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

Wednesday, October 11, 2017

Klevius to all the world's girls on the International Girl's Day: Learn more about heterosexual attraction and Human Rights - and about the problem with sex segregation/apartheid and islamic sharia.


Acknowledgement: Please, don't confuse private religion with mob religion. Although Klevius himself has no understanding of this "private religion", he doesn't bother about it either as long as it's kept private. Klevius' "islamophobia" is only concerned with islam's (e.g. via OIC) violations of the most basic of Human Rights in the anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948.


When we get rid of religious rapetivism* then other forms of rapetivism will be much easier to challenge - because as it stands now, religious rapetivism can hide behind "freedom of religion".

* 'Rapetivism' is a concept introduced by Klevius in the early 2000.

Klevius sex education for girls. And why aren't girls  (and boys) offered proper sex educationb at school?


Islamic Sharia restricts Human Rights and promotes supremacism (drawing 1979 and photo 2012 by P. Klevius).


Normal heterosexual attraction* (female bodies as possible and potential eroticizers for males) is comparable with being extremely beautiful or ugly. It causes attention. And although it might feel like an extra power, do realize that heterosexual attraction is only in the male eye. 

However, according to the anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration - agreed on 1948 after WW2 had ended national-socialist fascism -  sex should not in any sense infringe on your Human Rights equality.

Moreover, due to a break in religious brain-washing in the "West", the "developed world" managed to modernize its view on women to an extent that made it possible for women to show off their bodies in public. Moreover, and most importantly, this development also revealed that the absolute majority of healthy men had no problem whatsoever with it. Men can - if you just stop trying to eat the cake while still having it!

However, even the progressive West has been too slow to adapt to full equality between the sexes. And a main tool for this has been religion. And of all religions it is now sharia islam that is the worst threat when it comes to full Human Rights for girls/women.

Interestingly, now a mainly Atheist country, China, asks for more sex segregation to "cure effeminacy" in the form of encouraging more "masculinity" among Chinese boys to better compete with Silicon Valley and Wall Street. Klevius wonders whether that would imply that lack of religion made Chinese men more "effeminate" than their religious counterparts in the "West"?


Bigoted and deeply hypocritical (or just racist and Human Righsphobic) muslim sharia women enjoy the West's Human Rights freedom while islam ravages their sisters in muslim countries and muslim sharia ghettos in the West.

When women say they "enjoy sex"* they don't mean the same as men - because of sex segregation

* Either as pure "rub sex" or "romantic sex" which isn't really about sex at all.

Klevius remembers how he as a teenager got aware of the depth of segregation between the sexes when he managed to get the interest of the "beauty queen" at a club and much later that same night heard her saying that it had been such a good time for her to be with someone who didn't try to push her in bed.

* Male dogs don't bother about "romantic relations", fore play etc. - that's why we call it "dog sex". However, due to sex segregation, i.e. that girls and boys are alienated from each other, heterosexual attraction has become a main means for girls/women to get attention from boys/men - and for boys/men to excuse (and be excused about) promisquous sexism. This alienation occurs despite boys and girls intermingle.


Six bio/logical facts about sex

1  Heterosexual attraction isn't sex per se.
2  Heterosexual men can have sex without heterosexual attraction.
3  Homosexual men can have both homosex and heterosex.
4  There are no heterosexual women.
5  "Rub sex" is "dog sex" for both males and females.
6  The only reason for "changing sex" is sex segregation.

Klevius will explain these crucial points more in detail later.


Men can actually treat women as human beings - but can all women handle that?


Klevius knows because he's a man with at the least average amount of male hormones and with a history that lacks 1) rapetivist behavior and 2) lacks any occasion of "failure" when being invited by women into sexual acting (not even his wives/girlfriends can complain about that)*. Moreover, for Klevius the problem has rather been the very opposite, namely that women seem to expect being treated as "women", while Klevius insists on treating them as equal human beings.

* These strange remarks by Klevius are made just to avoid readers who don't know Klevius to dismiss him as someone living in celibacy (or something else) and therefore being less informed in these issues.

In the early 1990s Klevius wrote an academic thesis called Gender Apartheid at the Socialanthropology department of Stockholm University. It was however dismissed (and Klevius refused to change it) with the following words: "You are very intelligent, logical and coherent in your writing and in your use of citations. However, the thesis is not written in a way that is expected on this institution" (an approximate translation from Swedish).


Klevius wrote:

Friday, April 18, 2014

Gender schizophrenia


Covering up the world's biggest problem (sex segregation/apartheid) in gender babble - but when will the bubble burst?

 Oxford Dictionaries definition of 'gender': The state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).

However this kind of non sense use of 'gender' is more and more common:


Of course there are no 'gender-bending' insects. If a female insect possesses an organ that can pick up semen from a cavity in a male insect, that has nothing to do with gender at all.



Klevius clarification for his dear but sometimes mildly confused readers:

John Money introduced the distinction between biological sex and gender in 1955. Before his work, it was uncommon to use the word gender to refer to anything but grammatical categories. However. In the 1970s feminists embraced the concept as a distinction between biological sex and the social construct of gender. Today, the distinction is strictly followed in some contexts, especially the social sciences and documents written by the WHO. In many other contexts, however, even in some areas of social sciences, the meaning of gender has undergone a usage shift to include sex or even to replace it. This gradual change in the meaning of gender can be traced to the 1980s. The APA's psychoanalytically contaminated Diagnostic and Statistical Manual first described the condition in the third publication ("DSM-III") in 1980 and this was then followec by the so called 'glamour feminism' which has ever since trapped girls/women in a continuing web of cultural 'femininity' that functions as a barrier against those ("tomboys") who dare to try to escape it - leaving no other options than either to conform or to become a so called "transsexual". Why do people have to alter their biology when we have Human Rights that should give everyone the right to live as s/he wishes without restrictions imposed because of one's sex?

It's also noteworthy that the pathological pathologizing of a girl's wish to be free from sex related constrains (a freedom guaranteed adult women in the Human Rights declaration) is a violation of Human Rights but is made possible because minors (and their parents/custodians other than the state) have no legal say (compare what is said in Klevius' thesis Pathological Symbiosis).

It's still an open question how much this disastrous and monstrous sex apartheid has helped islam (the worst crime ever against humanity) to exist among civilized people (compare what Klevius wrote in Rapetivism from Freud to bin Laden more than a decade ago). Evil and Human Rights violating islamic tenets that would have been completely unthinkable two decades ago are now defended!


 Thanks to a scholarship in 1885, Freud visited his main idol, Jean Charcot, "the Napoleon of Neuroses" and known as "the greatest neurologist of his time" (H. Ellenberger 1970:89), here giving a fake lecture on "hysteria in women" at his institute.(a former poor house for women) in Paris where he attempted to establish a medical monopoly over hypnosis based on contemporary ideas on sex segregation. When Freud returned to Vienna he made his living by "treating" wealthy "hysteric" women. (see Klevius' Psycho Timeline). It is an irony that most of the women performing "hysteria" at Charcot's institute were from the lower classes, in sharp contrast to those women who then became treated by his former students. Who are the great fakes of our time?Psychotimeline revealing Freud's misogyny

 

This is the Saudi islamofascist Iyad Madani who is now the Fuhrer over all the world's muslims' world organization, Saudi based OIC and its Human Rights violating Sharia. 



and his disciples

 
 Klevius feels really privileged to be the only one (so far) truly addressing the world's biggest question. However, Klevius is also disturbingly aware of the fact that his time as the world's foremost expert on sex segregation (due to no competition) may be over in no time at all when the global female prison finally opens its gates.

Tuesday, October 3, 2017

Klevius teenage son says capitalism is dead - tomorrow.


Klevius teenage son proposes removing money all together and make everything free. AI/robotics will make this inevitable anyway - and Klevius doesn't know what to say. Do you?


A world where everything is free - and protected by the anti-fascist negative* Human Rights.

* Read Klevius definition of the negative Human Rights, i.e. the very basic rights in the anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration from 1948 on which United Nations was supposed to stand on and for.

Already at the mature age of 12 he replaced Dad with Richard Stallman as his main hero after having been pissed off by the behavior of Apple and Microsoft and their use of the patent-license-copyright* system.

* Do note that much of the "secret" of Japanese high tech production quality stems from a system that historically has been the very opposite to the American one. Much of the US economy today relies on lawyers sucking out whatever there is to get money from patents/copyrights/licenses while thereby also counteracting the interest of the consumers.  

As a model for his idea about a free world he used Ubuntu, a free software based on the American, Richard Stallman's GNU project and the Finland-Swede Linus Torvald's invention LINUX (which now runs all the world's fastest supercomputers).

Free software is free as in freedom - not as in free beer - and isn't locked down by a proprietor - meaning freedom to use, modify and share.

We live in a much faster moving world today due to globalization and automation. This means e.g. that politicians may have problem keeping up.

Here the example of globalization/technologization of Africa.

How technology is freeing Africa from 1,400 years of islamic enslavement and genocides.


Poor education, over population and corruption have cursed Africa due to imposed religious abuse.

However, in almost no-time in the 1990s Finland (Nokia) and Sweden (L M Ericson) participated with Africans who freed themselves from the costly task of building an all covering land-line infra-structure. Today China is participating with Africans in a way that is fast making the continent no different from other continents. Only problem being religion/sex apartheid which causes half of the population being busy producing too many children. However, even this will stop in the long run when all African girls get rid of their sex segregated hand cuffs.

This shows have technology can transform and adapt in ways that are both more cost efficient and far more quicker than conventional low grade automation.

In the late 1970s Klevius wrote an article called Automation and basic income. Although it was never approved of being published (still wonder why) it foresaw that automation (digitalization) of processes would anyway inevitably lead to a point where no person was needed for production and administration.

However, what Klevius missed was what a young fresh mind today could see, namely that automation would also make capitalism redundant. Is this what Xi Jinping is at? State controlled freedom during a transitional stage led by heavily supported AI/robotics Rn'D. A state steered dagger given to capitalism for the purpose of committing suicide.

Japanese robots manufactured robots already in the 1980s. And when Klevius used his laptop 18 years ago in San Francisco for making phone calls for free via Skype (thanks to a young Swedish inventor) and to sell and buy shares online, he realized that the robots had already taken over.

We know that everything can be automated just as our brain/Thalamus automates our dealings with our internal and external worlds - see Klevius groundbreaking  EMAH theory (1992/1994 and on the web 2004)) which exactly explains what "consciousness" is - and is not.

AI/robotics or automation, call it what you like, can easily produce better CEO's than the existing ones - not to mention board members.

However, they can therefore also produce usefulness within sustainable profit margins.

A new financial/productive system is born - and we need only to keep the vultures away from it during a transition time.

And then capitalism is dead.

Negative rights for a positive future


Sharia restricts Human Rights and promotes supremacism (drawing 1979 and photo 2012 by P. Klevius).

A free world can only exist under so called negative Human Rights, i.e. rights without content* and therefore immunized against impositional** (positive) "rights". Freedom rights instead of so called "Stalin rights", as some of the agreed rights came to be called when they emanated from the USSR system.

Negative rights can be exemplified with traffic rules. Every participant has exactly the same rights - no matter what s/he drives or if s/he doesn't drive at all.

And limitations necessary to keep it going affect everyone equally.

* I.e. a protected sphere that the individual may fill with whatever - as long as it doesn't clash with the rights of others.

** In traffic as in democracy limitations should only be accepted if necessary in a free system.

Friday, September 29, 2017

Not a word from BBC today about soon a million cholera victims due to Saudi war crimes in Yemen - but instead a lot about Saudi backed Rohyngias whose jihad campaign against Buddhists then is blamed on - Buddhists.


While BBC worries about cholera among Rohyngia muslims and blaiming the Buddhists who were victimized by Saudi supported Rohyngia muslim attacks, BBC completely "forgets" to also mention that the same Saudis by their attacks on neighboring Yemeni people have managed to produce the world's worst cholera epidemic - much bigger than the total of Rohyngia "refugees"*.


* As always with islam it's the evil original "islamist" part of islam that then causes the suffering for those who have been forced into the religion by birth and apostasy ban.



The former Saudi backed "president" of Yemen, Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi was "elected" as the only candidate and later ousted by Yemen's biggest party, his own The General People's Congress, an Arab nationalist movement.

So blaming everything on Iran and nothing on the islamofascist Saudi dictator family isn't true at all. Moreover, almost half of the Yemeni muslims are shia.

Finally, the islamofascist Saudi dictator family is the certain road to continuing suffering while better cooperation with Iran could open up for a real solution of Mideast while securing the existence of Israel in the same way as securing the nuclear deal. But the main problem is the islamofascist Saudi dictator family and its position as "the custodians of islam" which they use ruthlessly for their own power-mad islamic hate mongering.

Opening up for Iran would also help puncturing the Iranian islamic theocracy and thereby paving the way for the true will of the Iranian people who already possess a sort of democracy that the Saudi dictatorship isn't even close to.


Britisharia may as well be called Saudisharia


The "British" opting for Saudi islamist sharia (via finance, weapons trade etc) in effect means abandoning the most basic rights of the anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration the world 1948 adopted after having fought against fascism in WW2.

Saturday, September 23, 2017

Why are Human Rights defenders demonized - and why do we let an islamofascist dictator "country" (smaller than Netherlands) threaten the whole world's safety and peace and continue spreading hate and intolerance?


A fascist medieval type dictator "monarchy" created by Theresa May's predecessors is now the worst enemy of people around the world.


The Saudi islamofascists do exactly as the Islamic State - teaching hate to be randomly exchanged to terror against random individuals worldwide.



Today again BBC's house sharia islamist (and the "expert" Mrs May asked to check Human Rights violating sharia "courts" in England) Mona Saddiqi continued her plattitudes repeatedly trumpeted from BBC's minarets over compulsory fee paying ignorant English "kaffirs": "It's a mystery why Allah allows evil".

Klevius (who is a real expert* on islam - i.e. not an islamist): You're very wrong Mona. It's not a "mystery" at all. As Klevius has repeatedly informed since 9/11, "Allah" was deliberately cut out ("Allah willing") from original islam for the very purpose of giving room for human evil like racist booty jihad attacking, looting and murdering/raping "kaffirs", enslaving, ethnic cleansing, genocides, sex slavery etc. (read the history of the emergence of islam - starting e.g. with Hugh Kennedy and K. S. Lal, and continuing e.g. with Ohlig/Puin's The Hidden Origins of Islam, and Fernandez-Morena's The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise, if you are so dumb so you don't trust Klevius).

* Only an Atheist relying on the anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948 can be a true expert on islam.

And when Theresa May says "islam's a great and peaceful religion" it only covers a version of islam based on wishful (or just deliberately lying) Western thinking while neglecting islam's evil allure, apostasy ban, and extremely appalling history.

If true islam would really be as Mrs May allegedes (but compare her "best ally", the islamofascist Saudi dictator family's  Wahhabi/Salafiislam), then islam would be dead in no time - except as a laughable creed for morally confused social outliers - i.e. those very muslim extremists who belive her nice words about islam and who then check up on the most original islam, and how the "custodians of islam" and other experts on islam tell them to go for the original rather than "Westernized islam".

Islam can never stand up to the high standards of the anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948. Sorry muslims if this "offends" and/or "demonizes" you. You then need a mirror.

And if you don't believe Klevius, then check with islam's most powerful world organization, Saudi based and steered O.I.C. which has openly declared that islam can't tolerate Human Rights (epecially not for girls/women and other "kaffirs") and therefore has Human Rights violating sharia (called islamic "human rights" so to sound better in U.N. etc. presentations).

This is also why/how the worst Human Rights violator and spreader of islamic hate all over the planet, the islamofascist Saudi dictator family sits on U.N. Human Rights council. I.e. supposedly the very bastion for anti-fascism has been occupied by - islamofascists clad in oil money.

Last but not least. This isn't Klevius' "Saudiphobia" or "islamophobia". That the islamofascist Saudi dictator family has been the worst and most intolerant spreader of islamic hate over the world is well known and repeatedly confirmed in most quarters.

So why has Klevius to rant about it so loudly? Because most people are afraid of being labelled "islamophobes" by Theresa May and other similar politicians etc. It's a fascistoid demonization of Human Rights defenders for the sole purpose of protecting the islamofascist Saudi dictator family.

And because most media are faked and corrupted by the fear of "islamophobia" - with the biggest one also being the worst, namely BBC.

And only when Trump was forced to lick the islamofascist Saudi ass did he get a slight ceasefire, sort of, by the media. However, that move made him also sink into that very swamp he promised to drain.

However, part of this may also be blamed on his naivety about the real financial state of the country he planned to steer.

Perhaps he didn't fully understand terms such as 'Seven Sisters', 'petro-dollar', 'gold standard', 'printing money', 'Sino-Russia cooperation' etc.

Trump himself was steered away from Russia because of the islamofascist Saudi dictator family. A tiny country same size or smaller than e.g. Netherlands. How come?

Two almost similar sized countries (Saudi population may even be smaller as some half of it consists of immigrants who are mostly more or less slave workers - only a minority consists of well educated experts).

Most of the Saudi population live in ten cities - making the populated country area also less than Netherlands.


Saudi medieval theocratic dictatorship

GDP (official exchange rate):
$639.6 billion (2016 est.)
GDP - real growth rate:
1.4% (2016 est.)
4.1% (2015 est.)
3.7% (2014 est.)
country comparison to the world: 161
GDP - per capita (PPP):
$55,200 (2016 est.)
$55,700 (2015 est.)
$53,900 (2014 est.)


Netherlands modern democratic monarchy

GDP (official exchange rate):
$771.2 billion (2016 est.)
GDP - real growth rate:
2.1% (2016 est.)
2% (2015 est.)
1.4% (2014 est.)
country comparison to the world: 129
GDP - per capita (PPP):
$51,000 (2016 est.)
$50,300 (2015 est.)
$49,500 (2014 est.)

The open secret of how the evil Saudi dictator family manages to bully the world: Islamofascism (custodians of islam) and the two Os (OPEC and OIC).


Sitting on easily (i.e. cheaply) extractable oil/gas and helped by US exploiters the islamofascist Saudi dictator family managed to heavily influence OPEC so that in 1973 they caused the so called energy crisis and 1974 they collected a ransom deal with US resulting in the so called petro dollar as well as even more influence to the Saudis under the cover of mighty America.

Soon the islamofascist Saudi dictator family started utilizing the many tensions/problems (caused by islam in the first place) in muslim (or partially muslim) countries. For this purpose they established OIC which became the biggest single pressure block in U.N. Via OIC's sharia declaration the islamofascist Saudi dictator family also avoided UN criticism of its appalling Human Rights record, by simply introducing OIC's sharia as "islamic human rights".


The biggest meddler in US politics is the islamofascist Saudi dictator family.


It's likely that the islamofascist Saudi dictator family also threatened the US with leaving the US dollar in its oil "sale" (oil from stolen/occupied land).

As with its "cooperation" with Israel (although no Jews really tolerated in islamic Saudi Arabia) the "cooperation" with the US is just to get allies against its main rival Iran who in turn is backed by Russia - therefore the enormous noise in Washington.

And of course there has evolved many personal ties to the "kaffirs" in the West, but these are just based on money and influence - and the islamofascist Saudi dictator family's wish to leave as Westerners while spitting on them via islam, hence boosting the picture that islam is anti West, hence also boosting inferiority and hate complex among muslims.

9/11 made it painfully obvious that the main evil of the world today is the undemocratic, Human Rights violating islamofascist Saudi dictator family.

Yet the US chose to hug its worst enemy.

So today the tiny oil wealthy Saudi gang has managed to create a dangerous state of a new cold war where it holds the world's muslims hostage for its own sake and the US threatens everyone who the Saudis don't like.

But the world could end this evil cancer in no time if voters in democratic countries would stop voting for any politician positive to the evils of the islamic hate spreading islamofascist Saudi medieval dictator "monarchy".

Persia is probably still waiting for revenge after 1400 years. Is that what Trump had in mind when he applauded Iranians while codemning their muslim leaders?


Klevius wrote:


Friday, May 26, 2017


Will the islamofascist Saud dictator family attack England again during Ramadan?


Klevius question to Theresa May: Do Saudi Salafist values comply with "British values"? And if not, is it really good for England to threaten Russia, which has never attacked England, while having one's worst enemy source, Saudi, as a "close ally"?! Has Klevius missed something...





If you dislike Nazi ideology then you easily qualify for disliking Saudi ideology as well.

Could anything be more worthy of disliking than a bunch of multi billionaire Salafi sharia muslims who use their oil wealth for gaining even more power by bombing their neighbors and spreading islamic hatred over innocent people around the world in a stealthy manner so to be able to "excuse" themselves by saying "it wasn't me who did the bomb or handled the knife, gun, acid, car/truck etc".

Trump lost all respect when he turned from a harsh Saudi critic to an eager supporter of Saudi state (i.e. dictator) terrorism via more or less stealthy channels - hidden behind the very fact that it's a medieval dictatorship.  In other words and as  so much else in the "islamic world", evil covers even more evil.

At least, Theresa May has been consequent in her love affair with the islamofascist Saudi dictator family. And why wouldn't she. After all, she shares the Saudi view that "sharia is good for the Brits". Only Klevius wonders: Which Brits - the sharia muslim "Brits"? And what about the non sharia English people who respect universal Human Rights equality instead of Human Rights violating sharia? England is a modern sovereign state, "Britain" is a pompous and dangerous colonialist nostalgia term in which sharia "diversity" hides its ugly face.

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family is the core tumor of the cancer spreading from Mideast. Giving additional nutrition to cancer cells is not an acceptable strategy.

No young jihadi mind will ever believe that he's completely off the target as long as the "custodians of islam" preach the same hatred and are respected by politicians like Theresa May and Donald Trump.

The monetary stakes are admittedly high but nothing compared to the Saudi Human Rights violations and its costs. May's and Trump's Saudi politics is just "creative book keeping" and a cynical disrespect for the security of innocent people.



The islamofascist Saudi dictator family is the core problem. And Theresa May's Brexit startegy of escape into old colonial "British" paths is hardly helpful.


As the Saudi "custodians of islam" having the same Sunni Salafi (i.e. original islam) ideology as the muslim terrorists, that alone should be enough reason to vote out any politician who supports Saudi islamofascism.

However, there's also a much larger problem with the islamofascist Saudi dictator family. That's the Saudi based and steered OIC which "peacefully" promotes Salafi sharia hate all over the world. And with the help of mainly muslim countries OIC has managed to make Saudi islamofascism "ok" via UN by accepting that sharia can be whatever - even islamofascist Saudi Salafist Wahhabism. 

Klevius has noted that his hits go down when he writes about the islamofascist Saudi dictator family. How come?


How England as a "British" colonizer created the worst evilon the planet. Of course they weren't aware back then about the monetary effects of oil that would then later multiply this evil.

Does the islamofascist Saudi dictator family already possess more nuke missiles than Israel?

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family funded the Pakistani nuke program and has extremely tight connections with Pakistan re. nuke technology.

Klevius suggestion: Israel's fooling around with the Saudis doesn't promise any good for the region - or for Israel itself. So the best thing an Iranian president could do now is partnering with Israel...



* Saudi King Abdul Aziz Ibn SaudIn 1901, Twenty-one-year-old Abdul Aziz Bin Abdul Rahman Al-Saud left Kuwait, determined to fight along-side the British forces against the Islamic state in order to get power over all of the territory once occupied by his pirate forefathers and to extend his occupation over the holy cities of Makkah and Medinah.

In 1902, The Exiled Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman Al-Saud and his gangsters (the Wahhabi movement) stormed Riyadh and shot and killed the Wali (the governor of the Khilafah:Aal-Rasheed) as another gift for Britain. This event marked the beginning of the formation of the pirate kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

1902-1913, After establishing Riyadh as his headquarters, Abdul Aziz proceeded, over the following decades side to side with the British soldiers to loot and kill the soldiers and supporters of The Ottomani Khilafah and he succeeded in many cities.

In 1914, Britain started to send a stream of agents (including William H.Shakespeare, Harry St. John Phil by and Percy Cox) to woo and encourage Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman in her task on the Arabian front. Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman’s campaign was one of sabotage and stabbing in the back, it was never face-to-face confrontation.

In 1915, Britain dispatched an agent by the name of William H. Shakespeare as a close advisor to Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman. The soldiers of the Khaleefah killed William alongside some Wahhabi conspirators.

In 1915, Britain dispatched another agent by the name of Harry St. John Philby, who soon appeared in full Arab dress on top of a camel with Abdul- Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman as a saudi warrior. Philby was called by Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman the “new star of Arab firmament”. Philby in return described Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman as the Arabs “man of destiny” however Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman was the arch political sell-out, many times offering to sell himself to the British. He once said to Philby, “If anyone offered me a million pounds I would give him all the concessions he wants”.

In December 1915 the Anglo-Saud friendship treaty was concluded. This treaty made the house of Saud an outpost of the British Empire. Britain was given trading privileges and was superintendent of Saudi foreign policy. A guarantee of British military protection and arms supplies ended the Khaleefah’s authority in central Arabia.

In 1916, Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman received from the British 1300 guns, 10,000 rupees and 20,000 pieces of gold in cash.

1917-1926, Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman and his organised Wahhabi gangsters in military style and with the help of the British soldiers succeeded in controlling the Whole of Arabia i.e. Najd and Hijaz.

In On 8 January 1926 Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman ( Known as Ibn-Saud) was self-proclaimed king of Arabia. King Abdul-Aziz was embroiled in discussions with the British representative, Percy Cox, for the determination of the borders of the new entity. The British Public Records described king Abdul-Aziz’s demeaning stature at these meetings “like a naughty schoolboy” in front of Cox. When Cox insisted it was his decision as to the frontiers between Kuwait, “Ibn-Saud almost broke down and pathetically remarked that Sir Percy was like his father and mother who made him and raised him from nothing… and he would surrender half his Kingdom, nay the whole, if Sir Percy ordered. Cox took out a map and pencil and drew a line of the frontier of Arabia”. Surely no Muslim can ever read such a statement except with abject shame at the way the sacred sites of Makkah and Medinah and the land of Hijaaz were put in the hands of a family with such debased and dishonorable pedigree.

1926-1932, King Abdul Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman (Ibn-Saud) courted the British unashamedly, showing sublime affection towards Britain’s envoys. He offered to put Arabia under their control. For his loyalty to the British crown, like so many other British agents, Ibn Saud was awarded a knighthood (presented to him by his self-proclaimed “father and mother” Percy Cox) and British

documents referred to him as “Sir” Abdul Aziz Bin Saud for many years afterwards.

In On September 23, 1932 the self appointed king, Sir Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman replaced the names of Najd and Hijaaz by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and he laid the foundations of the current Pirate state.

Eisenhower and Nixon at Dinner with King SaudIn 1953, The pirate king Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman died.

In 1953, Saud the eldest son of Abdul Aziz Succeeded the throne upon his father’s death and became king.

In 1957, King Saud made the first trip by a Saudi monarch to the United States.

In 1962, Saudi Arabia by special request of the British government sponsored an international Islamic conference, which fostered the Muslim World League, which has its headquarters in Makkah.

In 1964, King Saud Bin Abdul-Aziz died.

In 1964, Faisal Bin Abdul Aziz became king.

King faisal Bin Abdul AzizIn 1971, King Faisal by special request of the British government was a central force behind the establishment of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (the OIC) in Jeddah.

In 1975, King Faisal Bin Abdul Aziz was killed by his brother Fahd (The Who Became the king Afterwards).

King Khalid Bin Abdul Aziz. aIn 1975, Khalid Bin Abdul Aziz became king.

In 1982, King Khalid was poisoned by his brother Fahd .

In 1982, Fahd became king.

King Fahd Bin Abdul Aziz.1982-2005,  King Fahd Bin Abdul-Aziz is the pirate ruler of the pirate state of so-called Saudi-Arabia.

2005 – 2014 Until Today King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz is the Pirate Ruler King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz Al Saudof the British Sponsored State of the So Called Saudi Arabia .

The “Royal Family” of Saudi Arabia is the leading champion of all efforts to silence Islam, and to wipe out and demolish its identity. Najd and Hijaaz were the former names of so-called Saudi Arabia today. As everybody knows, Makkah and Madinah are Islam’s place of birth. Makkah houses “Al-Haram Al- Sharif”, and Madinah houses “Al-Masjid Al-Nabawi”, these are known as the “Two Holy Mosques”. The darker history of Hijaaz started with the ruthless, coward, savage and murdering Abdul-Aziz Bin Saud, who established himself as King back in 1932.

With the help of the British, King Abdul-Aziz replaced the country’s name of Hijaaz with Saudi Arabia which is the only country in the world that is named after its Dictator. King Abdul Aziz sexually abused many women, he now has more than 44 known sons and lots of known and unknown daughters. This dark history continues with the so-called “royal family”, and their leader King Fahd, the so-called “Guardian” whose title should be, “The Robber of the two Holy Mosques”, from the Arabic Expression: ” Ha-miha..Ha-ramiha “, which means ” Its Protector is really Its Robber “.










Wednesday, September 20, 2017

The English cherry picking neo-con fruit cake lady Mrs. May aspiring for a neo-"British empire"-colonialism


Mrs Theresa May's secret agenda to protect her islamofascist Saudi friends/"allies" by muffling "islamophobia"/"Saudiphobia" and by calling criticism and the defense of the most basic Human Rights "extremism"?


Theresa May denies suppressing report into Saudi Arabia’s funding of UK islamist extremism to protect arms deals.


Mrs Theresa May: “There is certain confidential information in the report which means it would not be appropriate to publish it.”

Klevius: If this extremist report had been about Iran, Russia or China, it would have been published in full and available on every possible social media - without Mrs. May asking to suppress it.

And whom are we talking about? The last remaining true dictator "monarchy", the islamofascist Saudi dictator family who use a Medieval religious hate ideology for its own benefits and the murdering, raping and terrorizing of others - not to mention its poisonous effects all over the world in different institutions and among politicians.

BBC and her neo-cons seem to be much more concerned about peaceful China than the islamic hate mongering islamofascist Saudi dictator family.

But China lacks completely such a hate ideology (Maoism* is dead) and therefore has to rest on peaceful manufacturing and investment of surplus from this manufacturing, which by now constitutes the by far most important worldwide empoverment of previously underdeveloped communities. I.e. something quite different from May's and Trump's aggressive weapons waiving/selling, combined with aiding Saudi islamofascist aggressions in Yemen, Syria, Bahrain, Iraq, Myanmar etc. etc.

* Islamism has caused way more victims throughout 1,400 years than short lived Maoism ever managed to do.

Here's a muslim view on Theresa May:


However, do notice the extremely (sorry about that) different ideological basis when comparing Klevius to muslims. Whereas the muslim ideology is rooted in disgusting "conquests" (i.e. attacks on innocent people called "kaffirs"), looting, raping, murdering and enslaving (read history, e.g. Hugh Kennedy), Klevius ideology is rooted in U.N.'s anti-fascist Human Rights declaration of 1948.



Klevius wrote:

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

UK PM escaping when "the best ally", the islamofascist Saudi dictator family attacks the Parliament.

Why is she continuing dealing with and supporting the worst spreaders of hate and evil?

Islam's "custodians", the islamofascist Saudi dictator family (together with Saudi based and steered OIC) constitutes the heart of evil islam in today's world. So why an "ally"?



The islamofascist Saudi dictator family is said to be the world's largest source of funds and promoter of Salafist muslim jihadism, which forms the ideological basis of terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda, Taliban, ISIS and others. Moreover, donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.

The violence in Afghanistan and Pakistan is partly bankrolled by wealthy donors from the Arabian peninsula whose "governments" support them. Three other muslim Arab countries which are listed as sources of militant money are Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates, all neighbors of Saudi Arabia. Taliban and their militant partners the Haqqani network earn "significant funds" through UAE-based businesses. Kuwait is described as a "source of funds and a key transit point" for al-Qaida and other militant groups. The Pakistani militant muslim outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba, which carried out the 2008 Mumbai attacks, used a Saudi-based front company to fund its activities in 2005. According to studies, most of suicide bombers in Iraq are Saudis. 15 of the 19 muslim hijackers of the four airliners who were responsible for 9/11 originated from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon. Osama bin Laden was raised in Saudi Arabia - just like BBC's sharia presenter Mishal Husain btw.

Starting in the mid-1970s the islamic resurgence was funded by an abundance of money from Saudi Arabian oil exports. The tens of billions of dollars in "petro-islam" largess obtained from the recently heightened price of oil funded an estimated "90% of the expenses of the entire faith."

Throughout the Sunni Muslim world, religious institutions for people both young and old, from children's maddrassas to high-level scholarships received Saudi funding, "books, scholarships, fellowships, and mosques" (for example, "more than 1500 mosques were built and paid for with money obtained from public Saudi funds over the last 50 years"), along with training in the Kingdom for the preachers and teachers who went on to teach and work at these universities, schools, mosques, etc.[108] The funding was also used to reward journalists and academics who protected the islamofascist Saudi dictator family and its spread of hate; and satellite campuses were built around Egypt for Al Azhar, the world's oldest and most influential islamic university.

Saudi-based Wahhabism or Salafism preaches that (Sunni) muslims should not only "always oppose" infidels "in every way," but "hate them for their religion ... for Allah's sake," that democracy "is responsible for all the horrible wars of the 20th century," that Shia and other "wrong-muslims" were "infidels", etc. According to former Prime Minister of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew, while this effort has by no means converted all, or even most, muslims to the Saudi Wahhabist islam, it has done much to overwhelm more moderate local interpretations of islam in Southeast Asia, and to pitch the Saudi-interpretation of islam as the "gold standard" of religion in minds of muslims across the globe.

Patrick Cockburn accused the islamofascist Saudi dictator family of supporting extremist islamist groups in the Syrian Civil War, writing: "In Syria, in early 2015, it (i.e. the islamofascist Saudi dictator family) supported the creation of the Army of Conquest, primarily made up of the al-Qaeda affiliate the al-Nusra Front and the ideologically similar Ahrar al-Sham, which won a series of victories against the Syrian Army in Idlib province."

While the islamofascist Saudi dictator family's "government" denies claims that it exports religious or cultural extremism, it is argued that by its nature, Wahhabism encourages intolerance and promotes terrorism. Former CIA director James Woolsey described it as "the soil in which Al-Qaeda and its sister terrorist organizations are flourishing." In 2015, Sigmar Gabriel, Vice-Chancellor of Germany, accused the islamofascist Saudi dictator family of supporting intolerance and extremism, saying: "Wahhabi mosques are financed all over the world by Saudi Arabia (i.e. the islamofascist Saudi dictator family). In Germany, many dangerous islamists come from these communities." In May 2016, The New York Times editorialised that the islamofascist Saudi dictator family allied to the U.S. had "spent untold millions promoting Wahhabism, the radical form of Sunni islam that inspired the 9/11 hijackers and that now inflames the islamic State".




Klevius additional comment: The pattern seems familiar when compared to the original aggression of islam in cooperation with (some) Jews*. Just take a look at the Jewiah-islamic relations by checking out e.g. the myth of "the Andalusian paradise", or the twisted life of Maimonides (you know, the "great Jewish thinker" who only survived islam by pretending to be a muslim).

* Today Jews who are critical to islamic Human Rights violations are forbidden by Theresa May from entering UK (e.g. Pamela Geller) while Jews who are supportive of the Saudi cause are welcomed and honored.

Klevius wrote:

Wednesday, August 05, 2015

The Jewish origin of islam


Islam is a sect grown out of Judaism via Christianity.


According to Human Rights there are no "chosen people". Meaning that you may believe whatever you like as long as you follow legislation guided by the principle of Universal equality.

 Here's an approximate map of Judaism just before the origin of islam.


And below an approximate map of the violent muslim colonization in the foot steps of the Jewish slave trade routes.

 The above maps could be almost identical if produced with same techniques. This is no coincident but due to the "mysterious" code (the Jews) that made Arab imperialism possible and historical analysis impossible ("mysterious") if not included.  

Except for Khazaria, Jews were more business orientated than eager to waive swords compared to their copycats the Arab Bedouins. However, without wealthy and influential Jews leading the bloodthirsty and illiterate Bedouins (compare Ibn-Khaldun's description) and paving the way for the Arab looters (compare how the Jews used Turkic people in Khazaria in pretty much the same manner) the "Arab conquest" would have quickly dried out in the Arabian sand.

Dear reader. When reading Klevius analysis of the origin of islam, do always keep in mind the following important facts:

1 There was no Koran - only some Jewish/Christian text manipulations.

2  There was no Muhammad - only the old Jewish Messias (the rescuer/saver/leader) myth. Muhammad as described by muslims is a later invention snd doesn't appear in any official documents whatsoever before Malik.

3  Conventional "descriptions" of the "Arab conquest" are impossible and leave historians "amazed". Instead looting, booty, and sex slaves were the main incentives for the Bedouins. What was new was a more tight racist system of "we-and-the-other" which hindered (for a time) hindered internal divisions. On top of this was the Dhimmitude taxation system under the sword.

4 Understanding these point is also understanding that islam originated as a parasite and therefore never functioned as inspiration in itself for innovations etc. This is why every islamic colony has ended in bachwardness. Africa is an example of how a parasitic ideology was able to drain a whole continent.

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

Britisharia and Saudi islamofascist spread vs. the anti-fascist Universal Human Rights Declaration of 1948


The islamofascist Saudi dictator family utilizes an ideology based on violent conquest (terror/extortion/enslavement), hate (non-muslim "kuffars") and contempt for the rights of others incl. women (sharia).  And various collaborators are paid to lick this shit and spread its awful smell all over us.

China lacks such an ideology. Yet Mrs May chooses Saudi islamofascism over healthy Chinese manufacturing, technological development and trade benefiting people  around the world - not wars and religious terror.

Mona Siddiqui pushing the Britisharia wagon (Britishariot) in line with Cameron's wish to make London the world's hub for islamofascist finance.
So how did the English end up as Britishariots? It's all about Saudi islamofascism (incl. its Gulf etc. collaborators)

Theresa May: The perversion of islam which underlines the ideology that has led to violence...

Klevius: ...is the same as underlines the ideology that has led to a sharia complex that, according to ECHR, isn't compatible with European values based on Human Rights. In fact, sharia in whatever form (e.g. the Saudi based and steered muslim world organization OIC), is the absolute opposite to the anti-fascist 1948 Human Rights declaration which considers all humans equal - even women.

Demonizing the truth alternative fake "truths" such as that "islam equals 1.5 Billion muslms" when islam in fact equals the interest of the islamofascist Saudi dictator family (plus its evil radiation).


The "rotten public" of today are the ignorant (or cowardice - or just benefiting from evil islamofascism) but "useful idiots".

If your nice neighbor turns out to be "right wing" (how "right wing" are May's Brexit fantasts)  it's usually very bad.

If s/he turns out to be nice but "islamophobic" it's almost like having a potential pedophile as your neighbor. Definitely worse than a potential but nice muslim terrorist.

However, if your nice neighbor turns out to be muslim it's good - no matter how close to the Saudi ideology s/he happens to be.

How come? And why not distinguish between Human Rights violating sharia muslims and other "muslims"? Right, because of sharia finance and lucrative business with the Devil himself. Who mentioned Faust? Mephisto?

Britisharia Broadcasting Company's cleaning* lady Mona Siddiqui

* According to historians (e.g. Hugh Kennedy and others) islam started as an attacking and looting religion where the main driving force was the "belief" in booty and sex slaves. And to keep the looters together they had to pray together five times a day so not to have time to slip over to "the wrong gang" - hence securing the cumulation of jihadi. This was then followed up by making as many women as possible pregnant under sharia marriage so that the offspring could be declared muslims. Moreover, these new muslims were then taught that the worst crime they could commit was leaving islam. Klevius thinks such an ideology is disgusting. So what about you" Or are you too intimidated to tell your opinion in the matter?

BBC's house imam Mona Siddiqui from Pakistan frequently babbles totally meaningless platitudes about islam in BBC's so called "news" programs. However, this supporter of islamofascism (defined as being against the most basic of the anti-fascist Human Rights in the 1948 declaration) also functions as the catalyst for the islamofascist Saudi dictator family which has managed to scandalize UN (which was created  to defend Human Rights equality) by bribing/threatening member states to rename Human Rights violating sharia as "islamic human rights" and now even got a key Human Rights role within UN although the islamofascist Saudi dictator family arguably has the worst record in the world. In other words, the ultimate desecration of what was meant to be the bastion against precisely such fascism.

Theresa May: "Many British people of different faiths follow religious codes and practices, and benefit a great deal from the guidance they offer."


Klevius: Sharia isn't "guidance"! Sharia is a way to avoid Human Rights equality.

Theresa May: "I start from the position that I don't think government should tell people, I don't think the government should tell women, what they should be wearing.

Klevius: But you think a patriarchal religion should do tell?

Theresa May: "I think it's for women to make a choice about what clothes they wish to wear. If they wish to wear a veil that is for a woman to make a choice.

Klevius: Is Mrs May really that ignorant? We aren't talking about a free individual choice under Human Rights here, we are talking about muslim girls/women under varying theocratic interpretations for the purpose of satisfying what it is supposed to mean to be collectively muslim.


Sunday, August 27, 2017

Klevius lackmus-lim test*: Why Klevius is morally superior to sharia muslim supremacists - and Mrs Theresa May's sharia "moral"**

* Just ask a racist Polishphobic "Brit" if s/he would dare to be equally critical to muslims. 

** Is it because of her close ties to the islamofascist Saudi dictator family that she knowingly accepts and supports sharia islamofascism in England - and therefore plays the race card against non-muslim EU residents (e.g. Polishphobia) in England?

How does Mrs May's, BBC's etc. extreme nationalist rhetoric (e.g. deliberately conflating 'immigrants' with EU 'residents' in England while simultaneously emphasizing "Britishness" and "our laws" and "our country") differ from e.g. BNP?  And isn't it enough that EU residents can't vote about their own status while non-EU residents in England (mostly muslims) are allowed to vote - now she wants to rob them of their last resort to protect themselves against racist "British legislation" by denying them the protection from the European Court of Justice?


Klevius' ("the extremely normal") moral rests on the basic (i.e. so called 'negative rights') Human Rights in the anti-fascist 1948 Universal Human Rights Declaration.

1 There can not exist an absolute fixed moral - just like there can not exist a forever fixed material culture - not even in a hunter/gatherer society (see Klevius book Demand for Resources (1992).

2 Any non-universal stance (e.g. religious) inevitably creates segregation and tensions - and especially in the case of islam constitutes a fertile ground for dangerous and divisive extremism. The only true "diversity" is the one made possible by the 1948 Human Rights declaration. And make no mistake, that declaration doesn't approve of a "freedom of religion" that breeds intolerance against everyone's Human Rights.

3 Only way to go then is negative Human Rights , i.e. to follow and adapt to a changing world while keeping impositions to a minimum and the rights of the individual to a maximum - which excludes every meaningful form of islam. Even the most "moderate" of sharia muslims will inevitably clash with Universal Human Rights. And if they don't, well then they will disappeare from Klevius' "islamophobia" scanner but might instead show up on the islamofascist apostasy scanner.

Mrs May's curriculum for sharia islamofascism sponsored by the islamofascist Saudi dictator family is rapidly turning England into an islamic caliphate where sharia replaces Human Rights - and pointing this out is so called "islamophobia"



London Bridge terrorist Khuram Butt worked as a teacher at an islamic primary community school in Eton where he 'radicalized children as young as four' in after school Koran classes as an unpaid volunteer.

Butt, Rachid Redouane and Youssef Zaghba drove a van into pedestrians and jumped out of  a van in London Bridge wearing fake suicide vests while Mrs Theresa May had to escape.




Not only Polish and other East European residents in England have been targeted by Mrs Theresa May's EU/Human Rights-phobia. Scandinavia's biggest newspaper Aftonbladet reports the same about "British racism" against Swedes in London.


EU-minister: "I'm chocked"

Thursday, August 24, 2017

Mrs Theresa May thinks Saudi sharia islamofascism is "good for the Brits" - but what about non-muslim EU residents in England?! Not to mention non sharia muslim Brits.


Mrs May hates Human Rights because they stand in the way of Saudi islamofascism and sharia. Will EU residents in the future be ruled by sharia rather than Human Rights?


By getting rid of European Court of Justice (ECJ) she can rob EU residents of more rights than any other group of people in England. Not surprising keeping in mind that London is a muslim city steered by a muslim mayor notorious for defending islamofascists, and that Theresa May is totally under the foot of the islamofascist Saudi dictator family.  


This is why Mrs May used to be so keen on getting rid of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) - which has ruled (2002) that islamic sharia is against Human Rights - that she (together with Cameron) used fringe exeples out of context to make the people in England believe Human Rights was something bad (compare e.g. that she blamed ECHR for not deporting Abu Qatada etc.). But not a word about the dangers of sharia that Human Rights could protect the English people from.


Mrs May now wants to get rid of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for the purpose of robbing EU residents of their most basic Human Rights.

This would mean robbing EU residents in England from their most basic Human Rights under which they were originally promised to be able to live in England - while English citizens residential in EU would still have their Human nRights protected by ECJ which sorts Human Rights issues in accordance with ECHR.

And for those who naively think that England would still belong to ECHR Klevius wants to remind of what he already in the 1990s wrote about and worked with
namely ECHR's "margin of appreciation" (see e.g. Klevius groundbreaking article Angles of Antichrist, or the cases Klevius as a solicitor brought to ECHR)) which means that ECHR avoids national laws to a certain extent within EU - and much more so with countries outside EU.

Ron Jones who was tortured by the islamofascist Saudi dictator family: "I have had little support from the UK government. It has shown itself to be more interested in maintaining good trade relations with Saudi Arabia."



Klevius: So English courts chose to defend Saudi islamofascism while ECHR let them do it because of the margin of appreciation.
.

Sunday, August 13, 2017

Klevius: England has more than enough "islamophobes" (i.e. anti sharia and pro Human Rights) to win an election - and a majority of "muslims" would probably approve of it

What is islam - and who is a muslim? Klevius suggests letting all "islamophobes" (incl. "muslim" ones)  out of the closet.


Merkel's flirt with Erdogan pushed England (not UK) over the Brexit cliff - May's flirt with the islamofascist Saudi "guardians of islam" lands it in a sharia swamp.



England committed a violation of fairness and legality when not allowing EU residents to vote about their own future - while allowing residents from non-EU nations to do so.

It would have been easy to include EU residents in this particular election.

Klevius advise to UKIP - independence for all parts of UK:

There's a huge demand for a new party. With just a slight altering UKIP could really be what its name stands for.



Anne Marie Waters islam criticism can give UKIP more votes than ever. The number of hiding "islamophobes" coming out in the voting boot would guarantee it. And if UKIP takes care of EU residents' full rights and then stops further immigration while putting the lid on sharia islamofascism - that would be a party program for success.

However, she has to pinpoint how sharia islam violates he most basic of Human Rights.

Talk Saudi based and steered OIC and its world sharia, Saudi Arabia's islamofascism spreading all over England with keen support from Theresa May, and explain to the people that islam in any meaningful form doesn't approve of the most basic of Human Rights, i.e what used to be the core of European values.

Moreover, ask the voters why England can't have a party leader whose opinion about sharia islam is the same as the one articulated by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

And why hide behind pathetic and truly evil rhetoric by only pointing to harmless cultural "muslims" - or "spiritual muslims" or just ignorant muslims without a clue about the true meaning of basic Human Rights and democracy, i.e. those who don't share the basic tenets of Saudi/OIC/Sharia islam and who happily would like to adopt to secular values witjhout having to fear islam's evil apostasy curse.

And why wouldn't islam be evil if its "custodians" are islamofascists and considered top muslims and leading and harboring the world's most important muslim organization (OIC)? Or are the islamic hate spreading Saudis no muslims after all?!

BBC (John Humhrey): It's tradition and pressure against women - but it's not legal. So why not let muslims continue these pressure traditions under sharia.


The deputy leader of the party ripped into the broadcaster during the debate on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, insisting England should have “a single legal system”.

But the presenter made the case that sharia courts were about adhering to “traditions” rather than implementing a parallel legal system.

Klevius: Racist and sexist islamofascist "traditions" are evil - period.


Klevius wrote:

Monday, May 01, 2017

Why is UKIP shooting itself in the foot with a Saudi/OIC made "islamophobia" bullet?


UKIP could get some half of the (non-sharia) muslim votes if they dared to criticize evil sharia islam instead of trying to kick out their bravest member, Anne Marie Waters.



Not only would a clear distinction between sharia muslims* and non-sharia "muslims" distinguish UKIP from Theresa May's pro-sharia policy, but it would also offer apostasy scared "muslims" a safe secret space in the voting boot - something that no other party seems to offer. In today's "islamophobia racism" accusations fascism, voters of all and no faith would finally have a channel for what they really think if a political party would just give them the chance.

* Defined as violating the most basic Human Rights equality as stated in the 1948 Universal Human Rights Declaration which was intended to stop all kinds of fascism - including religious ones.

Anne Marie Waters:   I would actually describe myself as a nationalist. I want the preservation of the nation-state. I’ve been very clear about that. The nation-state is the only way to guarantee accountable government. We cannot be governed by unelected globalist committees, as we are now. I mean, the United Nations may not have legal power to govern us, but our leaders are consistently seeking permission to run their own countries from internationalist bodies. I want the nation-state to run itself.

    The reason I object to “white nationalist” – and I have no problem with being white, and I have no problem with being nationalist – but the implication behind that is that I think you have to be white, for example, to be a British patriot. You do not. You do not. There are people of all colors in this country who want to preserve and respect British heritage and history.

Klevius comment: While Theresa May says that the Brits benefit from sharia, that doesn't mean that sharia is a "British value", does it. Nor is Theresa May's "investigation" of UK sharia courts serious because she uses a sharia muslim to complete the task. A serious investigator should have been someone whose expertise is UK law and Human Rights.


Tuesday, August 8, 2017

Klevius: Did Theresa May's "important ally", the islamofascist Saudi dictator family murder this dog walker?


83-year-old man died from "multiple stab wounds to his neck and head" after being attacked while walking his two dogs in woodland. Police lack theories/hypothesizes to work on - but Klevius has one to work from. 


Police: No known motive. Klevius: What about a qualified guess?


Ch Supt Fawcett added: "The motive remains unclear."

He said "dedicated teams" were investigating the case and a mobile police station has been set up at the scene. A cordon remains in place.

Klevius, who also happens to have a masters degree in criminology, now offers his help to the English police for free:

For solving a problem it's always good to start from some possible hypotheses.  But such a hypothesis need to be strong and therefore easily falsified. And we do know that violent muslims ready to commit hate crimes against the "infidels/kafirs" are behind most of these kinds of "stabbings to the neck and head". We also know that these muslims usually don't like dogs. So:

Two possible clues:

1 non-muslim stabbed to his neck and head.

Verse (47:4): When ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks.
Verse (8:12): When thy Lord was revealing to the angels, 'I am with you; so confirm the believers. I shall cast into the unbelievers' hearts terror; so smite above the necks.

2 Dog walker

According to Islam Questions and Answers, "It is not permissible for a muslim to keep a dog, unless he needs this dog for hunting, guarding livestock or guarding crops.

Needless to say, the more radical groups - such as e.g. Saudi supported Salafi muslims - take an even harsher stand in their interpretation of the already negative views expressed in the Koran and the hadiths. 

Theresa May says Saudi sharia cooperation is good for the Brits.

Is Theresa May an accomplice to this murder via her stubborn support of the islamofascist Saudi dictator family and its well known position as the main source of inspiration to islamic hate crimes against non-muslims?


Even if it turns out that this murder had nothing to do with muslims or islam, this fact would in no way disprove the use of such a working hypothesis that statistically is the most likely.

However, Ch Supt Fawcett has been told by Theresa May that, in the name of "diversity" (i.e. islam) and "sensitivities" (i.e. muslims)  he should avoid to express hypotheses such as the one offered by Klevius above. Moreover, it could cause more "islamophobia".

Is Theresa May an accomplice to this murder via her stubborn support of the islamofascist Saudi dictator family and its well known position as the main source of inspiration to islamic hate crimes against non-muslims?

And if it turns out that it really was a muslim hate crime against a non-muslim dog-walker, then it will probably be toned down and excused - e.g. by calling the perpetrator "mentally disturbed" etc.

Whereas Klevius defends everyon's Human Rights and never sides with violence and extremism, Theresa May is against Human Rights and indirectly supports Saudi extremism and islamic hate violence via her support of the world's main source of islamic extremism and spread of hate. And whereas Theresa May blames the messengers (the "islamophobes") for some extremely few (compared to attacks by muslims) and exaggerated* incidents by clearly mentally disturbed people, Klevius blames the underlining original hate ideology, its perpetrators and those who inspire them.

* When a mentally disturbed man drove a van against two muslims who were helping a third muslim already lying on the ground because of illness, it was reported that eight muslims were injured and one dead - without explaining that all the other minor injuries came from muslims who afterwards attacked the driver.

Polishphobia and EUphobia seem also to be "good for the Brits".

 Klevius was the first (2005-6) to realize and publish on the web the islamic sex slave context as the explanation to the Viking phenomenon.

When a Polish man recently was accused of participating in the kidnapping of a model for to be sold as a sex slave to muslims in Mideast (compare Origin of the Vikings) but freed by the kidnapper "because she was a mother", BBC for many days and in every news report repeatedly emphasized that "the perpetrator was a Polish citizen living in UK" - but not that it was about muslim sex slavery in accordance with the Koran.

Saturday, July 29, 2017

Fake "news" producing BBC's insidious propaganda for Saudi sharia islamofascism and against Human Rights, exemplified and generalized.


BBC again willfully and wrongly reported that it was because of European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decision that the brain damaged Charlie boy had to die. 

 BBC's Saudi raised muslim "diversity" mouthpieceMishal Husain doesn't fast during Ramadan but rather drinks some alcohol and gives a s--t to "islamic modesty". She also brags about being able to live her life inthe West without any of the worries facing girls/women in muslim countries. Klevius: Good for you - but it isn't thanks to islamic sharia but thanks to Human Rights.

Nothing could be more wrong. The truth was exactly the opposite to BBC's reporting - and BBC was well aware of it, yet didn't hesitate to again abuse its monopoly position, paid by license fees and tax money, to not only distort the actual case but also to use it in its never ending campaign against Human rights for the purpose of paving the way for Sunni muslim sharia. And this isn't because of any special love of muslims in general (especially not Shia muslims in Iran and Mideast) but because it benefits the islamofascist Saudi dictator family who is not only the self declared "custodian of islam" - which fact keeps  all the world's muslims in a Saudi/OIC steered  hostage situation while protecting the worst forms of islam - but also due to its oil/gas wealth that has bought them influence over its neighbors and Western politicians and Salafi mosque builders.

The truth re. poor Charlie boy is that ECHR didn't even touch the case but instead referred to its 'margin of appreciation' which constitutes the border line against involvement by the court in national matters.

This 'margin of appreciation' has been questioned from both directions, not the least by Klevius in some cases he brought to ECHR on the behalf of families who had been trampled on by the Swedish social state, but which were repelled by ECHR on the grounds that they fell outside the 'margin of appreciation' and that there was no reason for the court not to believe that the Swedish state had the best interest of the child highest on the agenda and that the Swedish courts had a better insight than ECHR in cases where families and the state differed in evaluation. Read more about it in Angels of Antichrist referred to below.

Klevius wrote:


Tuesday, July 04, 2017


Klevius' Angels of Antichrist should be compulsory reading for everyone dealing with children and sociology.


From Angels of Antichrist to Pathological Symbiosis - a brief history about Klevius fight for Human Rights against the social state.

Children 'still at risk' of being abused through state/council inventions not only in Jersey but all over England.

As Peter Klevius wrote in Angels of Antichrist (1996) 'state bureaucracy has its own inertia' based on powerful legislative lobbying by state bureaucrats themselves, poorly regulated commercial interests and without due responsibilities, authority status, and a psychosocial swamp of hoax social "science". And all of this is "justified" because the state functions as the ultimate custodian.

However, by addressing and accepting the problems above - especially the fact that the social state now functions like whatever big corporation with the added benefits of authority and legislation, no clear profit and quality responsibility, and no problem with bankruptcy etc. - a slimmed down and more effective and humane welfare state could emerge. I.e. one that puts its "clients", not itself, first.

Angels of Antichrist was based on Klevius earlier articles as well as his experience as a solicitor for parents who had been robbed of their children without no real ground for it.

Angels of Antichrist is perhaps the most important sociological paper from the last Century - yet one of the least read and understood, possibly because it's the first to combine kinship, social state and sex segregation in one clear analysis firmly mounted to solid empirical (although often hard to swallow) facts.

Angels of Antichrist now resides on several locations on the web. Here some examples:


The original version from 1996





This article 'Where the law ends tyranny begins' from 1993 was published in Finland in Hufvudstadsbladet, and is a predecessor to Angels of Antichrist. Here later published on NKMR's web site.

And here's an other from 1994.

However, Peter Klevius himself recommends the updated version from 2006 on Klevius web museum, which deliberately hasn't been touched upon for more than a decade.

The social state hides its Human Rights atrocities behind the 'Margin of Appreciation'

Some points quoted from Angels of Antichrist (Klevius 1996):


the social state creates its own problems in a way which are beyond all conceptions of human rights

The authorized and monopolized interpretation of "the best interest of the child" (created by small and non-representative but strongly influential groups of legislators) has established a powerful and legal child trade system within the social state. (This legal child trade works within the "margin of appreciation" and thus, until now, out of reach for e.g. the European Convention of Human Rights.) Parents live under constant threat from the social workers, and their children can be abducted and placed into commercial foster "care" on the basis of purely subjective (e g psycho-dynamic) opinions.

Pamela Geller and others got it all wrong when accusing Human Rights because the very opposite is true, i.e. that ECHR doesn't rule within 'the margin of appreciation' which fact is clearly stated in this case. In this respect it resembles ECHR's reluctance to deal with cases of the state abducting children on questionable grounds, as Klevius pointed out in Angels of Antichrist (1992) after ECHR dismissed a couple of Klevius cases on the grounds that they were 'within the margin of appreciation'. Klevius still remembers the hopelessness he saw in the eyes of his clients.

ECHR: The Court bore in mind the considerable room for manoeuvre (“wide margin of appreciation”) left to the authorities in the sphere concerning access to experimental medication for the terminally ill and in cases raising sensitive moral and ethical issues, reiterating that it was not for the Court to substitute itself for the competent domestic authorities.

A further proposal was made to make it easier for the authorities to isolate pregnant women suspected of living in a way that could be harmful to the unborn child (the formulation does not say ’her’ child - the child is the property of the state). I think this can hardly be in accordance with the spirit and intention of the European Convention or of the UN Human Rights Convention.

Professor in jurisprudence Jacob Sundberg, who has defended human rights against the Swedish system for decades, became a serious dissident on the University of Stockholm in the late eighties (the ius docendi affair). His efforts and the incorporating of Sweden in EU have forced the Swedish juridical system to pay, at least some attention to what earlier was called "strange thoughts of catholic reactionaries from the south". The Swedish strategy seems, however to avoid these "strange thoughts" by lobbying their own.

Today the social state, more or less, runs its own race with little dependence on political parties and the legal actions against children are largely subjective; there are, in other words relatively few drug abusers, alcoholics and clearly mentally disturbed persons among the parents. This trading of children has expanded beyond all imaginable limits and today makes up one of the heaviest costs of the municipalities in Sweden. Thus, the proportion of foster children in Sweden is 6-12 times higher than in Japan, a welfare state where, according to UN statistics, the quality of children's lives are valued most highly in the world. It hardly needs mentioning that Japan is the oldest and most family centred developed country in the World. In fact, the interventions made by the social authorities have been roughly proportional to juvenile delinquency of non-economic types. In Japan, child-criminality is still on a very low level whereas the Swedish figures might well be among the highest in the world. We are hampered in realistic assessment about this, however, since such cases are transferred to the social authorities, out of reach for statistics and international police-agreements.

Conclusions

If I were a stockbroker and if the social state was on the list I would probably invest in it. Which stocks could be safer? However, I’m not sure I like the business idea.

We might ask: After such a clean sweep, what is left on the dining table to eat? There is not really very much that presents itself in the way of alternatives to a rigid, biological, fundamentalist society. Some sort of protection, however is needed for the free, atomized souls inhabiting society, mother- and fatherless and with limited or, in practice, often superficial or non-existing kin- or friendship ties.

The totalitarian enemy grows at approximately the same rate as the individual weakens. Kinship, friendship and family values are needed but without being strangled by religion and sex segregation. A rule of law based on human rights, but these rights must be formulated so that they provide a bulwark against the very real enemy threat: the social state. Individuals have to be protected by the negative rights of the individual, in sharp contrast to the collective (society’s) positive rights of the socialistic ideology. Pluralism versus centralized state power.

In conclusion I would like to quote a hesitant Swedish feminist Maud Eduards; "But can women trust the state to take care of their interests? And will a society ruled and regulated by the state, with mean possibilities of private life, benefit women?"

This I will argue is a relevant question for women, men and children around the world. Although it is a rare one, the book I dearly would like to read is part two of Selma Lagerlöf’s "The Miracles of Antichrist". This is even rarer because she never came to write it. My guess is that its name might have been "Angels of Antichrist".


Shouldn't social state people be sentenced for manslaughter, child abuse etc.?


The most serious charge of manslaughter in England is gross negligence manslaughter which carries a maximum life sentence on conviction.

Gross negligence manslaughter is a form of involuntary manslaughter where the offender did not intend to kill or cause really serious harm.  Instead the death resulted  from gross negligence.

The complex law was clarified in a House of Lords ruling in 1994 in the case of R v Adomako. The test for gross negligence manslaughter is now known as the Adomako Test. It has four stages.

To secure a conviction, the Crown Prosecution Service must show firstly the existence of a duty of care to the deceased.

Then, it must prove that duty of care was breached,

and thirdly that the breach of duty  caused or else significantly contributed to the deaths.

Finally, prosecutors would have to convince a jury that the breach should be characterized as gross negligence, and therefore a crime.


Gross negligence manslaughter is used to prosecute people who fail in a duty of care, causing someone's death.

Klevius question: When will people who were responsible for this be prosecuted?
Klevius question: Does molesting non-muslims by muslims deserve a shorter sentence?


Klevius scientific follow up analysis of Angels of Antichrist is a thesis called Pathological Symbiosis, which is the hereto most thorough one in its field. It not only the first to trace this hoax psychodynamic "diagnosis" to all its sources, but it also meticulously investigates legislation about it as well as its practical usage in social work and in the judicial process. And as an extra bonus it offers an appendix containing email correspondence with the author of the text that was used in the preparatory works for the Swedish Parliament - which, btw, mostly wasn't aware of it because it was cleverly hidden within a few lines in a many hundred pages work. Not even Klevius professor Henrik Tham believed it to be true before Klevius put the book in front of him.

When Klevius lectured about this he was contacted by the Swedish Government's muslim advisor who got so scared so he proposed that muslims should be exempted from the child care act (LVU).



Klevius wrote:

Tuesday, May 05, 2015


Why didn't you resque these girls from muslim predators? UK police: We thought they were child prostitutes (sic)!


The social state is much more devastating to children than any private company - and waste much more money!


A UK mother who found 125 names of potential (most/all muslims?) sex abusers on her daughter’s mobile phone claims she was told by police in Rotherham it would be a "breach of the girl’s human rights" if they investigated.

Klevius translation: Note that we are talking about underage girls who would have no Human Rights protection against social state interventions (aided by the police) whatsoever (to understand this and the tiltle see Angels of Antichrist and Pathological Symbiosis). What they really meant was that it would be a breach of the muslims' human rights (read "diversity policy") if they investigated. And this is the dilemma - Human Rights cover all, including muslims, whereas sharia opposes Human Rights - which fact doesn't hinder muslims (and their supporters) from abusing Human Rights when it serves themselves.!

The parasitic social state that feeds itself on behalf of the taxpayers and children while giving a s--t to non-muslim girls abused by muslims. Don't approve a penny before getting rid of the parasites residing in the social state! And one thing is definitive: Ed Milliband will continue supporting these parasites.


Rotherham has been totally dominated by Labour since World War 2. Compare the total dominance of the Swedish social democrats who created the disastrous Swedish social state all the way from Gunnar and Alva Myral's "social hygiene"  in the 1930s and due eugenics to the explosive tax injection in the 1970s and due birth of the modern social state. Some results: The Swedish "girl problem" (which Klevius has written about since 1993), high child/youth criminality, and a school system that 2015 is classified among the worst within OECD and heavily criticized in a recent OECD report. Yet Sweden has compulsory school attendance and doesn't admit homeschooling at all for normal children (alone in Europe together with Germany whose Hitler imposed law is still in power).

Learn more on Angels of Antichrist and Pathological Symbiosis


Joyce Thacker has been a central figure in the responsibility for letting children be abused and even murdered. How much does she get from your tax money, and will she be rewarded in the usual way for defending islam while not defending children.

Politicians in bed with islamofascism is a disaster for Human Rights

A vote for Ed Milliband is a vote against children's rights

Ed Miliband is the son of Polish immigrant parents. His mother, Marion Kozak, is a Polish Jew who survived the Holocaust thanks to being protected by Poles. His father, Ralph Miliband, was a Belgian-born Polish Jewish Marxist academic who fled with his father to England during World War II.

Rochdale is notorious for its muslim sex predators abusing white British girls taken into "care" by the social state.

Rochdale Labour councillor Shakil Ahmed is the dad of now freed(?!) terrorist suspect Waheed Ahmed who was arrested and accused of trying to go to Syria with eight of his relatives.



'Extreme islam' and 'extremist muslims' vs. ?

No, there is nothing to counter evil islam. Extreme islam has no alternative simply because islam is extreme in itself. Islam can never comply with the basic universal equality principle of Human Rights. That's because islam is based on racism and sexism, i.e. supremacy! Klevius therefore fully agrees with Erdogan's statement that there are no moderate muslims because there is no moderate islam.

And they are all around us ready to squeeze in more of islam whenever opportunities arise - and always ready to excuse islam from whatever that can be seen as unfavorable to islam.



BBC behaves precisely as those who let muslims continue their sex slavery (aka "grooming") in Rochdale, Rotherham and elsewhere!






Chief Crown Prosecutor for the north-west of England, Nazir Afzal was "removed" due to 'on-going drive for efficiency' after being investigated for allegation he sent a text message to a (muslim?) defendant in a court case.

Nazir Afzal to BBC's (deliberately?) toothless (and therefore useless) presenter Edward Stourton: It has nothing to do with islam. I know that the vast majority of offenders are British white male.

However, although white British men (because most Brits are "white" - "colored" muslims constitute below 3-5% and Pakistani/Bangladesh muslims even less) are the majority of abusers in the British population as a whole, the specific type of grooming offence and especially the very highly organised sex abuse such as we’ve seen in Rotherham and elsewhere, is dominated by muslims and follows Koranic principles from the origin of islam.