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

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.