Why hasn't Klevius got the Nobel prize for his theory on consciousness/AI?

Homo Naledi - and a late "West" hating lawyer relative. A judge for May?

The "Birmingham Koran" hoax - and a sonless "prophet" invented after it!

Prince Charles accuses islam's atrocities in Mideast etc. on "Euro populism like the Nazis"

Prince Charles accuses islam's atrocities in Mideast etc. on "Euro populism like the Nazis"

The muslim Saudi dictator family is the root of most islam induced suffering

While laughter moves out from BBC, islamization moves in

BBC lies and fake news

Lego won't sponsor the defense for Human Rights equality - but islamofascism and sharia is ok

Hillary supports sharia for women, war with Russia and aid to Sunni islamofascists

While Klevius is forcing islam into a Human Rights corner, Obama continues supporting islamofascism

Apostate (?) Obama's bio- and adoptive dads were both muslims

Islam was born out of what Human Rights consider evil

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

Audi then built by Jewish slaves - today dangerous quality problems

Subaru was a decade before Audi with mass produced 4WD cars! And unlike Audi they were reliable and safer to drive.

Saudi based and steered OIC is a muslim extremist organization

The birth of modern humans

The islamofascist Saudi Fuhrer of the Saudi based OIC and its Human Rights violating sharia.

Out of Africa as Koranic slaves

The Arab/islamic slave trade throughout 1400 years is by far the most extensive and disgusting in the history of the world (see e.g. Lal's example from India to better understand how the system worked). However, ask your kids if their teacher has even mentioned it! Guess not, cause that would be "islamophobia", the worst crime in Sharia next after apostasy, i.e. leaving islam (OIC is busy abusing UN for the purpose of criminalizing criticism of islam/Sharia. OIC is even introducing a global Sharia ruled criminal court for the purpose of defending the worst crime ever against humanity). Moreover, islam itself was a product of slave raiding and trading. The Koran was just a later assembled manual for excusing looting, slavery and rapetivism. Don't ask yourself why muslim "extremists" have behaved so badly but rather why islam encourages them to do so. Don't wonder about why muslim majority countries have been so backward and poor (except when they've lived on slavery and oil). Read history and realize that islam is pure parasitism. When did you last time buy a car or a camera etc. produced by an Arab muslim country?

If you have to pray, please do it for yourself - not as collective mob supporting islamofascism!

True islam and an ignorant white Western nun

Origin of the Goths and the Vikings

The world's oldest real portrait ever found (Central Europe). Carvings dated to 26-29,000 bp.

Japan's successful return to Earth mission 10 yrs before Europe's failed Rosetta

Origin of islam: One way Sharia slave finance and sex apartheid

The faith problem - rapetivism and Christian/muslim rap cooperation

Two slavs and one ex-muslim hit islam in its groin

Mishal Husain, Samantha Lewthwaite, Michael Adebolajo have sharia islam in common

Muslims and Hillary against Human Rights

We're all born unequal - that's why we need Human Rights, not islam!

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

The native Brits from Doggerland spoke a proto-Finnish/Uralic language

Klevius main legacy will be the bias his IQ-powered interdisciplinary research reveals

It's quite common to laugh at presumably biased anthropologists from the past - especially if they were "white". However, a much more interesting and useful task is to search for today's bias. Klevius scientific methodology rests entirely on a relentless pursuit of self-criticism (the only truly scientific approach) which makes Klevius an utterly humble not to say laughable person but his revelations at least honest and hence well suited for targeting bias from moderately intelligent but highly subjective (or bribed) academics. Klevius intellectual heritage (father was Sweden's best chess player, both uncle's were Finland's top CEOs and sister scored highest in IBM's IQ test - also consider EMAH) doesn't hurt either. Moreover, although Bourdieu wasn't especially intelligent (his Masculine Domination is extremely shy, lame and shallow compared to Klevius take on sex segregation) his notes on the scholastic fallacy, Homo academicus and the theory of the theoretical point of view may have some bearing here for those who think it's more fancy to read Bourdieu than Klevius.

We non-muslims need to honor victims of islam and its racism - cause muslims won't

Nation of Islam leader Farra Khan aka Louis Wolcott (friend of Sadiq Khan), spreads murderous hate

Alwaleed bin Talal, a rape accused “man" who spends Western oil money on racist/sexist Sharia

How much suffering has this disgusting "man" Alwaleed bin Talal al Saud caused by spreading islamofascism around the world by the help of Western oil-money the Saudi dictator family has distributed via him?!

Contrast this scumbag against those (incl. Klevius) who relentlessly volunteer for spreading knowledge about Human Rights and are called "islamophobes" simply because islam doesn't submit to Human Rights (this is why the islamofascist organization OIC has openly abandoned Human Rights and replaced them with islamofascist Sharia).

Japanese 1959/1964 (Tokyo MS) high quality v European low quality

Klevius is YOUR unbiased and informed resource!

Klevius is probably now the world's foremost expert on sex segregation, (sad, isn't it) and islam (the worst crime ever) is the most evil expression of sex segregation. By 'islam' Klevius means Sharia as described by Bill Warner as well a OIC and their Human Rights violating Sharia declaration on islamic "human rights".

Don't bother about stupid books, focus instead on OIC's islamofascist sharia manifesto!

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

Why is "islamophobia" again blamed when the islamofascist Saudi dictator family attacks England via Salafist Sunni jihadi?

 

Human Rights (i.e. "islamophobia") are considered "terrorism" in Saudi Arabia. But why does the same islamofascist sharia apply in the West?


If we are to believe media and politicians, only "a tiny minority" of muslims are against basic Human Rights. If so the majority of muslims should have no problem with "islamophobia".


The Saudis are no muslims - or are they?




There's not the slightest doubt that the Saudi Salafist islam is closer to the original islam and Mohammad than any Western view on islam. So do we have two completely different islam? Not really, because the Western view on islam can never prevail. Either it continues producing Salafism in the West or if contained, islam will die altogether because it can't survive without its sexism and racism allure.

What's the difference (except the superficial "luxury")  between the Islamic State and the islamofascist Saudi dictator family?



The islamofascist Saudi dictator family is the world's biggest funder of islamic terrorism.




The Hill: In older Salafist school textbooks that the Saudis disseminated globally, Christians and Jews were compared to “swine” and “apes.” A later 12th-grade text explains the religious duty to wage jihad against the infidel to expand the faith. Even recent Saudi textbooks teach the anti-Semitic fable “The Protocol of the Elders of Zion” as history and insist that sorcerers must be killed.

Mohammed Saeed, the imam of the Didsbury Mosque and Islamic Centre in Manchester: “Salman Abedi had looked at him ‘with hate’ after he gave a sermon criticising Isis and Ansar al-Sharia in Libya.” What's Theresa May's take on that?

Klevius: But wait a minute, Ansar al-Sharia is an umbrella organization that includes several al-Qaeda groups — and has fought alongside England's "close ally" Saudi forces in Yemen - and most probably used English military equipment.

An often used islamic hadith quotes Muhammad saying, "The best of my community are my generation, the ones who follow them and the ones who follow them" as a call to Muslims to follow the example of those first three generations, known collectively as the salafi or "pious Predecessors" (السلف الصالح as-Salaf as-Ṣāliḥ). The salaf are believed to include Muhammad himself, the "Companions" (Sahabah), the "Followers" (Tabi‘un), and the "Followers of the Followers" (Tabi‘ al-Tabi‘in).

Since the fifth Muslim generation or earlier, Sunni theologians have used the examples of the Salaf to understand the texts and tenets of Islam. At times they have referred to the hadith to differentiate the creed (Aqidah) of the first Muslims from subsequent variations in creed and methodology (see Madhab), to oppose religious innovation (bid‘ah) and, conversely, to defend particular views and practices.

According to Bernard Haykel, "temporal proximity to the Prophet Muhammad is associated with the truest form of Islam" among many Sunni Muslims.

Salafis believe that the label "Salafiyya" existed from the first few generations of Islam and that it is not a modern movement.

Klevius concluding remark: What is clear is that Salafism "goes original" and that the islamofascist Saudi dictator family has been the main user of this evil ideology. What is less clear is when people in the West will get a chance to vote their opinion about it. As it stands now Saudi sharia labels every such effort as "islamophobia" and because this is seen as "racism" then no one is allowed to serve as a channel for a Human Rights approach to the islamofascist Saudi dictator family. After all, they are the "custodians of islam" - and they have loads of oil money to bribe media and politicians.

And this is really the tragically funny part. Not since the days of Hitler has it been so easy to criticize a country's evil leaders, precisely because it's so extremely obvious for everyone to see. However, this time the "allied forces" are with the enemy, which fact complicates a solution and prolongs the suffering caused by this evil.

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

May's and Trump's Saudi hand-holding: How can Brits vote for someone who supports the worst and most dangerous scum on the planet? Or are they just so ignorant because of BBC's fake "information"?


Why is this unstable and dangerous  islamofascist Saudi hate mongerer and war criminal your "important ally? You should be ashamed of yourself.

It means you would have supported Hitler as well, doesn't it?

There's no shortage of pure evil in the islamofascist Saudi dictator family. And by being the "custodians of islam", and by being supported by UK and US, they are offered an opportunity to live out their evil in a grand scale that may make the Nazis (National-socialists) look tame in comparison.

Saudi evil rides on an ideology that says its violent racist/sexist texts are "sacred" and that its violent racist/sexist "prophet" was Sunni. Isn't that a convenient tool for the mentally unstable Saudi extremist "prince"* to use for safeguarding and extending power and influence over competing islam users?


The islamofascist Saudi dictator family is the (oil)wealthiest of the Arab states. It also, in practice, rules Pakistan, the only muslim country with nuclear missiles openly admitted.

Why aren't there any "humanitarian issues" in UK's Saudi politics when "humanitarian concerns" are so prevalent when it comes to Russia and China who have never attacked the UK as the Saudis do on an almost a daily basis via jihad hate mongering and the support of hate and racism spreading Salafi mosques?

And here's the "prince's" equally Shia muslim hating Saudi top cleric who says Iranians are not muslims:

Will Theresa May jail this muslim extremist, Saudi Arabia's top muslim cleric, if he visits UK - as she did with Anjem Choudary who acted similarly, but with much less power?



Current Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Abdul-Aziz ibn Abdullah Al ash-Sheikh shares  "prince" Mohammed bin Salman's.

The main Trump hater in Washington is McCain - who also happens to be a Russia hater - but lover of the islamofascist Saudi dictator family and a keen (not to say desperate) proponent of keeping up the war in Syria by aiding Saudi supported Sunni islamist groups.




John McCain (the war monger and Trump hater No 1) who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, in Riyadh after talks on Syria with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

However, the islamofascist Saudi dictator family is the face of the deeper problem with islam itself.

Islam is Arabic imperialism - that's why Iran is a much lesser islamic threat than the Saudis.

Let the anti-sharia muslims out of the closet - all over the world - so they can assist in reducing Saudi hate mongering.

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 “.



Saturday, May 13, 2017

Klevius interference in the UK election: Brits! Stop the madness of Theresa May's pre-emptive nuke strikes against innocent civilians and defense of Saudi islamofascist sharia terror!


How did British politicians end up with the most disgusting of bed fellows?



"Prince"* Mohammed bin Salman, defence minister (i.e. Saudi war criminal) and favourite son of the current demented "king"*: The muslim community still thinks allowing women to drive will have negative consequences. He also says that [the woman] is not used to working. She needs more time to accustom herself to the idea of work. To this Klevius says that it's not women who aren't ready but islam - as a tool for Saudi islamofascism. The islamofascist Saudi dictator family sits on two pillars: Shrinking oil based assets, and original islam, i.e. the islam "interpretation" that keeps them in power. A democratic, "Westernized islam" that respects basic Human Rights would in no time shame the Saudi dictator  family. Without being the "custodians of islam" who export islam's original evilness to their worldwide jihadi, they would never be able to keep power as just one among other competing islamist dictators.

* The Saudi warrior dictator who copycatted the Brits by calling himself a "king", captured Mecca in 1924 and Medina in 1925 - i.e. he became a dictator "king" at a time when there were no such kings anymore in the West. Here's a timeline:

In 1891, The governor of The Ottomani Khilafah forced Abdul-Rahman and Al-Saud into exile. Al-Saud and the rest of the Wahhabi movement lived on the borders of the desert of the Empty Quarter (Al-Rebi’ Al-Khaali) before settling in Kuwait.

1892-1900, Abdul-Rahman died, and his son Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman and the rest of the Wahhabi movement lived in Kuwait.

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.


Islamic colonization of the free world space: Islamist terrorist attacks funded by the islamofascist Saudi dictator family's sponsoring of Salafi mosques, ideas etc.



Jeffrey Tayler: We are accustomed to reflexively deferring to “men of the cloth,” be they rabbis and priests or pastors and imams. In this we err, and err gravely. Those whose profession it is to spread misogynistic morals, debilitating sexual guilt, a hocus-pocus cosmogony, and tales of an enticing afterlife for which far too many are willing to die or kill, deserve the exact same “respect” we accord to shamans and sorcerers, alchemists and quacksalvers. Out of misguided notions of “tolerance,” we avert our critical gaze from the blatant absurdities — parting seas, spontaneously igniting shrubbery, foodstuffs raining from the sky, virgin parturitions, garrulous slithering reptiles, airborne ungulates — proliferating throughout their “holy books.” We suffer, in the age of space travel, quantum theory and DNA decoding, the ridiculous superstitious notion of “holy books.” And we countenance the nonsense term “islamophobia,” banishing those who forthrightly voice their disagreements with the seventh-century faith to the land of bigots and racists; indeed, the portmanteau vogue word’s second component connotes something just short of mental illness.








How can the islamofascist Saudi dictator family be "an important ally" against Saudi sponsored hate?



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. 

Thursday, May 11, 2017

Klevius question: How come that Atheists are less sensitive than muslims? Ever heard about someone sentenced for inciting NON-RELIGIOUS hatred?


Klevius: Stop the Saudi dictator family's spread of hate and bombs - and you stop the spread of evil (so called "extremist") islam (i.e. original islam)!


Klevius hint for a winning ticket for Corbyn (now that UKIP shot itself in the foot by following sharia): Promise UK voters to get rid of relations with the islamofascist Saudi dictator family once and for all - and you are PM! In no time you will overfill the gaps you caused by aiming for Soviet time state socialism. Klevius doesn't like you because of that, but could forgive something if you contributed to limit the worst evil on the planet. And confiscate the hate spreading war criminals' assets in UK and give them to "moderate muslims" who prefer Human Rights instead of sharia. And start with the refugees from Saudi's direct or indirect attacks in Yemen and Syria etc. And as a pacifist you can't anyway support British weapons sale to war criminals, can you. Stand up, Corbyn!

Moreover, become an "islamophobe" - just like "moderate muslims" who resist basic Human Rights violating sharia islam! I mean, Iranians are no muslims anyway, according to the Saudi dictator family.

How the Term “Islamophobia” Got Shoved Down Your Throat

A 1,389 Year-Old ‘Phobia’?


Here are some of the most disgusting members of Theresa May's Saudi sharia cabinet:



How many ordinary Brits share Michael Fallon's love of Saudi islamofascism?


Runnymede changed democracy to monarchism so to appease Saudi islamofascists.

Brian Whitaker: A spokesman for Philip Hammond said: “As MP for Runnymede and Weybridge, Mr Hammond attended the local community organized unveiling, in his own constituency, of a statue of HM Queen to mark her long reign. Hammond says his £2,000 watch was a constituency gift. Shouldn't the sheikh be a constituent to give it?

The signing of Magna Carta in 1215 took place at Runnymede, in a water meadow on the banks of the River Thames – a spot that today happens to lie in Hammond’s parliamentary constituency.

on June 15 – a rainy day in Runnymede – a crowd gathered beneath umbrellas to watch the unveiling of the statue. Dignitaries in attendance included Philip Hammond (foreign secretary and MP for Runnymede), John Bercow (Speaker of the House of Commons), Daniel Hammond (MEP for the area) and Councillor Derek Cotty of Runnymede Magna Carta Legacy Ltd (who by then had become mayor).

 Sheikh Marei Mubarak Mahfouz bin Mahfouz, one of the richest men in Saudi Arabia, who presumably donated a large chunk of the money. It was Sheikh Marei who also later presented Hammond with the £2,000 watch.

How and why Sheikh Marei came to be involved is still far from clear. According to the Telegraph, Daniel Hannan, the MEP, “helped source sponsorship” but considering his distaste for those who cosy up to Saudi businessmen we should probably assume he was not the one who recruited Sheikh Marei to the project. And Hannan’s desire to have a thoroughly British monument to Magna Carta is still unfulfilled: there are now two monuments, one American funded, the other (at least in part) Saudi funded.

An equally interesting question is what prompted Sheikh Marei to give Hammond a £2,000 watch. According to the sheikh’s lawyer, quoted in the Sunday Times, the watch “was a gift of appreciation for the kindness extended by Mr Hammond to Sheikh Marei on 15 June”.

This act of “kindness” – whatever it was – occurred not at the unveiling ceremony but a day after, and there’s a clue in the Sunday Times story:

    “The sheikh was not present at the unveiling but arrived the next day and was shown the statue by Hammond. The sheikh later met the Queen.”

So it’s possible the watch was simply a thank-you to Hammond for accompanying Sheikh Marei to look at the statue. If so, the watch seems an unnecessarily generous reward, even by Saudi standards. But what of Sheikh Marei’s meeting with the Queen? Is it possible that Hammond pulled some strings to arrange it, and was being rewarded for that? Perhaps other MPs should enquire further.

Sheikh Marei is head of the Marei Bin Mahfouz Group, which he founded in 1965. It’s a trading, manufacturing and services company which operates mainly in Mecca and Jeddah and is said to be ranked 19th among Saudi Arabia’s top 100 companies.

One of Sheikh Marei’s sons, 45-year-old Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz, is a philanthropist who also cultivates connections with British royalty. Earlier this year he donated $370,000 to a charitable trust headed by Prince Charles which runs the 15th century Castle of Mey in Scotland, a former home of the late Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother. In recognition of his support, a wood on the estate was renamed the Mahfouz Wood.

In 2013 he became the first Bredon Fellow of Wolfson College, Cambridge, after making a “munificent” (but unspecified) donation to the college.

For reasons which I can’t fathom, Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz is also known as the Lord and Baron of Abernethy – a Scottish feudal


Klevius wrote:

Sunday, May 22, 2016

Defending Human Rights violating sharia islam is political perversion







Klevius wrote:

Sunday, March 01, 2015

Klevius vs muslims (Human Rights vs islam) - who will win your heart and who is the hater? Take the test!


Acknowledgement for newcomers in simple English: To understand why islam itself is the source of evil do understand (check for youself if you don't trust Klevius) the following:

1 Islam originated in a bloodbath where muslims slaughtered all the Jews in Medina. And from then on it continued in pretty much the same way as the Islamic State today - only that, thanks to islam's backwardness, the West has superior technology to keep them down. In fact, islam has never produced any tech by itself (when did you last time buy a camera or car made in Saudi Arabia?). Why should it when the whole islamic ideology is based on slave parasitism (and today also Western oil money and aid/benefits). And the only "golden" in the so called "golden age" was the gold muslims got through their slaves. And later on the Ottoman muslim slave empire immediately started deteriorating after the West had abolished all kinds of slavery (except muslim sex slavery hidden as it is within sharia marriage and as "concubines" i.e. sex slaves).

2 The Koran is an Arabic nationalist supremacist slavery manual. Because early muslims were caravan robbers etc. criminals (i.e. parasites)  they could only survive on what they could rob from others (which they called "infidels"). This is why islam became the worst and biggest slavery ideology ever.

3 Islam is today sharia via Saudi based and steered OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) which via 57 more or less criminal member states in United Nations (UN) has managed to democratically (although islam is anti-democratic and anti-Human Rights) establish itself as the muslim world Ummah with due Human Rights violating sharia (the so called Cairo declaration on "islamic human rights").

4 Islam is not islam without sharia so a muslim who rejects sharia (in any Human Rights violating form) isn't a real muslim - just a cultural "muslim" and therefore of no interest for Klevius islam criticism.

However, it's therefore extremely important that every muslim clearly and honestly declare whether s/he is an islamofascist (Human Rights violating sharia) or not.

Start by asking your muslim friend. S/he lies to you if s/he says s/he can be a believing muslim without such sharia. To believe in islam is to believe in Human Rights violating sharia. That's the very reason OIC rejected Human Rights in UN! And if s/he doesn't then s/he has committed the worst crime against islam and should be protected by Western Human Rights and due legislation based on them.

Saudi Arabia - the guardian and spreader of islamic hate


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


OIC is a muslim extremist organization! 


ICLA: The Cairo Declaration is recognized as a so-called “regional instrument” by the United Nations, but rarely, if ever, used or referred to. It is thus functionally redundant, yet its approval creates an unneeded and potentially dangerous ambiguity in the formal definition of the human rights. For Sharia is incompatible with democracy and fundamental human rights, as stated in 2003 by the European Court of Human Rights, and thus the Cairo Declaration is equally incompatible with any meaningful definition of human rights, as well as with several OSCE commitments.

Thus, to avoid willful misinterpretations of what “human rights” refer to, it would be good for the protection of human rights defenders to have the Cairo Declaration explicitly repudiated by those OSCE pS that also hold membership of the OIC. If they do not do so, they should provide a detailed justification for keeping this declaration on the books, and the intended use of it.

ICLA thus recommends that:

    OSCE makes a statement that the Cairo Declaration has no relevance to its understanding of human rights.
    OSCE pS that are also members of OIC explicitly repudiate the Cairo Declaration as being of no relevance, now or in the future, for the interpretation of “human rights”.


Klevius: Nothing has happened since this was written in 2013! An eerie silence follows wherever islam puts its evil hand. Wake up dude! And you Brits, consider that your PM David Cameron has appointed a non-elected sharia muslim called Sayeeda Warsi as the "minister of faith islam and sent her as the official representative to the islamofascist OIC organization! Is this really what the majority of Brits want? Or are they just so thoroughly fooled and unaware! And no wonder when this "islamophobia" islamofascism has settled so deeply that you can't even apply for a job if you're known as critical of islam. All about islam is intimidation: physical, reputational, financial etc. Goebbels is certainly laughing in his grave.




 



Klevius Human Rights campaign against sharia fueled racist/sexist islamic hate


Klevius is anti sharia islam and anti sharia muslims - and very proud of it! Moreover, Klevius thinks he has a majority of "muslims" on his side - although most of them don't even know it as yet. And even those "muslims" who know it but stay muslim because of monetary advantages, have to admit Klevius' logic and their own evilness which could range from mild Human-rightsphobia to extrem muslim terrorism. 


Muslim hate speech and acts against "infidels" are protected by Human Rights. However, there must be room for Human Rights people (without dhimmitude etc) in the world as well - or?! Face islam's hate Human Rights problem!

Warning for hateful muslims in policing, nursing, caring, public service etc. Unlike other weirdos muslim weirdos can refer to a "religious" book and "tradition" that so many say is "holy"* and of course excited by all the "diversity brainwashed/scared trained" people they encounter and read, according to whom islam is such a "nice and peaceful religion" that ought to be respected. All "monotheist" religions are based on sexism but islam is also the worst ideological crime ever against humanity throughout 1400 years.

* (negative) Human Rights, i.e. freedom from unnecessary impositions, is the only truly holy concept we need as a functioning worldwide morality. Civilized people of all sorts already know this and behave accordingly.

As it stands now, by referring to her/his "religion" a muslim can deny you things you can't deny her/him without facing accusations of "racism" or "hate", based on those very Human Rights the actual muslim in fact otherwise hates.

In a BBC debate one of those politically correct non-muslim politicians defended the stupid proposal to give muslims (of course he didn't mention muslims but used the usual proxy word "religious") the right to discriminate against non-muslims in a way non-muslims aren't allowed to discriminate muslims no matter how offended they are by the muslim's hateful racist/sexist sharia ideology.

Klevius investment hint: Muslim Sharia free zones will be very valuable in the future.Not the least for many "muslims".


Forget about saving rain forests etc! This is your new deal. Did you hear that you oily sheiks fearing a decrease in the popularity of your oil! Or are you running out of money after having invested so heavily in sharia zones?

Risks: That islam collapses even quicker than expected. However, even if you then may loose some money you may also comfort yourself with a fairer world.


Klevius vs ? billion muslims. He knows it's not fair - of course Klevius' Human Rights logic is irresistible in the long run compared to dividing hateful muslim sharia racism/sexism!


Human Rights

  Klevius: On his blogs and sites 'Klevius' is interchangeable with 'Human Rights' because all they do is defending Human Rights. Unfortunately for muslims, islam makes itself the biggest target precisely because of its violation of Human Rights. Nowhere on Klevius' sites/blogs can you find ANYTHING not in line with this Human Rights defense!

 Muslims: There doesn't exist a true muslim without her/him (via her/his support of sharia islam) violating the most basic equality principles of Human Rights.

Sexism

Klevius: There is no defense for sex segregation/apartheid. Not even heterosexual attraction (of which Klevius has written the most essential analysis in the world of today - admittedly, the competition hasn't been very hard).

 Muslims: Women are inferior to men and women's heterosexual attraction makes it necessary in islam to sharia hide/jail/restrict them physically and/or culturally (the means vary depending on muslim community/sub-settings).

Racism

 Klevius:  Human Rights make racism impossible.

 Muslims: Islam is built on "infidel" racism.

Politics

Klevius: For secularism based on Human Rights.


Muslims: For an islamic state based on sharia.

Beliefs

Klevius: Atheist, i.e. lacking a "god" he otherwise could blame and instead protecting his moral attitude by hanging it on the most powerful of all moral codes namely the negative Human Rights.

 Muslims: Whatever a muslim does it's "Allah's" will. And because "Allah's" will is not known  then we have no tool whatsoever to know the inscrutable will of the muslim - other than the self evident Atheist conclusion that it's no more or less than the will of the muslim, and not of "Allah".









According to one of BBC's extremely few and misleading reports about OIC aims are to 'safeguard islamic holy places' (Klevius comment: Those places are already carefully destroyed by the Sauds) and toe ... (read more on Klevius beats BBC)




In Britain, the number of Muslim converts recently passed the 100,000 mark, according to a survey conducted by an inter-faith group called Faith Matters. The survey revealed that nearly two thirds of the converts were women, more than 70% were white and the average age at conversion was just 27.

Klevius explanation: Non-muslim women who marry muslims have to choose between a lower status as a non-muslim in the muslim family setting or convert.

The muslim system is extremely racist and sexist in this regard because everything is one-way directed towards the muslim man and islam and away from Human Rights. A non-muslim man isn't even allowed to marry a muslim woman without converting.

So instead of boasting about the high numbers they should be seen as utterly shamful in a civilized country.



So what should muslims do to avoid Klevius' criticism?

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


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


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



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



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

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



Some more hateful muslims

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


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


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

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


Saturday, September 25, 2010

Time to burn OIC's Human Rights violation and to indict the Saudi hate criminals and their supporters

Islam (the opposite to Negative Human Rights) is based on infidel racism and sexist rapetivism. It's islam's true origin, and the only tenet that cannot be reformed without erasing islam itself. However, instead of dealing with this most important issue, now criticism of this disgusting islamic supremacism is called islamophobia and suggested (by the most racist and evil organization out there) to be called "racism"!

Btw, did England incite hatred against the German Nationalsocialists thus causing unrest and chaos? And was Germany's attack reasonable because of an unfair Versaille treaty? Patrick Buchanan makes the case that, if not for the blunders of British statesmen the horrors of two world wars and the Holocaust might have been avoided? To this one may add that whereas Nationalsocialism was national and hence not totalitarian in a universal sense, islam is truly totalitarian, on a micro level as well as on a macro level.

57 islamic nations (OIC) have here agreed to adopt Sharia!

This man, Saudi "king" Abdullah (aka Mr X "president's" first call) is an oil parasite whose main task in life has been the spreading of evil islamism!


OIC, a Saudi initiated and supporting organization consisting of 56+1 islamist nations who have:

1 decided to violate Human Rights by replacing them with islamist Sharia which denies girls and women their rights given in the 1948 Human Rights Declaration
2 hijacked UN by constituting its biggest voting bloc
3 criminalized criticism against islam by calling it "islamophobia"


The mosque mouse, silenced by islam



Sept 28-30, 2010, the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), is sponsoring Sharia propaganda at the AIC’s Chicago campus.

Founded in 1969 OIC is now a 56 (+ Palestine) state collective which includes every lslamic nation on Earth. Currently headed by Turkey’s Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, OIC thus represents the entire muslim Umma and is the largest single voting bloc in the UN.

John Laffin warned in 1988 that the Jedda-based OIC, initiated and patronized by Saudi Arabia, is persuading Muslim nations to jettison even their inchoate adoption of “Western models and codes,” and to revert to the pre-Western retrograde systems of Sharia.
According to Laffin, the Saudis offered sizable loans and grants in return for a more extensive application of Sharia.

Saudi Arabia also distributed an abundance of media and print materials which extended to non-muslim countries, including tens of millions of Korans, translated into many languages for the hundreds of millions of muslims (and non-muslims) who did not read Arabic.

And now two special US envoys to the OIC later (both the former, Sada Cumber, and current envoy, Rashad Hussain) will attend the Chicago OIC propaganda for the purpose of islamization.

Andrew Bostom : Elizabeth Kendal, in a recent commentary [4] about the plight of brutalized Egytpian Muslim “apostates” Maher el-Gowhary and Nagla Al-Imam, made a series of apt observations which illustrate the most salient aspect of Islam’s persistent religious totalitarianism: the absence of freedom of conscience in Islamic societies. Egypt, Kendal notes, amended its secular-leaning constitution in 1980, reverting to its pre-colonial past and designating Sharia (Islamic law) as “the principal source of legislation” — an omnipresent feature of contemporary Muslim constitutions, including the new constitutions of Afghanistan and Iraq — rendering “constitutional guarantees of religious liberty and equality before the law illusory.” This is the inevitable outcome of a Sharia-based legal system, because:

Sharia’s principal aim concerning religious liberty, is to eradicate apostasy (rejection of Islam) through the elimination of fitna (anything that could tempt a Muslim to reject Islam) and the establishment of dhimmitude — the humiliation and subjugation of Jews and Christians as second class citizens [or non-citizen pariahs]; crippling systematic discrimination; violent religious apartheid …

In Egypt, as in virtually all Muslim states, a person’s official religion is displayed on their identity card. According to Sharia, every child born to a Muslim father is deemed Muslim from birth. According to Sharia, a Muslim woman is only permitted to marry a Muslim man. (This is the main reason why Christian men convert to Islam, and why female converts to Christianity will risk life and liberty to secure a falsified/illegal ID, for without a Christian ID they cannot marry a Christian.)

There is no religious liberty in Islam, for Islam survives as religious totalitarianism that refuses rejection.

Islam’s refusal to abide rejection by its votaries — the global Muslim umma’s strident rejection of freedom of conscience — is now openly codified, and has been for two decades. The 1990 Cairo Declaration, or so-called “Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam”, was drafted and subsequently ratified by all the Muslim member nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

Both the preamble and concluding articles (24 and 25) make plain that the OIC’s Cairo Declaration is designed to supersede Western conceptions of human rights as enunciated, for example, in the U.S. Bill of Rights and the UN’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The opening of the preamble to the Cairo Declaration [5] repeats a Koranic injunction affirming Islamic supremacism (Koran 3:110; “You are the best nation ever brought forth to men … you believe in Allah”), and states:

Reaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which Allah made the best nation …

The preamble continues:

Believing that fundamental rights and universal freedoms in Islam are an integral part of the Islamic religion and that no one as a matter of principle has the right to suspend them in whole or in part or violate or ignore them in as much as they are binding divine commandments, which are contained in the Revealed Books of God and were sent through the last of His Prophets to complete the preceding divine messages thereby making their observance an act of worship and their neglect or violation an abominable sin, and accordingly every person is individually responsible — and the Ummah collectively responsible — for their safeguard.

In its last articles 24 and 25, the Cairo Declaration maintains

[Article 24] All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia. … [Article 25] The Islamic Sharia is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration.


Michael Hamilton: As noted in Shariah: The Threat to America, Ihsanoglu used the occasion of an earlier speech to an OIC Council of Foreign Ministers’ conclave to declare war on freedom of speech:

In [the OIC’s] confronting the Danish cartoons and the Dutch film “Fitna,” we sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed. As we speak, the official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked.

Of late, the Organization of the Islamic Conference has taken to the United Nations its war against expression that gives offense to Islam. Last September, the Obama administration actually co-sponsored a resolution with Egypt (representing the OIC) in the UN Human Rights Council, calling on the United Nation’s member states to limit such expression, as part of the OIC’s ongoing campaign to have the UN recognize Islamophobia as a form of racism subject to prosecution under international law.

This effort to establish what it calls “deterrent punishments” for shariah slander is only one example of OIC activity at odds with American interests and the U.S. Constitution. Other examples include:

• Disrupting U.S. Efforts in Afghanistan: In the July 2010 edition of the OIC’s “Islamophobia Observatory” Bulletin, the OIC sharply criticized Gen. Petraeus’ counter-insurgency manual as “a manifestation of Islamophobia”;
• Damaging Middle East Peace Negotiations: Since its founding, the OIC has pursued an aggressive anti-Israel campaign, including creating a fund for the intifada in 2001;
• Denies Civil Liberties and Freedom to Muslims and Non-Muslims: The OIC for decades has tried to deny American Muslims and others the protections of the UN Convention on Human Rights and the U.S. Constitution, insisting instead that they comply with the shariah apartheid doctrine formally adopted by the OIC’s members as the so-called “Cairo Declaration of Human Rights.”

According to the conference agenda published by the OIC New York UN Permanent Mission (http://www.oicun.org/9/20100727101615770.html), the executive director of the Chicago franchise of the Hamas-linked CAIR, Ahmed Rehab, will moderate a panel entitled: “The Role of the OIC and the Scope for its Relation with American Muslims.”

In yet another ominous move, the Organization of the Islamic Conference has announced that it will meet on September 30 with American Muslim leaders – many of whose groups the federal government has identified in court as Muslim Brotherhood fronts – for the purpose of creating the “American Muslim Liaison Council to the OIC.”


Question to: Nobel Prize Laureate Shirin Ebadi by David G. Littman (Representative: AWE & WUPJ)

My question is addressed to Madam Shirin Ebadi.
Thank you for your remarkable frank speaking here and your courage - a true lesson for us all.
A year ago, on Human Rights Day 2007, OIC Secretary-General Prof. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu stated that the OIC General Secretariat is considering the establishment of an independent permanent body to promote Human Rights in Member States in accordance with the provision of the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam and to elaborate an OIC Charter on Human Rights.

Four days later, on 14 December 2007, Pakistan's Ambassador Masood Khan - speaking for the OIC at the Human Rights Council -claimed that the 1990 Cairo Declaration was "not an alternative competing worldview on human rights," but failed to mention that the shari'a law was "the only source of reference" in that Declaration's articles 24 and 25 - the same shari'a law in which there is no equality between Muslim men and women and Muslims and non-Muslims. The Final Communiqué of the 3rd Extraordinary Session of the Islamic Mecca Summit on 8 December 2005 had provided a clear message on this - and on the UN system of human rights.
Madam, do you feel that the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam - and a future Islamic Charter based on shari'a law - would clash with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam and the International bill of Human Rights? To give one example: the marriage of girls at nine years old, as in Iran, since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.


Klevius comment: Islamic “monotheism” is the most evil form of the old Jewish “the chosen people” racism. The only meaningful difference is that whereas old Judaism was spread via the Vagina, islam is spread via the Penis (rapetivism). This fact together with islam’s harsh apostasy ban (meaning leaving islam is considered a crime) and that muslim women are not allowed to marry non’muslims, explains why there are now less than 10 Million Jews but more than one Billion muslims.

OIC’s Cairo declaration clearly violates girls/women’s Human Rights. Under OIC’s islamic Sharia a female doesn’t really count as a fully human (only "truly" muslim men counts) because of islam’s rigid sex segregation. Because of their sex females are, according to islam, forever and in all aspects of life, doomed to legal difference as prescribed by whatever Sharia happens to rule. To make this more simple to understand, just compare to the original Human Rights which expressly state that sex should not be an excuse for limiting girls’ and women’s freedom. And even more simple: Whereas under Sharia women are doomed to sex segregation, under Human Rights a woman can choose to sex segregate herself as well as to refuse to sex segregate herself (However, due to the detrimental effects of psychoanalysis this latter option isn’t always open for girls because they may be labeled as “suffering” from gender identity disorder – see Klevius explanation of this repulsive psychiatyric intervention in girls’ lives).



Negative Human Rights constitute the backbone of the Human Rights Declaration and the US Constitution. Islam/Sharia is the very opposite. This is why OIC violates the most important part of the Human Rights by replacing their freedom with medieval islamofascism.







Sunday, May 07, 2017

Klevius proudly presents the president of France 2022 - or earlier, if Macron can be prosecuted for treason against the French people.


Why does BBC lump Marine Le Pen and Theresa  May together with the mentally ill murderer of MP Cox?!


BBC today (in the same news report) called Marine Le Pen and the mentally ill murderer of MP Cox 'right wing'. As Theresa May is at least equally "right wing" as Marine Le Pen when it comes to immigration and party politics etc. she also fits BBC's smear campaign - except that she is for basic Human Rights violating sharia, i.e. not an "islamophobe". And that's enough to erase any bad label because according to BBC, Theresa May, and the islamofascist Saudi dictator family, "islamophobia (i.e. to criticize islam for violating Human Rights) " is the most heinous kind of "extremisms".


So why is the defense of Human Rights against islamofascist sharia still called "islamophobia" by some extremists?

Tory Brexit ministers  ranting about the evil of immigration and the need to 'take back control' differ from EU policy in that they only want immigrants who save them money and education and bring them money and a finished education. This is Theresa May's policy and resembles her policy on grammer schools, i.e. to cherry pick talents from less well off communities.




The recent European Values survey found that 69% of UK muslims wanted full sharia law  to replace democracy. This poses a clear public order danger, and is hardly in line with "British values" as the Brits themselves see it..

Macron will enter the Elysée and prepare for National Assembly elections at the same time as Theresa May heads for her election victory in early June. Two opposites who both bow for Saudi islamoafscism.




Mohammed Amin, chairman of the Conservative Muslim Forum, hailed May as "the leader the UK needs at this time".

Foreign students would be discounted from Theresa May's immigration counts in the future. They bring money, and if they can bring even more money after their education they are of course allowed to stay, especially if they are muslims (because of the pressure from Saudi/OIC & Co).



EU is flooding with muslims fleeing their own faith. How "moral" is it then to talk like Theresa May and her aids - while simultaneously playing the race card against non-muslim EU citizens.

Karen Bradley (Tory): “What we need is to have the right people, to attract the brightest and best, it’s not about putting numbers on it, it’s about making sure we can deliver where industries need skills, where brightest and best want to come to Britain. We want to be an attractive place that people want to come and work and we want to be the strong economy that pays for those public services people value so much.”

Klevius comment: Can you be more politically cynic than that!

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


Klevius: Indeed. And that violence is inscribed in original islam and used by its "prophet" to conquer, slaughter (starting with all the Jews in Medina) and enslave other people.


Theresa May suffers from a selective anti-semitism. She approves of whoever islam supporting Jew, but can't stand Human Rights defending Jews  like e.g. Pamela Geller. To an extent that she rather take in islamofascists than such a Jew to the country.

In 2012 May blocked the extradition to the US of British computer hacker Gary  McKinnon. She said: There was no doubt was "seriously ill" and the extradition warrant against him should be withdrawn.

Yet, just two weeks before this decision, fellow British citizen Talha Ahsan had been put on a private charter flight to the United States, having been extradited to face charges of running a pro-jihadi website. Like McKinnon, he had a diagnosis of Asperger syndrome.

South London-born Babar Ahmad, the longest-serving British prisoner to be detained without trial in the UK, was also extradited to the US in October 2012. At the time critics pointed out the stark differences in the ways the defendants, who had been charged at roughly the same time, were treated and the contrast in how the home secretary used her influence to block the extradition of a white British citizen while pushing for the extradition of Muslim British citizens.

Just days later May addressed the party faithful at the Conservative conference, opening her speech with: "Wasn’t it great to say goodbye – at long last – to Abu Hamza and those four other terror suspects on Friday?"

Wednesday, April 26, 2017

Why is Human Rights defending Klevius called an "islamophobia racist" while the openly racist/sexist war crime committing islamofascist Saudi dictator family is welcomed in UN "to protect women"?!

The world's muslims are kept in a Wahhabi/Saudi hate hostage against the most basic Human Rights. And pointing this out is called "islamophobia".


However, ŕecently most news media have joined Klevius in an "islamophobic" stance against that Saudi Arabia was approved as a member of the Commission for the 2018-2022 term by the 54 nations that make up the UN Economic and Social Council. It received 47 votes in a secret ballot, fewer than any other country under consideration but enough to pass the majority threshold.

Most media - except BBC - followed Klevius in condemning the Saudi membership approval.



Muslim identity all over the world is ruled by the islamofascist Saudi dictator family which possesses OIC and "islam's holy places" - and is aided by Western politicians. This fact is never weighed in in the frenetic campaign against "islamophobia" which the islamofascist Saudi dictator family itself has initiated and boosted - and which ignorant people around the world seem to believe in thanks to their politicians etc. "teaching" them to do so, and the simultaneous media suppressing and faking info about sharia islam and real Human Rights..

The Saudi weapons are:

1 OIC sharia against Human Rights via UN, politicians, universities, mosques etc.

2 Oil sharia via investments and weapons trade.

3 Although the Saudi military is among the most incompetent (especially compared to money spent) the real military power of the islamofascist Saudi dictator family resides in its sponsoring of worldwide islamic hatred - as well as much of the weaponry used for this hatred. But the real "smartness" of the Saudi military terrorist strategy is that it most often doesn't even need to arrenge for weapons because bombs (incl. fire-bombs), knives, acids etc. are cheap and easy to access/produce.

4 The Koran which is full of useful statements about how to hate, rape, murder etc. so called "infidels".

5 An illiterate Arabic speaking "prophet" whose main asset was the jhihad sword (compare the Saudi flag).

6 The status as "custodians" of Mecca with its muslim Haji idolatry points such as e.g. Kaaba and Mina, and Medina where islam started by slaughtering and raping all the Jews there..




The islamofascist war crimes committing and global islamic hate mongering Saudi dictator family not only attacks its Western "allies" by supporting islamic terror and sharia, it also keeps all the world's muslims hostage via it controlling OIC, UN, mosques, universities, politicians etc. around the world precisely by using its position as "the guardians of islam" (the so called "holy places" Mecca and Medina, where Mohammad started his slaughtering and raping conquest).


Drawing from 1979 by Peter Klevius

Peter Klevius has during all of his life fought for women's rights - as part of the overall fight for Universal Human Rights equality. However, he could never imaging that the world would be steered by oil wealthy Saudi islamofascist in 2017 - and that defending Human Rights would be called "islamophobia"..


Sunday, April 23, 2017

Muslims are fleeing islam - and carrying it with them


Is the Pope a 'useful idiot'?




William Kilpatrick: A reader asked for some specific practical ways that Catholics could resist Islam. I replied with a short list of steps Church leaders could take:

Break off dialogue with Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups such as ISNA and ICNA. Stop lending them legitimacy.

Stop backing the phony “Islamophobia”/hate crimes campaign manufactured by Islamist groups. The “Islamophobia” campaign is aimed at shutting down all legitimate examination and criticism of Islam.

Develop apologetics and educational materials that will provide Catholics with a fuller understanding of Islam.

Develop programs in Catholic schools, colleges, and seminaries that will better inform Catholics about Islam. Currently, most Catholic schools are acting as apologists for Islam—simply echoing the Islamic apologists.

Catholic refugee resettlement programs should concentrate on resettling Christian refugees from Muslim countries. Catholic encouragement of Muslim migration to Europe has already had disastrous results and may eventually lead to the extinction of Catholicism in Europe.

Catholic media need to present a more balanced picture of Islam. For the most part, the Catholic fourth estate simply seconds the Islam-positive view of the USCCB.

At that point I realized that these suggestions would not even be considered by the great majority of the Catholic leadership. They would be dismissed out of hand as both unnecessary and discriminatory. In short, Catholic leaders won’t take steps to resist Islam because they see no reason to resist it.


Klevius: Much like Harvard professors showered by Saudi sharia oil money.



No other country has a proportional influence over Harvard even close to that of the islamofascist war crime committing Saudi dictator family and its sharia hate mongering and intolerance.


Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international (pro-Saudi) relations at Harvard University. He offers 'Top Five Reasons There Is No Islamic Threat'.

1: The Balance of Power Is Overwhelmingly in Our Favor. Let’s start with some good old-fashioned power politics. Imagine for the moment that all of Islam was in fact united in an effort to overwhelm the United States and the rest of the West. If they really were united, do the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims have the capacity to do so? Hardly.

Klevius correction of this fake (or just ignorant) "info": They are united under islam and islam's "custodian" is the islamofascist Saudi dictator family who also possesses all muslims' world Umma organization, Saudi based and steered OIC and its sharia "human rights" via UN.

There are 47 Muslim-majority countries in the world. If you add all of their economies together, they have a combined GDP of slightly more than $5 trillion. That sounds like a lot, but remember that the United States has a GDP of more than $17 trillion all by itself and so does the European Union. In terms of raw economic power, in short, the “West” has this fictitious coalition of Muslim states out-matched from the start.

Klevius correction of this fake (or just ignorant) "info": US economy is a house of cards glued together with printed papers called dollars and bonds. When Saudi & Co steered OPEC strands the dollar, its world currency status implodes while heavily staining the bonds. Effect being similar to when the World Trade towers came down by Saudi hands.

The imbalance is even more striking when it comes to military capability. This same imaginary coalition of Muslim-majority countries spent roughly $270 billion on defense last year, and if you take out U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia ($87 billion) and the United Arab Emirates ($22 billion), the number drops to less than $200 billion. By contrast, the United States alone spent roughly $600 billion — more than twice as much — and that’s not counting its various allies like the United Kingdom, Japan, Israel, or others.

Klevius correction of this fake (or just ignorant) "info": Islam has proved to be militarily much more effective than the US. The war on islamic terror sponsored by the islamofascist Saudi dictator family (plus some other muslim "states") has no end in sight.

But these raw figures on defense spending greatly understate the West’s advantage. The entire Muslim world produces no indigenous advanced combat aircraft (though Turkey produces some U.S.-designed F-16s under license) and no indigenously designed modern battle tanks (though Pakistan makes a modified Chinese tank and Turkey is working on one of its own). The navies of the Muslim world have no major surface combatants larger than a frigate (though Iran is reportedly building a single destroyer), no aircraft carriers, no long-range bombers, and no nuclear submarines. Indeed, the power projection capabilities of all of these states are extremely limited. And to the extent that these states have much modern military power, it is because the United States, France, the U.K., China and others have been willing to sell or license advanced weaponry, for various strategic reasons of their own. Yet Saudi Arabia’s unimpressive performance in its recent intervention in Yemen suggests that the Muslim world’s capacity to project power even short distances is quite modest.

Klevius correction of this fake (or just ignorant) "info": Well, in Yemen the islamofascist Saudi dictator family kills innocent children without coming any further precisely because the enemy is their own creation. The Saudi military efficiency is called islamic terror and extremely effective. Moreover, Mr. Walt has no clue about how effective because the numbers of "successful" street jihad resulting from Saudi hate mongering/sponsoring is impossible to estimate, not the least because of this strange dumbness and "sensitivity" about islam that Walt himself encourages.

Thus, even if one started with the wholly unrealistic assumption that the Muslim world is a single unified movement, it’s much, much, much weaker than we are. Maybe that explains why foreign powers have intervened in Muslim-majority countries repeatedly over the past couple of centuries, while the reverse hasn’t occurred since the siege of Vienna in 1529. Not once. It wasn’t Egypt that invaded France in 1798; Saddam Hussein didn’t send a mighty expeditionary force around the world and up the Potomac to occupy Washington and depose George W. Bush in 2003; and Muammar al-Qaddafi didn’t order his air force to bomb Paris in order to oust Nicolas Sarkozy in 2011. Surely this one-sided history tells you something about the relative power of Western states and those from the Islamic world.

Klevius correction of this fake (or just ignorant) "info": Incredibly stupid - what has happened with Harvard? On the contrary, we are much weaker, because of resting our moral on universal Human Rights and "freedom of religion"! So the only way out is to make the muslims respect us as much as we respect them. And yes, that would be the end of sharia islam in any meaningful form - sorry about that. Potomac? The enemy has long since already entered Harvard!

2. Islam Is, in Fact, Deeply Divided. From time immemorial, threat inflators like Bannon & Co. have portrayed adversaries as part of some grand unified coalition. Remember the “communist monolith” or the “axis of evil?” Today, fearmongers use phrases like “Islamofascism” or “radical Islam” to imply that our enemies form a tightly integrated and centrally directed movement working tirelessly to bring us to our knees.

Klevius correction of this fake (or just ignorant) "info": No need, islam is islamofascism! As Erdogan use to say, there's only one islam. And it's not so much that the Saudis want 'to bring us to our knees', but rather that the islamofascist Saudi dictator family's own survival and expansion rests on the evil (compare islam's bloody origin for the sole purpose of getting booty and slaves) religious tool called ïslam.

But in reality, the Islamic world is more disunited today than at any time in recent memory. It is divided among many different states, of course, and many of those states (e.g., Iran and Saudi Arabia, or Turkey and Syria) don’t get along. There are vast geographic and cultural differences between Indonesia and countries like Yemen or Morocco or Saudi Arabia. There’s also the core division between the Sunnis and the Shiites, not to mention a number of other minor schisms between various Islamic offshoots. And let’s not forget the sometimes-bitter rivalries within the jihadi movement itself, both across the globe and within particular countries. Just look at all the radical groups who hate the Islamic State, and all the jihadis whom the Islamic State regards as heretics because they don’t embrace its full ideology.

Klevius correction of this fake (or just ignorant) "info": Islam has since its origin been deeply divided in its hate based existence. But there has always been someone at the top benefiting the most - and today it's the islamofascist Saudi dictator family and its evil friends and collaborators.

These divisions do not mean extremists pose no danger at all, of course, but Bannon’s specter of a rising Islamic tide that threatens to overwhelm us is pure fantasy. Instead of treating all of Islam as a threat — which might eventually unite more of them against us — the smart move is to play “divide-and-conquer.” But that means recognizing that the danger we face is not a hostile “civilization” or an entire religion, but rather just a small number of extremists who are unrepresentative of the larger cultural category (and opposed by most of it). To beat them, we want the rest of the Muslim world on our side.

Klevius correction of this fake (or just ignorant) "info": Quite the contrary again! It's yours and other idiots' defense of "the great and peaceful religion" that keeps its evil ticking. And 'the rest of the muslim world' is on their side precisely by sharing this same sharia islam. Moreover, every muslim is, as it stands now, "excused" and even hailed  as long as s/he says 'it's not my islam' or 'you're no muslim, Bro'. However, islam has equally many different understandings as there are muslims, but only one book and only one "prophet" which both perfect models.

3: You wouldn’t know it if you listened to Trump, to CNN, to Fox News, or to most of our politicians, but the danger of terrorism is miniscule. Not zero, but really, really small. We’ve been obsessed with terrorism ever since 9/11 but the reality is that the risk it poses is way, way, way down the list of possible harms that might befall us.

Klevius correction of this fake (or just ignorant) "info": Especially if you only steer at the visible part of the iceberg.

For example, based on the evidence since 9/11 (and including that attack), the likelihood an American will be killed by a terrorist is less than 1 in 3 million per year, and the lifetime risk is about 1 in 45,000. That’s pretty damn good odds: You are much more likely to die from being struck by lightning, falling out of bed, a heat wave, or accidentally choking on food. But don’t expect Trump, Bannon, Flynn, Gorka, Gaffney, or any of the well-compensated “terrorism experts” to highlight this fact, because their livelihoods and their ability to seize more and more power depends on keeping you very, very scared. And don’t expect the media to downplay the danger either, because hyping terrorism whenever it does occur is a good way to get your eyeballs glued to the screen. (Among other things, this is why Trump’s recent statements suggesting terrorism was being “underreported” are so absurd.)

Klevius correction of this fake (or just ignorant) "info": What do you know about "under reported"? As a criminologist and sociologist Klevius knows for sure that crimes that are popular among politicians etc. are always considered "under reported" (compare the incest hysteria of the 1980s and 90s) whereas the opposite is true when there's a will to blink crimes (compare muslim sex abuse - allowed against "infidels" according to the Koran and the "prophet").

In some ways, in fact, terrorism remains the perfect bogeyman. It’s easy to hype the threat, and to convince people to worry about random dangers over which they have little or no control. Unscrupulous politicians have long understood that you can get a lot of leeway when the people are scared and craving protection, and it’s pretty clear that Trump and Bannon see this tactic as the ideal way to retain public support (and to consolidate more presidential power), and the specter of terrorism serves well because it scares people but isn’t actually an existential threat that might require a serious, sensible, strategic, and well-thought response. For would-be authoritarians, “terrorism” is a gift that just keeps giving.

Klevius correction of this fake (or just ignorant) "info": That's precisely why we should talk much more about the Saudi based and steered OIC and its world sharia via UN etc.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying the danger is zero or that sensible precautionary measures should not be taken. But to believe that ragtag radicals like al Qaeda or the Islamic State constitute a threat on a par with Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, or some of the serious opponents the United States has faced in the past is silly. Frankly, it makes me question the guts, steadiness, and judgment of some of our present leaders, if they are so easily spooked by such weak adversaries. Let’s hope these fraidy-cats never have to deal with a truly formidable foe.

Klevius correction of this fake (or just ignorant) "info": Poor blind man who can't even see the enemy. How could he ever understand the threat?

4: “Creeping Sharia” Is a Fairy Tale. Die-hard Islamophobes have a fallback argument: The danger isn’t an actual military attack or a Muslim invasion of America or Europe. Rather, the danger is the slow infiltration of our society by “foreigners” who refuse to assimilate and who will eventually try to impose their weird and alien values on us. One sees this argument in the right-wing myth of “creeping Sharia,” based on trumped-up (pun intended) stories about “Sharia courts” and other alleged incidents where diabolical Muslim infiltrators have tried to pollute our pristine Constitution with their religiously inspired dogma. If we’re not ceaselessly vigilant, we are told, someday our daughters will be wearing hijabs and we’ll all be praying to Mecca.

Klevius correction of this fake (or just ignorant) "info": Or being killed, or mistreated in a variety of possible ways when the percentage of muslims in the public sphere - not to mention officials - increase and therefore also the chances for so called "extremist muslims" facing you.

Seriously, this anxiety almost sounds right out of Dr. Strangelove, and especially Brig. Gen. Jack D. Ripper’s rants about fluoridation and the need to protect our “precious bodily fluids.” To repeat: There is simply no evidence of “creeping Sharia” here in the United States, and no risk of it occurring in the future. Not only do we still have formal separation of church and state here (at least so far!), the number of Muslims in the United States remains tiny. According to a 2016 Pew Research Center survey, there are only 3.3 million Muslims living in the United States, a mere 1 percent of the population. That percentage might double by 2050 to a vast, enormous, dangerous, and overwhelming 2 percent. Being a tiny minority makes them ideal victims for ambitious power-seekers, but hardly a threat to our way of life.

Klevius correction of this fake (or just ignorant) "info": So why does UK have a problem with its many sharia courts? To an extent that even the PM is behind it - although missing the point by having a sharia muslim investigating sharia muslims. How exactly does US differ so much from UK's muslim sharia problem?

5: The “Clash of Civilizations” Is a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy. The final reason to reject Bannon and company’s depiction of a vast and looming Muslim threat to us is that this worldview encourages us to act in ways that make the problem worse instead of better. As George Kennan wisely observed in 1947, “It is an undeniable privilege of every man to prove himself right in the thesis that the world is his enemy; for if he reiterates it frequently enough and makes it the background of his conduct he is bound eventually to be right.” If U.S. leaders keep demonizing an entire religion, impose ill-considered bans on Muslim refugees, and most important of all, continue to intervene throughout the Arab and Islamic world with military force, they will convince more and more people that Osama bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi were right when they claimed the West had “declared war” on their religion.

Klevius correction of this fake (or just ignorant) "info": 'Entire religion'?! What a classic in the hopeless strive to defend the undefendable. If the core and origin of the religion is its evil, then how would this evil be lesser by referring to a surrounding muslim gray zone? Hopeless because islamic sharia, in whatever Human Rights violating form, is unacceptable in a civilized society where we intend to respect each-others as equals. Klevius thinks so, the European Court of Human Rights thinks so, and no one can logically think differently without slipping into a racist/sexist hate swamp.

Despite the mountain of evidence that shows that anti-Americanism in the Muslim world is overwhelmingly a response to U.S. policy (and not because they “hate our freedoms”), people like Bannon, Gaffney, and their ilk want us to double down on the same policies that have inspired extremists since the 1950s and especially since the formation of al Qaeda. Frankly, given how often we’ve used our superior power to interfere in these countries, it’s somewhat surprising the reaction has been as modest and manageable as it is. Ask yourself how Americans might react if a powerful foreign country had repeatedly bombed the continental United States with aircraft and drones, or invaded, toppled our government, and then left chaos in their wake. Do you think a few patriotic Americans might be tempted to try for some payback?

Klevius correction of this fake (or just ignorant) "info": Islam hates the most basic Human Rights. This is the very allure of islam's original inborn racism and sexism.

Perhaps the most important task for any strategist is to figure out what the main threats and opportunities are, and then to devise policies that can defuse the former and exploit the latter. Making all of Islam our enemy and viewing the world through the lens of a vast “civilizational clash” fails on both criteria. If followed, it will bog us down in more interminable conflicts in places that are not vital U.S. interests, distract us from other foreign-policy issues, and sap the wealth and strength that we may need to deal with more serious challenges, including long-neglected problems here at home. I’m sure plenty of anti-Americans are hoping that we take the bait and do just that; what scares me is that there are now people in the White House who agree with them.

Klevius correction of this fake (or just ignorant) "info": Read my pen, dear Walt! The main threat is sharia islam and the main vaccine is Universal Human Rights equality exactly as stated in the 1948 Human Rights declaration which was agreed on to avoid any sort of totalitarian fascism rising its ugly head again. However, Mr. Walt has apparently missed this most important part in his education.