the first predecessor to Human Rights) was produced to stifle traitor King John's effort to islamize Britian. Compare this to the  British PM Cameron's attacks on Human Rights while seemingly proposing Britain as the center of islamofascism outside Mideast (beginning with London sharia finance).



King John the Traitor, PM David Cameron and the islamofascist "king" Abdullah who pretended to be "reformist" while steering the country in an even more intolerant direction by new sharia inspired laws by early 2014 (e.g. equalizing Human Rights, Secularism and Atheism with "terrorism" and due penalties - compare Raif Badawi and others).

King John in the early 13th century sent envoys to Mohammed al-Nâsir asking for his help. In return King John offered to convert to Islam and turn England into a muslim state. The muslim jihadist Mohammed al-Nâsir's view on King John: "I never read or heard that any king possessing such a prosperous kingdom subject and obedient to him, would voluntarily ... make tributary a country that is free, by giving to a stranger that which is his own ... conquered, as it were, without a wound. I have rather read and heard from many that they would procure liberty for themselves at the expense of streams of blood, which is a praiseworthy action; but now I hear that your wretched lord, a sloth and a coward, who is even worse than nothing, wishes from a free man to become a slave, who is the most miserable of all human beings." Mohammed al-Nâsir concluded by wondering aloud why the English allowed such a man to lord over them — they must, he said, be very servile and soft.



Some more hateful muslims

Or are they no muslims precisely because of their hate?!


How come that the most powerful "ethnic"/"religious" group, which preaches violations of the most basic of Human Rights, is the one that is more protected than most other people?!


Muslims don't belong to a vulnerable minority. On the contrary, their Ummah nation is the biggest nation in the world and it's represented by the biggest organization in the world after UN itself, i.e. OIC (the Organization of Islamic Cooperation).

Muslims have chosen to hate, disrespect, and show contempt towards us "infidels" by believing in an ideology that is incompatible with Human Rights. Ok, Klevius could live with that because he isn't offended like many muslims would be in a similar situation. However, muslims haven't stopped there. They have also made this Human Rights violation to a threat against these very Human Rights by sharia criminalizing Human Rights. And as Klevius has always said, under Human Rights you can follow sharia (as long as it's legal) but under sharia you don't have access to Human Rights freedom. Moreover, as it stands now muslims are protected by those very Human Rights their sharia opposes and wants to eliminate.

The Swedish top cultural fascist and communist, Åsa Linderborg (one of islam's best friends?), seems happy that muslims try to murder Lars Vilks


Albert Einstein: "For me the unaltered Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most primitive superstitions.

Peter Klevius question to Åsa Linderborg: So which of the Judaic branches do you think would have been first in line trying to murder Albert Einstein as of today?



Åsa Linderborg concludes her hateful rant in Aftonbladet* yesterday about the Swedish artist whom muslims tried to murder in Denmark, in a satified tone:

'Lars Vilks now starts looking scared for real.'

* Åsa Linderborg, is a hard core communist and defender of islamofascism who is cultural editor in chief on Scandinavia's biggest news paper Aftonbladet. Among other hateful commentaries she used to compare the African heroine Ayaan Hirsi Ali, together with "Western leaders", with mass murderers.



 Is this Saudi islamofascist her best intellectual pal?

Saudi based sharia OIC - and its islamofascist Saudi sharia Fuhrer Iyad Madani - constitutes islam today, and it's against the most basic of Human Rights - and a threat to the free world!


Klevius wrote in 2012 after she made herself a big letter "heroine" on Aftonbladet by stating that she had got "threatening" emails from some usual morons:

A Swedish fascist with a mouth the size of the biggest news paper in Scandinavia


Åsa Linderborg, you're not a heroine like Ayaan Hirsi Ali. You're a hateful fascist! I really hope no one will be so stupid so to do any harm to you because that would (apart from that I don't want you to get hurt in any sense) cover up your perverted anti-Human Rights views (communists like islamists have always been against basic individual Human Rights) you share with Mideast islamist dictators and other fascists.

How media power changes evil to "good"

After using Scandinavia's biggest news paper's most powerful headline resources for weeks for the sole purpose of smearing Sweden's only political party that dares to criticize islam(ofascism), Åsa Linderborg has now managed to gather a few hate mails from some poor and confused Swedes, and now uses these stupid insults and most probably empty "threats" (if one can call them threats when at the same time talking about Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the real threats from Koran reading islamofascists who have already murdered her friend and thousands of others).

Monday, February 16, 2015

In Klevius' series tutorials in jurisprudence: Swedish court compliant with islamofascist sharia blasphemy laws in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan etc muslim countries


Is it because islam violates Human Rights that we are not allowed to speak about it?!


'Most muslims don't share extremist values'. What a wonderfully meaningless sentence.


What about the German National-socialists (aka Nazis) who first got one third of the Germans' votes and later some 90%? How many of them shared the extremist values of those behind the Holocaust?

Apart from the fact that 'most' and 'extremist' exclude each other when describing 'muslims' on a normal to extremist scale, every muslim who supports Human Rights violating sharia can be described as an extremist from a Human Rights perspective.


A fascist Swedish blasphemy law in the hands of a failing Swedish court

Swedish hate speech law:


'Who shows disrespect for a group of people or other such a group of individuals with allusion to race, skin color, nationality or ethnic origin, religion or sexual disposition' (Klevius translation).


Klevius' analysis of the law: Of these only religion can in itself interact negatively with Human Rights. Race, skin color, nationality, ethnic origin, or sexual disposition have no bearing to undermine Human Rights. Even if one's ethnic origin contains statistically measurable negative features those features can not be individualized in a Human Rights context. However, religion can. Even if an individual may not share the most negative aspects of the religion, the very belonging to that religion also justifies its negative sides. So for example, blasphemy laws are often excused by the big amount of muslims that could be "offended". Moreover, in the case of islam there are only negative sides from a Human Rights perspective. Supporting sharia, in whatever form that violates the most basic of Human Rights, is the very definition of a muslim. If anything, then declaring oneself a sharia muslim is offending against muslim women and all non-muslims. "Infidels" and women seen as inferior are views in direct opposition to Human Rights. This is why OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) officially via UN declared that islamic sharia should replace Human Rights. As a consequence this means that some of the most basic Human Rights are criminalized by islam.

Saudi based OIC - and its islamofascist Saudi sharia Fuhrer Iyad Madani - constitutes islam today, and it's against the most basic of Human Rights!


A previously criticized Swedish court (Blekinge Tingsrätt) led by judge Lise-Lotte Bäckström produces a verdict motivation that is beyond belief

Background: In Demand for Resources (1992:43, ISBN9173288411) Klevius wrote that jurisprudence is the only true science because (like in Colombo episodes) the answer to the problem is already known from the start. There's a law (the answer/result) and a case (the problem) that either fits the law or not. If the procedurals are fulfilled and the intentions of the legislators (i.e. the very soul of the law) are known then nothing can hinder a positive or negative verdict. Sloppy handling of the case or lack of evidence could make a verdict wrong or the case impossible to evaluate against the law - i.e. no science.


Sweden's Human Rights problem


This is my late lawyer friend Lennart Hane (mentioned in Angels of Antichrist - the most important sociological paper from the last century). He is known for his fight against Swedish "Gulag laws" and theur "rubber paragraphs". He saved the lives of many children and parents from his wheelchair (he got polio as a child) and enlivened many a murky Swedish court by his very person. Lennart Hane was also part of the movement to disclose the ADL scandal (see furthest down).

Although both Lennart Hane and Jacob W F Sundberg (below) represent a much more conservative view on many issues than Klevius does, this didn't hinder mutual understanding of the most basic flaws in the Swedish judicial system. To understand this it's recommended you read Klevius thesis Pathological Symbiosis.

Also referred to in Angels of Antichrist is Jacob W F Sundberg (who contacted Klevius because of articles about the social state he had read) who is a professor of jurisprudence of Stockholm University from which he was more or less out-frozen because of his stance for Human Rights and against the Swedish system. He is also the author of the 34 pp juridical master piece A Trip to Nowhere (1995), a must read for comparative lawyers all the world over. Must be one of the funniest (albeit also tragic) juridical texts ever written.


JACOB W. F. SUNDBERG
I. THE EUROPEAN SYSTEM OF HUMAN RIGHTS

A. The American Influence

In order to understand the American contribution to the European system of human rights, 1 it is necessary to go back to the situation at the close of the Second World War. This is the time when the world saw the emergence of the two superpowers to which we have grown accustomed: the Soviet Union and the United States of America. The Soviet advance and progress was impressively manifested in February 1948, when the Communist Action Committees seized power in Czechoslovakia and seemingly irrevocably included that country in the bloc of Socialist states, known as "the Socialist Camp." With the seizure of Czechoslovakia, the Soviets were able to establish their Socialist legal system throughout Eastern Europe. In order to see the American influence on the European system of human rights, an understanding of the chief differences between the Anglo-American legal systems and the Marxist-based Socialist ones is required. These systems disagree fundamentally about the nature and source of human rights. This disagreement has formed the basis for the conflict over human rights within Europe.

"Human rights" was the notion that was to dominate the coming decades in many ways. The significance of human rights was manifested in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, 2 the very year Czechoslovakia fell. That there are "fundamental human rights" was declared an article of faith, "reaffirmed" by the peoples of the United Nations in the UN Charter.

Klevius comment: An 'article of faith' means it is based on the axiomatic view of the principle of human equality. However, unlike all other axiomatic views on the matter, Human Rights is the only moral logic that excludes both racism and sexism (and due hate). It is against this background blasphemy laws in general and the verdict below constitute a direct violation of basic Human Rights.


A Swedish verdict on free speech from 2014


Blekinge Tingsrätt and its judge Lise-Lotte Bäckström have previously been criticized multiple times for its behavior. However, in its verdict of Michael Hess (who belongs to Sweden's only islam critical party Sverigedemokraterna - 15% in last gallup)  it has taken the definitive step outside what a court should do. Yes, the Swedish law about "incitement against a group of people" is already in itself shameful. However, here Klevius will only analyze the wording of the verdict.

The "crime"


Michael Hess had commented on an article in Aftonbladet about rapes in Sweden (Klevius translation): 'When will you journalists realize that it's deeply rooted in islamic culture to rape and assault such women who don't submit in accordance with islamic teachings. There exists a considerable connection between rapes in Sweden and the number of immigrants from Mideastern and North-African countries.'

In Swedish: ”När ska ni journalister inse att det är djupt inrotat i Islams kultur att våldta och misshandla sådana kvinnor som inte rättar sig efter Islams lära. Finns ett stort samband mellan våldtäkter i Sverige och antalet invandrare från MENA-länder.”

According to the Swedish court, free speech re. islam should only be used to facilitate progress in the interaction between individuals (människor). Sw. 'människor' could mean both people or individuals, but in this context only individuals because only individuals can be offended and interacted with. 

Klevius analysis: Do note that Hess doesn't even blame islam but only 'islamic culture'. However, the problem here is that islam itself via its violent and raping origin and today via its Human Rights violating Koran connected sharia (OIC) doesn't facilitate progress in the interaction between individuals but rather is group orientated and a fertile ground for division and hatred.

The court continues by stating that free speech shouldn't be used in a way that could offend deeply held personal views, for example re. religious matters.

Klevius analysis: Only deeply held personal hate views could be offended by Hess' statement. Hess doesn't criticize ethnic belonging but only the statistical 'connection between rapes in Sweden and the number of immigrants from Mideastern and North-African countries'.

The court further recommends that one should back up every controversial statement with references to relevant research and religious texts.

Klevius analysis: Why would widely debated and interpreted known problems of islam be "controversial"? And how could islamic texts be of any relevance for criticizing islam from a basic Human Rights perspective? Moreover, it's precisely the Koranic texts which justify the taking of sex slaves that are now widely known and debated.

As Klevius showed in his previous posting, the shameful leniency shown towards islam's evil teachings has led to the astonishing and tragic fact that a Google search for the most common hate crimes gives the very opposite result! If Nazi Germany had had Internet I'm sure you wouldn't have found any hate crimes whatsoever committed by Nazis.


Hateful muslims

Or are they no muslims precisely because of their hate?!


How come that the most powerful "ethnic"/"religious" group, which preaches violations of the most basic of Human Rights, is the one that is more protected than most other people?!


Muslims don't belong to a vulnerable minority. On the contrary, their Ummah nation is the biggest nation in the world and it's represented by the biggest organization in the world after UN itself, i.e. OIC (the Organization of Islamic Cooperation).

Muslims have chosen to hate, disrespect, and show contempt towards us "infidels" by believing in an ideology that is incompatible with Human Rights. Ok, Klevius could live with that because he isn't offended like many muslims would be in a similar situation. However, muslims haven't stopped there. They have also made this Human Rights violation to a threat against these very Human Rights by sharia criminalizing Human Rights. And as Klevius has always said, under Human Rights you can follow sharia (as long as it's legal) but under sharia you don't have access to Human Rights freedom. Moreover, as it stands now muslims are protected by those very Human Rights their sharia opposes and wants to eliminate.


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


Magna Carta Libertatum is the first rudimentary effort in a long struggle towards the final 1948 Human Rights declaration which PM David Cameron now again seems to betray by giving in for Human Rights violating sharia.



Back in 1215 Magna Carta (the first predecessor to Human Rights) was produced to stifle traitor King John's effort to islamize Britian. Compare this to the  British PM Cameron's attacks on Human Rights while seemingly proposing Britain as the center of islamofascism outside Mideast (beginning with London sharia finance).



King John the Traitor, PM David Cameron and the islamofascist "king" Abdullah who pretended to be "reformist" while steering the country in an even more intolerant direction by new sharia inspired laws by early 2014 (e.g. equalizing Human Rights, Secularism and Atheism with "terrorism" and due penalties - compare Raif Badawi and others).

King John in the early 13th century sent envoys to Mohammed al-Nâsir asking for his help. In return King John offered to convert to Islam and turn England into a muslim state. The muslim jihadist Mohammed al-Nâsir's view on King John: "I never read or heard that any king possessing such a prosperous kingdom subject and obedient to him, would voluntarily ... make tributary a country that is free, by giving to a stranger that which is his own ... conquered, as it were, without a wound. I have rather read and heard from many that they would procure liberty for themselves at the expense of streams of blood, which is a praiseworthy action; but now I hear that your wretched lord, a sloth and a coward, who is even worse than nothing, wishes from a free man to become a slave, who is the most miserable of all human beings." Mohammed al-Nâsir concluded by wondering aloud why the English allowed such a man to lord over them — they must, he said, be very servile and soft.


It's the original evilness* of islam that makes it so vulnerable for criticism that it needs to be protected by sharia compliant so called blasphemy laws (in the West called "hate speech" laws).



* For a starter islam's incompatibility with Human Rights as proved by OIC's sharia declaration in UN.



So what about muslim friends?


Immediately face your muslim friend with the question whether s/he supports Human Rights violating sharia or Human Rights equality? Or do you fear hearing the truth? By doing this simple question you hugely contribute to the anyway inevitable stopping of sharia islam and, as a consequence, limiting the islamic oxygen to islam's worst perpetrators, and thereby reducing the sufferings of islam's victims.

Klevius proposes that every muslim is invited to carefully be taught about Magna Carta and Human Rights and how sharia violates the most basic of Human Rights, i.e. the universal equality principle that makes sexism and racism (and due hate) redundant (Klevius 1992). This should then be followed up with the simple question: Do you want equality or Human Rights violating sharia? And those who choose sharia instead of Human Rights (i.e. the real muslims) ought to train themselves in looking at this picture without bursting into violence etc.

The war between muslims and Jews started when Muhammad slaughtered all the Jews in Medina. However, what made this war special was muslims' claim to be the only true branch of Judaism.

Albert Einstein: "For me the unaltered Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most primitive superstitions.


 Although the majority of the world's population is Atheist, religious dogma leading to racism, sexism and hatred is still allowed to be exempted from Human Rights equality logic.




The ADL scandal


Since the 1930s the ADL has been gathering information and publishing reports on anti-Semitism, racism and prejudice, and on anti-Jewish, anti-Israel, racist, anti-democratic, violent, and extremist individuals and groups. As a result, the organization has amassed what it once called a "famous storehouse of accurate, detailed, unassailable information on extremist individuals and organizations." Over the decades the ADL has assembled thousands of files.

One of its sources was Roy Bullock, a person who collected information and provided it to the ADL as a secretly paid independent contractor over 32 years. Bullock often wrote letters to various groups and forwarded copies of their replies to the ADL, clipped articles from newspapers and magazines, and maintained files on his computer. He also used less orthodox, and possibly illegal, methods such as combing through trash and tapping into the White Aryan Resistance's phone message system to find evidence of hate crimes. Some of the information he obtained and then passed on to the ADL came from confidential documents (including intelligence files on various Nazi groups and driver's license records and other personal information on nearly 1,400 people) that were given to him by San Francisco police officer Tom Gerard.

On April 8, 1993, police seized Bullock's computer and raided the ADL offices in San Francisco and Los Angeles, California. A search of Bullock's computer revealed he had compiled files on 9,876 individuals and more than 950 groups across the political spectrum. Many of Bullock's files concerned groups that did not fit the mold of extremist groups, hate groups, and organizations hostile to Jews or Israel that the ADL would usually be interested in. Along with files on the Ku Klux Klan, White Aryan Resistance, Islamic Jihad and Jewish Defense League were data on the NAACP, the African National Congress (ANC), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the United Auto Workers, the AIDS activist group ACT UP, Mother Jones magazine, the TASS Soviet/Russian news agency, Greenpeace, Jews for Jesus and the National Lawyers Guild; there were also files on politicians including Democratic U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi, former Republican U.S. Representative Pete McCloskey, and activist Lyndon LaRouche. Bullock told investigators that many of those were his own private files, not information he was passing on to the ADL. An attorney for the ADL stated that "We knew nothing about the vast extent of the files. Those are not ADL's files. … That is all [Bullock's] doing." As for its own records, the ADL indicated that just because it had a file on a group did not indicate opposition to the group. The San Francisco district attorney at the time accused the ADL of conducting a national "spy network", but dropped all accusations a few months later.

In the weeks following the raids, twelve civil rights groups led by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and the National Lawyers Guild, filed a lawsuit demanding ADL release its surveillance information and end its investigations, as well as be ordered to pay punitive damages. The plaintiffs' attorney, former Representative McCloskey, claimed that information the ADL gathered constituted an invasion of privacy. The ADL, while distancing itself from Bullock, countered that it is entitled like any researcher or journalist to research organizations and individuals. Richard Cohen, legal director of the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Alabama, stated that like journalists, the ADL's researchers "gather information however they can" and welcome disclosures from confidential sources, saying "they probably rely on their sources to draw the line" on how much can legally be divulged. Bullock admitted that he was overzealous, and that some of the ways he gathered information may have been illegal.

The lawsuit was settled out of court in 1999. The ADL agreed to pay $175,000 for the court costs of the groups that sued it, promised that it would not seek information from sources it knew could not legally disclose such information, consented to remove sensitive information like criminal records or Social Security numbers from its files, and spent $25,000 to further relations between the Jewish, Arab and black communities. When the case was settled, Hussein Ibish, director of communications for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), claimed that the ADL had gathered data "systematically in a program whose clear intent was to undermine civil rights and Arab-American organizations". ADL national director Abraham Foxman called the ADC's claims "absolutely untrue," saying that "if it were true, they would have won their case" and noting that no court found the ADL guilty of any wrongdoing. The ADL released a statement saying that the settlement "explicitly recognizes ADL's right to gather information in any lawful and constitutionally protected manner, which we have always done and will continue to do."
James Rosenberg

A case which has been compared to the Bullock case was that of James Mitchell Rosenberg, AKA Jim Anderson. Rosenberg/Anderson was an undercover operative of the ADL who acted as an agent provocateur, posing as a racist right-wing paramilitary extremist. He appeared in this role as part of a TV documentary entitled "Armies of the Right" which premiered in 1981. Rosenberg was arrested that same year in New York for carrying an unregistered firearm in public view. In 1984, ADL fact-finding director Irwin Suall identified Rosenberg as an ADL operative in a court deposition.
Armenian Genocide controversy

In 2007, Abraham Foxman came under criticism for his stance on the Armenian Genocide. The ADL had previously described it as a "massacre" and "atrocity", but not a "genocide". Foxman had earlier opposed calls for the U.S. Government to recognise it as a "genocide". "I don't think congressional action will help reconcile the issue. The resolution takes a position; it comes to a judgment," said Foxman in a statement issued to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. "The Turks and Armenians need to revisit their past. The Jewish community shouldn't be the arbiter of that history, nor should the U.S. Congress, and "a Congressional resolution on such matters is a counterproductive diversion and will not foster reconciliation between Turks and Armenians and may put at risk the Turkish Jewish community and the important multilateral relationship between Turkey, Israel and the United States."

In early August 2007, complaints about the Anti-Defamation League's refusal to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide led to the Watertown, Massachusetts unanimous town council decision to end their participation in the ADL "No Place for Hate" campaign. (Watertown is known for its Armenian population.) Also in August 2007, an editorial in The Boston Globe criticized the ADL saying that "as an organization concerned about human rights, it ought to acknowledge the genocide against the Armenian people during World War I, and criticize Turkish attempts to repress the memory of this historical reality." Then on 17 August 2007, the ADL fired its regional New England director, Andrew H. Tarsy, for breaking ranks with the main organization and saying the ADL should recognize the genocide. In a 21 August 2007 press release, the ADL changed its position to one of acknowledging the genocide but maintained its opposition to congressional resolutions aimed at recognizing it. Foxman wrote, "the consequences of those actions," by the Ottoman Empire against Armenians, "were indeed tantamount to genocide." The Turkish government condemned the league's statement. Andrew H. Tarsy was rehired by the league on 27 August, though he has since chosen to step down from his position.

The ADL was criticized by many in the Armenian community including The Armenian Weekly newspaper, in which writer Michael Mensoian stated:

    The belated backtracking of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in acknowledging the planned, systematic massacre of 1,500,000 Armenian men, women and children as "…tantamount to genocide…" is discouraging. Tantamount means something is equivalent. If it's equivalent, why avoid using the term? For the ADL to justify its newly adopted statement because the word genocide did not exist at the time indicates a halfhearted attempt to placate Armenians while not offending Turkey. Historians use the term genocide simply because it is the proper term to describe the horrific events that the Ottoman Turkish government unleashed on the Armenian people.

After Foxman's capitulation, the New England ADL pressed the organization's national leadership to support a congressional resolution acknowledging the genocide. After hours of closed-door debate at the annual national meeting in New York, the proposal was ultimately withdrawn. The organization issued a statement saying it would "take no further action on the issue of the Armenian genocide." The ADL had earlier received direct pressure from the Turkish Foreign ministry. Tarsy submitted his resignation on December 4.

Friday, February 13, 2015

Were there peaceful and good National-socialists (Nazis) in Nazi Germany?

Germans twice voted in favor of the National-socialistic program. However, an individual, got all the blame. Convenient, yes, but were the German voters totally without guilt?

Are muslims incapable of hate - or is media incapable of reporting muslim hate?


 When muslims commit hate crimes the media solution is to immediately remove the perpetrators from the rank of muslims. It's got nothing to do with islam etc, you know. However, if an Atheist commits a crime and muslims are victims then the perpetrator's belonging to the ethnic group of Atheists is blown up by every means. How come?

And how come that a Google search for 'hate crimes committed by muslims' gives the opposite result to what could reasonably be expected having in mind that the muslim ideology islam seems to produce a disproportional amount of hate crimes and is in stark opposition to the Human Rights principle of equality?

Here's Google News:

and here's Google's web search:

The guardians of Human Rights violating islam



Saudi based OIC - and its islamofascist Saudi sharia Fuhrer Iyad Madani - constitutes islam today, and it's against the most basic of Human Rights!

Some undoubtedly hateful muslims

Or are they no muslims precisely becaus of their hate?!


How come that the most powerful "ethnic"/"religious" group, which preaches violations of the most basic of Human Rights, is the one that is more protected than most other people?!


Muslims don't belong to a vulnerable minority. On the contrary, their Ummah nation is the biggest nation in the world and it's represented by the biggest organization in the world after UN itself, i.e. OIC (the Organization of Islamic Cooperation).

Muslims have chosen to hate, disrespect, and show contempt towards us "infidels" by believing in an ideology that is incompatible with Human Rights. Ok, Klevius could live with that because he isn't offended like many muslims would be in a similar situation. However, muslims haven't stopped there. They have also made this Human Rights violation to a threat against these very Human Rights by sharia criminalizing Human Rights. And as Klevius has always said, under Human Rights you can follow sharia (as long as it's legal) but under sharia you don't have access to Human Rights freedom. Moreover, as it stands now muslims are protected by those very Human Rights their sharia opposes and wants to eliminate.


From Magna Carta in 1215 to Human Rights in 1948


Magna Carta Libertatum is the first rudimentary effort in a long struggle towards the final 1948 Human Rights declaration which PM David Cameron now again seems to betray by giving in for Human Rights violating sharia.



Back in 1215 Magna Carta (the first predecessor to Human Rights) was produced to stifle traitor King John's effort to islamize Britian. Compare this to the  British PM Cameron's attacks on Human Rights while seemingly proposing Britain as the center of islamofascism outside Mideast (beginning with London sharia finance).



King John the Traitor, PM David Cameron and the islamofascist "king" Abdullah who pretended to be "reformist" while steering the country in an even more intolerant direction by new sharia inspired laws by early 2014 (e.g. equalizing Human Rights, Secularism and Atheism with "terrorism" and due penalties - compare Raif Badawi and others).

King John in the early 13th century sent envoys to Mohammed al-Nâsir asking for his help. In return King John offered to convert to Islam and turn England into a muslim state. The muslim jihadist Mohammed al-Nâsir's view on King John: "I never read or heard that any king possessing such a prosperous kingdom subject and obedient to him, would voluntarily ... make tributary a country that is free, by giving to a stranger that which is his own ... conquered, as it were, without a wound. I have rather read and heard from many that they would procure liberty for themselves at the expense of streams of blood, which is a praiseworthy action; but now I hear that your wretched lord, a sloth and a coward, who is even worse than nothing, wishes from a free man to become a slave, who is the most miserable of all human beings." Mohammed al-Nâsir concluded by wondering aloud why the English allowed such a man to lord over them — they must, he said, be very servile and soft.


It's the original evilness* of islam that makes it so vulnerable for criticism that it needs to be protected by sharia compliant so called blasphemy laws (in the West called "hate speech" laws).



* For a starter islam's incompatibility with Human Rights as proved by OIC's sharia declaration in UN.



So what about muslim friends?


Immediately face your muslim friend with the question whether s/he supports Human Rights violating sharia or Human Rights equality? Or do you fear hearing the truth?

Klevius proposes that every muslim is invited to carefully be taught about Magna Carta and Human Rights and how sharia violates the most basic of Human Rights, i.e. the universal equality principle that makes sexism and racism (and due hate) redundant (Klevius 1992). This should then be followed up with the simple question: Do you want equality or Human Rights violating sharia? And those who choose sharia instead of Human Rights (i.e. the real muslims) ought to train themselves in looking at this picture without bursting into violence etc.

The war between muslims and Jews started when Muhammad slaughtered all the Jews in Medina. However, what made this war special was muslims' claim to be the only true branch of Judaism.

 Albert Einstein: "For me the unaltered Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most primitive superstitions.


 Although the majority of the world's population is Atheist, religious dogma leading to racism, sexism and hatred is still allowed to be exempted from Human Rights equality logic.