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

Monday, March 27, 2017

UK didn't vote to leave the EU - the vote was undemocratic and rigged!

 

"British" stands today for naked racism - in the service and submission to the islamofascist Saudi dictator family, its allies - and sharia.



The Brexit vote was undemocratic because EU-nationals who were UK residents were not allowed to vote about being robbed of those very rights their decision to reside in UK were based on.

The Brexit vote was rigged because non-EU/non-UK national residents in UK were allowed to vote about EU.

According to several polls, the UK Government seems to be way more racist than UK citizens.


An ICM poll after the referendum found some 84 per cent of British people support letting EU migrants stay, including 77 per cent of Leave voters. And a more recent Opinium poll found that only five per cent of Britons think EU nationals currently living in the UK should be asked to leave.


Klevius wrote:

Tuesday, March 14, 2017

Is dog-whistle speech about "Brits" and sharia vs EU nationals and Human Rights conducive to the interest of the people in UK?

  The Empire the Foundation and the Mule

The natsy sorry nasty party that Theresa May warned about before becoming PM has turned even nastier under her watch.

Theresa May and David Davies use the EU "race card" in divisive dog-whistle hate speech about "Britishness" to induce hatred and impart ever-increasing feelings of vulnerability, marginalization, and fear for their safety among not only EU citizens in UK but also among many women in general - not the least those who "suffer" from "shariaphobia".

Theresa May's and David Davies' talks about "Brits" and "British values" means to many (most?) UK "Brits" the very opposite.

EU residents in UK had no democratic say in the Brexit vote. However, both UK nationals in EU as well as Commonwealth nationals in UK had the right to vote.





Klevius wrote:

Monday, March 13, 2017

Who are the most racist "Brits"? Klevius: What about David Davies and Theresa May and their dog-whistle politics against EU citizens and for arms sales to islamofascist regimes - and sharia money laundering in London?

While children and adults are suffering under the ongoing slaughtering in Mosul, BBC fills its fake "news" with talk about Aleppo in 2016!

Here's a hint from Klevius to some alternative and more up to date topics:

Brexit politicians tapping into heavy and questionable bias without being explicit about it - how dumb are the UK "Brits" supposed to be?


Klevius introduces a new word, 'Bracism'


A militant PM who doesn't hesitate nuking innocent people or selling arms to war criminals, and a racist Brexit minister cheating people in UK with dog-whistle language. Also, do note that there's a (supposed to be) secret Memorandum of Understanding between the UK’s Home Office and its counterpart in the islamofascist Saudi dictator family.

'Bracism' stands for racially coded language used by UK politicians for the purpose of boosting a racist agenda against non-Commonwealth EU citizens while also pretending to be on the side of those UK citizens who voted Brexit for the very opposite reason, namely to lower immigration of uncontrolled islamists and Human Rights violating sharia muslims from outside the EU. Do note that just before the referendum the main issue at stake was the fear of an uncontrolled flood of potentially islamist immigrants/"refugees" from/via Turkey.

British racism against EU citizens other than Commonwealth people constitutes manipulation of racism in service of a specific agenda not necessarily shared by residents and citizens of UK.

By using the deceptive and deeply racist "British people" terminology in "Brexit" context, David Davies, Theresa May etc. in fact adhere to the lowest level of dog-whistle politics - well aware of the fact that EU citizens (other than from Commonwealth countries) who are residents in UK already have less rights - including that they weren't even allowed to have a democratic vote in the referendum (as had Commonwealth residents in UK).

"Bracist" coded speech triggers racial anxiety while allowing deniability by crafting language that lets the speaker deny that he's even thinking about what s/he is in fact .

Outright racist language has been replaced "Bracism" type of speech but is working as hard as ever to drum up support for certain policies.

Theresa May's nasty party" proposes welcome signs on airport for wealthy people from Commonwealt while neo-colonizing Africa through investments in S-A, Nigeria etc. countries rich in for UK desirable raw materials.











Klevius wrote:


Tuesday, July 19, 2016


Theresa May said she would authorize a nuclear strike killing 100,000s of innocent people. However, Klevius thinks that's insane - and for once shares Corbyn's view


Would it really be in the best interest of the "Brits" (and the Scots) to send little Britain's nukes somewhere in Russia, the world's biggest country, that has never shown any signs of using nukes for attacks?

Perhaps the UK Parliament should rethink its vote on Trident - just as some suggest the Brits should rethink their vote on Brexit.

1 Only one country, USA, has ever used nuclear weapons - and twice and mainly against innocent civilians in Japan.



2 "Terror balance" originated in the aftermath of WW2 and the US fear of a new totalitarian threat from the Communist Soviet Union (USSR), and a corresponding Communist will to world hegemony from the Kremlin, which saw the US (besides already Communist China) as its main remaining rival - and the one with the most powerful military potential. However, due to the geographical location of the US, USSR started developing missile technologies (for transporting nukes) to an extent that also resulted in the first man made satellite and the first man in space. As a result we ended up in a "terror balance" situation that in practice made it impossible for either centrally steered nation to ever "push the button" - not even at the so called Cuba crisis.

3 In the world of today the nuke scenario is completely different. Not only are conventional weapons both more effective and less wasteful with civilian casualties, they are also widespread and easily movable. The same could be said of modern nukes  - hence puncturing the deterrent argument.

4 The right to "push the button" is usually in one (or a few) human hands. The whereabout of that human is always uncertain - and would the killing of that human justify the lives of 100,000s of innicent?

5 The biggest nuke threat comes from islam, e.g. muslim Pakistan or muslim terrorists. Why? Simply because of the origin of islam, i.e. the Koran, Mohammad and the Hadiths that inspire islamic terror.

Muhammad: I have been made victorious by terror


The dictionary definition of terrorism is “the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear." Sadly, we are living in an age that we do not need to consult a dictionary to learn the meaning of terrorism. Even our children know about it and are affected by it. 

Islamic terrorism, however, did not start in 9/11 of 2001, nor did it start with the Iranian Islamic Revolution in 1979. Islamic terrorism has its origin in the sayings and examples set by Muhammad. 

In the last ten years of his life, after Muhammad migrated to Medina , he launched no less than 78 raids called qazwa (raid, ambush, sudden attack). Some of these qazwas involved the assassination of one opponent by one or a group of volunteers, and others were carried out by hundreds or thousands of warriors. Nonetheless a common characteristic of all Muhammad’s incursions was that they were done without notice. The enemy was caught off guard without being given the chance to prepare himself or be armed.  As such all Muhammad’s victims were civilians. 

The historian Abul Husain Muslim Nisapuri writes:

Ibn 'Aun reported: I wrote to Nafi' inquiring from him whether it was necessary to extend (to the disbelievers) an invitation to accept (Islam) before meeting them in fight. He wrote (in reply) to me that it was necessary in the early days of Islam. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) made a raid upon Banu Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others. On that very day, he captured Juwairiya bint al-Harith. Nafi' said that this tradition was related to him by Abdullah b. Umar who (himself) was among the raiding troops.”  Muslim 19: 4292 

 Muhammad used the same element of surprise in virtually all his raids. Bukhari writes:

Allah's Apostle (p.b.u.h) offered the Fajr prayer when it was still dark, then he rode and said, 'Allah Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. When we approach near to a nation, the most unfortunate is the morning of those who have been warned." The people came out into the streets saying, "Muhammad and his army." Allah's Apostle vanquished them by force and their warriors were killed; the children and women were taken as captives. Safiya was taken by Dihya Al-Kalbi and later she belonged to Allah's Apostle go who married her and her Mahr was her manumission. Bukhari 2.14.068

Here we read that Muhammad said: “the most unfortunate is the morning of those who have been warned.” This should not be interpreted as announcing his plans for war. Actually not even his men knew which town they are going to attack until they reached at the gates of that town.  He sent spies to the cities that he wanted to attack and ambushed them when they were least prepared. This “warning” should be interpreted with the understanding of the Muslim mind. As far as Muslims are concerned we are all warned. They have called us to convert or prepare to die. This is the warning. There will be no other warning. Now that they have issued the warning, we are all fair game. All the non-Muslims are legitimate targets of Islamic terrorism. Muslim warriors today, do what their prophet did and follow his examples. The pattern and the modus operandi, is already set.  All Muslims’ wars and conquests have been through raid.  This has been always the case and the secret of their success.  In one hadith Muhammad boasted, “I have been made victorious through terror”. Bukhari 4:52.220

About four years after Hijra, an ambulant vendor came to Medina reporting that the tribes of Anmar and Tha’laba, (sun clans of Ghatfan) have gathered in Dhatal Riqa’. Upon hearing this news Muhammad left his loyal companion Utham in charge of the city and with a group of four hundred men (or seven hundred) warriors immediately headed to the place of the gathering of these Arab tribes. He found no one there but a few women, between them there was a beautiful girl. They captured the women. The men of the tribe took refuge in the mountains. (Ibn Sa’d Tabaqat  V. 2 P. 59)

When the prayer time came, the Muslims were afraid that the Ghatafan men might descend from their mountain hideout and make a sudden attack on them while they were praying. Apprehending this fear, Muhammad introduced the ‘prayer of fear,’ where a party of faithful stands guard while the other party prays. Then they take turns. A revelation came from Allah on this provision regarding shortening of a prayer. (4:100-102) 

And when you journey in the earth, there is no blame on you if you shorten the prayer, if you fear that those who disbelieve will cause you distress, surely the unbelievers are your open enemy. (4:101)

Two months after the raid of Dhatal Riqa’ Muhammad received the news that a large group of Ghatfan has gathered in the oasis of Dumatal Jandal, between Hijaz and al-Sham to barter goods. This place was five nights journey from Medina . Muhammad immediately gathered one thousand of his followers. They rode during the night and hid during the day.  Muhammad also took the informer who was from the tribe of Bani udhrah as the guide. He reached this group at night time and the footprints of their herds of goats and camels could were still on the ground. The Muslims raided the herds of the animals, some of the shepherds were killed and some escaped. Muslims collected a large spoil.  When the news reached the people of Domat, they scattered and the Prophet found no one in their place. He stayed a few days and sent various groups to the neighborhood to investigate but they returned having found no one, except one man whom they took as captive.  Muhammad asked him about the tribe, the man said when the people heard about the raid they escaped. The Prophet then called upon him to accept Islam, which he did and then the Muslims returned to Medina . (Ibn Sa’d Tabaqat  V. 2 P. 60)

Muslim historian claim that Muhammad the Qatfan were planning to attack Muslims. This is typical Islamic mindset, that always blames their victims. As the their own tale makes it clear, these people were a bunch of nomads and herdsmen and not warriors. Today Muslims use the same excuses and blame their victims to justify thier crimes against humanity. As an Arab proverb says: Darabani, wa baka; Sabaqani, wa'shtaka “ He struck me, and started crying; then he went ahead of me and charged me with beating him!”  This has been Muhammad’s and his followers modus operandi.

Tuesday, March 14, 2017

Is dog-whistle speech about "Brits" and sharia vs EU nationals and Human Rights conducive to the interest of the people in UK?


  The Empire the Foundation and the Mule

The natsy sorry nasty party that Theresa May warned about before becoming PM has turned even nastier under her watch.

Theresa May and David Davies use the EU "race card" in divisive dog-whistle hate speech about "Britishness" to induce hatred and impart ever-increasing feelings of vulnerability, marginalization, and fear for their safety among not only EU citizens in UK but also among many women in general - not the least those who "suffer" from "shariaphobia".

Theresa May's and David Davies' talks about "Brits" and "British values" means to many (most?) UK "Brits" the very opposite.

EU residents in UK had no democratic say in the Brexit vote. However, both UK nationals in EU as well as Commonwealth nationals in UK had the right to vote.


Wednesday, March 8, 2017

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family as the "custodian of islam" and Saudi based and steered OIC and its worldwide sharia declaration, constitute the worst threat to women's Human Rights.


Peter Klevius on Women's Day: Make sex segregation/apartheid in whatever form a hate crime when the motive is sexism*, i.e. a denial of girls' and women's full Human Rights.


* That would include bullying girls and women for their appearance or behavior just because of their sex.


The worst hate speech comes from islam itself - yet it's protected by blasphemy/"hate speech"/"islamophobia" etc. regulations/propaganda by spineless politicians and greedy finance people.


Is this divisive islamofascist Saudi hate preacher a muslim?



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

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

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of sex...


Klevius question: Why are women accomplices to their own segregation/apartheid?

True feminist theory fits well with sharia - but not with full Human Rights equality.

Klevius answer:Feminism was originally created in the late 19th century (as was Freud's sexist "psychoanalysis") as a reaction to women's liberation. And true feminist theory still follows that very same original and segregational* formula.

* Do understand that segregation can go both ways - enforced from outside or self inflected. Also consider the "explanatory" power of "victimhood" and how it wraps itself in a protective bubble of accusations - hence excluding part of the solution. Many males have also suffered from similar segregation but without (except for "black African-Americans", or "black" Africans etc. "suffering" from "white colonialism" so called "white privilege") similar categories to group themselves with.


Klevius wrote:

Saturday, May 30, 2015


Klevius diagnosis of feminism: Bipolar self goal


 In 1921 England had the world's best female football team. However, due to feminist resistance against females playing football FA banned them from its grounds. The decision was based on a female feminist physician's expert statement that "...the game of football is quite unsuitable for females and ought not to be encouraged."

In Sweden, from the late 1960's for about about a decade feminists (the communist Grupp 8 - Sweden's main feminist movement) very actively opposed female football. Later on Swedish feminists still oppose female football although more under cover and in the form of spitting at penis equipped football experts dealing with female football as "patriarchal domination" when in reality it's been the lack of female ones that has been the problem. And this lack is of course to a large extent to be connected to the active female dismissal of female football. Which fact doesn't exclude the "religious" renaissance for sexist men, not the least via islam. As Klevius has always pointed out: Chauvinism and feminism are married!


Women's World Cup starts next Saturday - how many girls know about it, can follow it, and are made interested in the world's most challenging and popular sport? 


It was extremely close that we could have ended up with a sharia muslim ("prince Ali) leading FIFA. A sharia muslim whose main work for women's football so far has been to open up for a veil demand on female muslim players around the world by lifting the ban on the veil (presented as something positive by BBC). 

Klevius is no fan of Blatter's suggestion about improving the interest in women's football by introducing "hot-pants"* on the pitch, but thinks it would be even less helpful for girls/women to have a sharia muslim at the top.

* No offense to "hot-pants" - but they would just cover up the real problem of sex segregation/apartheid. Football isn't beach volley.

 
Acknowledgement to Americans from the US: In the following the word 'football' really means FOOTBALL - not any form of rugby! In football a player isn't allowed to touch the ball with her/his hands inside the pitch - in American "football" players use only their hands during normal play.

In Cannes women are forced to wear high heels - in London they aren't allowed to drive! Sanctioned by feminism and religion.


Chasidic Jews in Stamford Hill, London, ban women drivers due to "modesty" and "dignity".


Rabbi Yissachar Dov Rokeach, has advised them to introduce a policy of not allowing pupils to come to their schools if their mothers drive. From August 2015 children would be barred from their schools if their mothers drove them there.

In an interview with a woman who had been a member of the Belz community for ten years until she divorced her husband, said that she didn't see the religious rules as problematic because she was "normalized" into them.

Klevius comment: Like muslim women. Those rules are based on Talmud, a 73 volume early medieval haystack full of cherries ready to pick for almost whatever reason. Talmud is a Jewish "effort" to discuss and guess what "God" could possibly have meant with cryptic paragraphs inscribed by early "prophets" in the pre-medieval Torah.

Feminism and religion

 Klevius, the world's foremost expert on sex segregation (no competition there - sad isn't it), has for more than three decades fought practically (personal life, educator, coach, etc) and theoretically (books, articles, academic thesis, TV, radio, media production, web sites and blogs, etc) for girls'/women's rights. However, although there are many stunning girls/women out there, they have almost no power against that power patriarchy that most women have let themselves lured into defending.

The original meaning of 'feminism' was to keep women segregated from men via their 'femininity'. That's why early feminists even opposed the vote.


The first definition of 'feminism' you get when googling it is:

the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.
synonyms:  the women's movement, the feminist movement, women's liberation, female emancipation, women's rights; informal women's lib
"a longtime advocate of feminism"


In other words exactly what Kleviushas worked for - except for the word 'feminis-m/t'. How could Klevius possibly call himself a 'feminist' if sharia (OIC) supporting muslims call themselves the same?!



Japan is the reigning world champion in women's football. They also took silver in the last Olympics. How come? Football is a tiny sport in Japan which was left contaminated not only by the horror and radioactivity from two US atom bombs but also by the US form of rugby (aka "American football") and base ball. The answer is that Japan didn't become contaminated with Western religions which are all based on sex segregation/apartheid*. In Judaic religions Eve was made out of a bone (a rib) that Adam could live without. She was made to entertain Adam (heterosexual attraction) and considered inferior to him so that he could be her guardian (sex segregation/apartheid).

* When Klevius compared Western and Japanese women's movements of the late 19th century he made an interesting observation. Whereas Western sources mostly discussed "women's sexual liberation" the Japanese sources were more interested in the opposite, namely how to protect themselves from unwanted sexual impositions. This could then be connected to Murasaki Shikibu's thousand years old novel (the world's first) Genji Monogatari which describes a woman trying to make sense of her experience of the heterosexual attraction (read Klevius more than decade old unchanged website if you don't know what it is - you'll have a hard time find it anywhere else on the Google web) that her body causes in male brains and how she should deal with it while not loosing herself in it. It's possibly the best book ever written (analyzed in Klevius 1992). 

However, today when we have 1) Human Rights, and 2) six decades of seeing revealed female forms everywhere, we (most of us) have learned: 1) Women are fully humans and should therefore have the same Human Rights as men, and
2) we (most of us) feel no urge whatsoever to sexually assault or rape a woman no matter how sexy we might think her body looks like. Even the very thought makes us (most of us) uncomfortable*. Biological heterosexual attraction is a one way affair but hetero erotics needs not only the woman's body but also her full will to participate or show up. Even pornography needs to convince the viewer that the woman wants to be sexy. Rapography and other erotics without some form of consent is simply necrophilia.

* Could this be the reason why some rapetivist cultures need to sexually dehumanize girls/women.




Here two responses to the article above that really shows the polarized world of women today: 


Tigger 9 days ago   

High heels are the western equivalent of 19th century Chinese foot-binding. I've never understood why women should wish this torture on themselves - even paying astronomical sums for the dubious 'privilege'.
flag / like / reply

    sszorin 9 days ago   

    @Tigger The fight against high heels is a waste of time and effort because most women prefer them. The answer is - design and make comfortable high heel shoes, physical pain should not accompany elegance. This said, 6in minimum is over the top. 3in is high enough for official engagements.
    flag / like / reply
    sszorin 9 days ago    


Klevius comment:  "Because most women prefer high heels"!? One might truly question the solidity of this latter statement. It's like saying "most women in Saudi Arabia prefer to wear a black burqa in 40 degree Celsius". However, more importantly, by saying so you impose the rule of "most" on those who might disagree. Just like sharia women want to impose restrictions on other girls/women.