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!

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.

Wednesday, April 12, 2017

When Saudi initiated muslim terrorists attacked a player bus in Germany, BBC reveled in its "journalistic" capability of producing truly fake news for its compulsory fee paying UK listeners.


BBC's alternative fake news


Today, at a time when the world already knew the attack was an islamist one,  BBC News reported that "it could have been islamist or left wing extremists - or right wing extremists.

Klevius comment: What makes this BBC's fake "reporting" really beyond the lowest of journalistic standard is the fact that although a letter had been found connecting it to islam, and although there had been a fake news story in a German paper apparently wrongly indicating left wing extremism - why did BBC have to squeeze in the word 'right wing' out of absolutely nothing?! The only explanation seems to be that this kind of faking could possibly lure some older or just ignorant listeners and making them keep believing that islam is fine and terrorism and sharia has nothing to do with islam and Saudi islamofascism - it's just the evil Iranians, Syrians and Russians.


This is your politicians' best ally! Do you approve of Saudi islamofascist hate mongering spread all over the world for the purpose of keeping the islamofascist Saudi dictator family in power as the "guardians of (Sunni) islam"?

And here's one of its many minarets:

 This is BBC's muslim "diversity" presenter who was brought up in islamofascist Saudi Arabia and who later learned to talk and behave "nicely" at Cambridge, and who now helps protecting the evil of islam against Human Rights defending "islamophobes" by spreading fake info about mulims and islam via BBC's compulsory fee paid minarets.

How come a left wing Scandinavian news paper is less fake than BBC?


This is Åsa Linderborg, a hard core communist and defender of islamofasci sm who is chief cultural editor on Scandinavia's biggest news paper Aftonbladet. Klevius has often wondered about why left wing extremists are so attached to fascisms of different kinds - from Bolsjevism over national socialism (which sprung out of social democracy) to islamofascism.

Not even Swedish/Norwegian Aftonbladet, which is left wing and which considers a few confused neo-Nazi lunatics a much worse threat than Saudi sponsored (via islamic hate mongering/oil money sponsoring) worldwide islamofascism, managed to see any "right wing" connection today.

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

More Saudi built Sunni mosques is a certain flag for more muslim terrorism, hatred and (Sunni) sharia around the world.


The islamofascist Saudi dictator family is directly responsible for the attacks in London, Moscow, Stockholm etc. - and for the war crimes in Syria, Yemen etc.



Russia is now the only obstacle for the islamofascist Saudi dictator family to take over the region and continue spreading its hate over the world. Not only that, the islamofascist Saudi dictator family is the worst war criminal of our time and seems not to hesitate to trigger even worse.

If Assad has been winning the Saudi sponsored muslim terrorists without using gas attacks - why would he do it now? This question seems totally neglected by war and hate mongering BBC (and other pro-Saudi media) and US/UK politicians black mailed by the islamofascist Saudi dictator family.

However, they are not the only ones black mailed.

1.5 Billion "muslims" are held hostage by the islamofascist Saudi dictator family in its poition as "the guardian of islam".

BBC, PC politicians etc. keep faking that Saudi islam isn't "the real islam" - yet according to Klevius it's the closest to the idea behind the original evil islam, and according to existing facts, it's precisely the racist/sexist hate mongering segregational Sunni islam that now rules the muslim world agenda through Saudi etc. oil wealth and Umma organizations (e.g. Saudi based and steered OIC).


The Saudi inspired Sunni muslim terrorist in Stockholm demands a Sunni muslim lawyer to defend himself.

Klevius: How does this prove Assad did it? What Pentagon is doing is just to hinder Syria to protect itself against Saudi led militant muslim terrorists by using its aircrafts. A no-fly zone that would only benefit Saudi islamofascism.


There's a direct link between Saudi supported mosque building and the spread of islamic hatered.








.

Monday, April 10, 2017

Saudi Arabia gas attacks Syrians (via its support of al-Nusra/Islamic State) and Syrians and Russians get the blame. How come?


Has Trump been "educated" (or "streamlined" into, if you prefer) by the very establishment he came to "clean up"?

How is it even possible that politicians from top nations now wants to go to war based on fake news? There's still no evidence whatsoever, yet firm "conclusions" are drawn.

From a winning formula



to a 'historical turning point' just before the gas attack and due Tomahawk throwing.


What could it be? Assad who got a shortcut in his brain - or a gas attack committed by the islamofascist Saudi dictator family via al-Nusra/Islamic State, for the purpose of getting the upper hand against Iran*?




* All the noise about Putin/Russia is created for the purpose of protecting the most dangerous dictatorship on Earth right now, the islamofascist Saudi steered part of the Arabian peninsula. And the only thing that limits the Saudi hegemony is Putin/Russia and its support of Iran.



Aircrafts in the sky dropping bombs + sarin on the ground = x.

1 x = Syrian aircrafts dropping sarin bombs?
2 x = Syrian aircrafts hitting sarin on the ground?
3 x = sarin delivered from the ground at the same time (e.g. by using ground launced grenades - as IS have loads of - see more further down)?

All of these will look the same. However, number one seems quite unlikely at a time when Assad was already winning both the muslim terrorists as well as a negotiation opening.

So why is Trump attacking Syria without knowing?

The only answer (no matter which x you choose) is the islamofascist Saudi dictator family - backed by Israel and the usual "Western" pack.


Klevius wrote:

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

Were Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, US and UK accomplices to the gas attack/s in Syria?


Acknowledgement: Klevius is no fan of Assad. Not only because of the accusation of Syrian involvement in the February 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and support for muslim anti-Jewish terror groups etc, but also because of him being a muslim who happily and shamelessly, like most others, utilizes islam (the worst crime ever against humanity) for his agenda.




And those muslims who don't fit in either category need to face Erdogan, OIC and Human Rights violating Sharia - or admit they are no real muslims

Klevius comment: I for one cannot see the slightest space for political islam in a democratic society based on the belief in Human Rights. Can you?

Not taking responsibility for the evilness in one's ideology is pathetic. Klevius will elaborate on this in the next posting. In a way so most muslims should understand - if they dare to admit it.



Why do Western politicians support islamic terrorists? Is it because Western tax payers are ignorant and misinformed about what islam really is? But the truth is that the victims' bodies are all labeled 'political islam'!

Fly Qatar islamofascism while bowing towards the Saudis


When George W Bush in a week managed to topple Iraq's chemical weapons using dictator Saddam Hussein (whose Sarin victims were counted in tens of thousands) he was spat on by many. However, in Syria everything seems the opposite. The Sarin is used by the terrorists but Obama & Co are asked to topple Assad. How come?! The answer is simple: Saddam was Sunni and Assad is Shia.


The fact that launching indiscriminate biological attacks makes absolutely no sense militarily for Assad means it’s far more likely that such attacks are being staged by rebels – many of whom are being led by Al-Qaeda/Al-Nusra islamic terrorists – with support from the likes of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey.




Gearóid Ó Colmáin, Global Research, May 30, 2013: According to a report in Turkey’s state media agency Zaman, agents from the Turkish General Directorate of Security (Emniyet Genel Müdürlüğü) ceased 2 kg of sarin gas in the city of Adana in the early hours of yesterday morning. The chemical weapons were in the possession of Al Nusra terrorists believed to have been heading for Syria.
Sarin gas is a colourless, odorless substance which is extremely difficult to detect. The gas is banned under the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention.
The EGM identified 12 members of the AL Nusra terrorist cell and also ceased fire arms and digital equipment. This is the second major official confirmation of the use of chemical weapons by
Al-Qaeda terrorists in Syria after UN inspector Carla Del Ponte’s recent statement confirming the use of chemical weapons by the Western-backed terrorists in Syria.
The Turkish police are currently conducting further investigations into the operations of Al-Qaeda linked groups in Turkey.
This further confirmation that the Syrian ‘rebels’ are using chemical weapons while also using Turkey as a base of terrorist operations against Syria, could cause further domestic problems for Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whom Turkish opposition leader Kemal Kilicdaroglu has called the ‘chief of the terrorists’.
The Syrian National Coalition abroad has persisted in accusing the Syrian government of using chemical weapons. The Syrian National Coalition Head of Media Khaled Saleh told Al Jazeera on May 26th that Turkish authorities were certain about the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government.
Saleh also claimed that he was in contact with several ‘brigades’ fighting in Syria. Perhaps, Mr. Saleh should be advised to consult the Turkish police now that one of his ‘brigades’ has been arrested in possession of chemical weapons.
Unsurprisingly, this Turkish report failed to make international headlines. From the beginning of the Syrian war, the international press agencies have attempted to portray the Al-Qaeda invasion of Syria as a ‘popular revolution’, which started out as a ‘peaceful protest’ against a ‘brutal regime’. The fact that there was never a modicum of evidence to support such claims has not hindered the avalanche of vituperation and demonization of Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad and the Syrian Arab Republic.
France’s daily Le Monde published an ‘exclusive’ report on the 27th of May 2013 which claimed to have ‘proof’ that the Syrian government was using chemical weapons ‘against its own people’. However, the report simply relied on statements by ‘activists’ and ‘rebels’, who most serious commentators have described as unreliable sources of information.
Le Monde’s report came just in time as the French government was pushing the European Union to lift the embargo on arms to the terrorists in Syria. The confirmation by previous articles in Le Monde that the opposition in Syria is in fact Al Qaeda, together with the reluctance of EU partners Germany, Austria, and other countries to openly back the terrorists, has isolated Paris and London, exposing the British and French governments as state sponsors of terrorism.
In January 2013, Russian television station RT published leaked documents from British corporation Britam Defense, which revealed a plan by Qatar to deliver chemical weapons to Homs in Syria, with the aid of Britam Defense. The British company was to provide Ukrainian personnel to act as Russian military advisors in order to implicate the Russian government in the crime. The email suggested that the Qataris were providing ‘enormous’ amounts of money for the plan and that it was approved by Washington. 
The Japhat Al-Nosra terrorist organization has not hidden its desire to gas the Alawite minority in Syria. A video was posted on U Tube on December 4th 2012 showing terrorists testing chemical weapons on rabbits, while vowing to exterminate Alawite Syrians in a similar fashion.
Iran’s Press TV also published a report which showed terrorists using chemical weapons.
As the Western-backed terrorists lose ground to government forces in Syria, the likelihood of further massacres committed by the terrorists and blamed on the Syrian government grows. However, as more and more reports contradict the official media narrative on the Syrian war, the voices of truth are acquiring critical mass, threatening to bring down once and for all NATO’s oppressive media empire.

Jabhat al-Nusra, Obama's & Co's terrorist ally against Syria

Many of Jabhat al-Nusra's members are Syrians who were part of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's Jihadist network fighting the American forces in Iraq. Many of these Syrians remained in Iraq after the withdrawal of American forces, but upon the outbreak of Syrian civil war in 2011, the Islamic State of Iraq sent the Syrian Jihadists and individual Iraqi experts in guerrilla warfare into Syria. A number of meetings were held between October 2011 and January 2012 in Rif Dimashq and Homs where the objectives of the group were determined.
The al-Nusra Front released its first public statement on 24 January 2012 in which they called for armed struggle against the Syrian government. The group claimed responsibility for the 2012 Aleppo bombings, the January 2012 al-Midan bombing, the March 2012 Damascus bombings the murder of journalist Mohammed al-Saeed and possibly the 10 May 2012 Damascus bombing.
Patrick Henningsen: Chemical weapon only miles away from the very hotel that the UN weapons inspector booked into only a few days ago. They see this as a distraction and if we look at the history of this particular region where the attack is set to take place it is very active with Al-Nusra Front and they also have been implicated in using make shifts chlorine bombs in Aleppo back in March, so there is a track record there.
RT: It is still clear why the fingers are being pointed at the Syrian government, because it is the government which has chemical weapons.
PH: All this at this point is innuendo. This is why the UN team is in Damascus to investigate these claims. Unfortunately Washington, London and Paris drew a red line in 2012. They said that if any side deploys chemical weapons then that would be a pretext for a military intervention either by NATO or some sort of coalition force backed by US resolution. Who benefits from a chemical attack in Syria? The opposition benefits. It is quite obvious that the government does not benefit. The opposition benefits because that would be the key to unlock the airstrikes and bombing campaign over Syria, a la Libya. The opposition would like a Libyan-style coalition with NATO in order to force the regime in power out of Damascus. They benefit from any report of chemical attack in Syria.
RT: Al-Arabiya puts the number of killed at more than 600 while other main stream media talk about just dozen of victims. Why is there such a difference?
PH: You have to consider the source. I believe Al-Arabiya has certain affiliations with certain Gulf states who might also have some interest in this particular conflict already so might see a more exaggerated report on different sides. But again, there is no independent verification, it is simply anecdotal and innuendo to this point. But the timing of it is very suspect.



William Engdahl: In the text of (Saudi) Al Arabiya's article we read that the “Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said dozens of people were killed, including children, in fierce bombardment.” Now the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) has been the source of every news report negative against the Syrian Assad government since the war began in 2011. More curious about the humanitarian-sounding SOHR is the fact, as uncovered by investigative journalists, that it consists of a sole Syrian refugee who has lived in London for the past 13 years named Rami Abdul Rahman, a Syrian Sunni muslim who owns a clothing shop and is running a Twitter page from his home. Partly owing to a very friendly profile story on the BBC, he gained mainstream media credibility. He is anything but unbiased.

The other aspect of the suspicious reports is the “convenient” fact they coincide with the arrival two days earlier of an official UN weapons inspection team, allowed by the government, to investigate allegations of chemical weapons use in the Syrian war. It begs the most obvious question: What conceivably would Bashar al Assad stand to gain from using banned chemical weapons just at the time he has agreed to let a UN chemical weapons team into Syria? 




Sarin and its distribution



Paul from Allen Vanguard:

How long would it take Sarin to become harmless, or dissipate?  In general terms are we talking minutes, hours, weeks?

This is difficult to answer because of the variables that could exist but Sarin is a non-persistent and highly volatile liquid which disperses and vaporises rapidly dependent on conditions of temperature and air flow.  A single projectile of Sarin fired in a hot, sunny featureless environment during a windy day could feasibly take minutes to dissipate.  At the other end of the spectrum, a sustained bombardment/barrage in an urban area during a period of no wind and no sustained periods of sun would be more likely to create a scenario where pockets of exposed Sarin would last for days, unexposed Sarin could last for weeks and CW UXO could remain in the area for years.



Dan Kaszeta, a US Army Chemical Corps veteran:

Submuntions: A highly effective way of dissemination would be a munition that scattered bomblets or submunitions at some height, with the submunitions designed for ground impact detonation.  Other factors being equal (…but they often aren’t), submunitions are generally considered a more efficient method of dispensing Sarin. 

In Tokyo it had been intended initially to aerosolise but ended up being stabbed bags left to evaporate (which is pretty good due to the speed at which it evaporates).

 The canisters recovered from the scene of the attacks matched canisters also recovered from an attack reported in Sheikh Maqsoud in Aleppo, where there were again claims of them being dropped from a helicopter, with photographs showing the canister remains covered in white-grey powder. 
The same design of canister has also been filmed in a cache of weapons reportedly captured by the Syrian opposition from the Syrian military, and a journalist in Syria has shown the image of the canister to various armed group, many of which have claimed to have seen them in the possession of opposition fighters, claiming to have captured them from the Syrian army.
Another type of grenade, using an identical fuze, was also photographed in Syria, with the photographer being told it was a normal smoke grenade.

 The Russian government has claimed the Syrian opposition was responsible for the Khan al-Assal attack, with a DIY rocket delivering a payload of Sarin. 

What do you think would be involved in putting together a DIY chemical warhead for a DIY rocket?

Crude devices are not that hard. Removal of explosives or whatever payload had been carried, followed by introducing the agent. You would need protective gear and it wouldn’t be very safe doing the filling.
Accuracy would be lost (if a missile) and performance of rockets could be affected by different weight distribution. I don’t really want to go in to too much detail about the how, lest I give ideas or advice, but early CW munitions were very simple.

If you don’t really care where it goes then its achievable.

Considering the Russian government's claim that a DIY rocket was used  in the attack, what would be the most effective dispersal method once the rocket reached it's target? 

Air burst or base ejection were used by military munitions but require more complex fuses. If aimed at hard targets then you’d get a level of dispersal by simple impact, but if it hit the earth then the payload could just get driven in to the earth.




Syrian Rebels use D-30 Howitzers capable of distributing Sarin



The D-30 is a Russian-made 122 mm towed howitzer that first entered service in the 1960s with the Russian army. The D-30 is designed to defeat unsheltered and covered manpower, weapons and military equipment of the enemy at the forward edge of the battle area and to the regiment mission depth. The D-30 has been widely exported and used in wars around the world, notably in the Middle East, and particularly in the Iran-Iraq War.



President al-Assad in an interview by the German Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung after the previous chemical weapons attack:



Had they obtained a single strand of evidence that we had used chemical weapons, do you not think they would have made a song and dance about it to the whole world?, then where is the chain of custody that led them to a such result?
These allegations are ludicrous. The terrorist groups used chemical weapons in Aleppo; subsequently we sent an official letter to the United Nations requesting a formal investigation into the incident. Britain and France blocked this investigation because it would have proven the chemical attacks were carried out by terrorist groups and hence provided conclusive evidence that they (Britain and France) were lying. We invited them to investigate the incident, but instead they wanted the inspectors to have unconditional access to locations across Syria, parallel to what inspectors did in Iraq and delved into other unrelated issues. We are a sovereign state; we have an army and all matters considered classified will never be accessible neither to the UN, nor Britain, nor France. They will only be allowed access to investigate the incident that occurred in Aleppo.
Therefore, all the claims relating to the use of chemical weapons is an extension of the continuous American and Western fabrication of the actual situation in Syria. Its sole aim is to justify their policies to their public opinion and use the claim as a pretext for more military intervention and bloodshed in Syria.
Interviewer: The protests started in Syria peacefully before they turned into an armed struggle. Your critics claim that you could have dealt with the protests through political reforms, which makes you partly responsible for the destruction in Syria. What is your take on this?
President Assad: We started the reforms from the first days of the crisis and, perhaps even to your surprise, they were initiated years before the crisis. We issued a number of new legislations, lifted the emergency law and even changed the constitution through a referendum. This is a well-known fact to the West; yet what the West refuses to see is that from the first weeks of the protests we had policemen killed, so how could such protests have been peaceful? How could those who claim that the protests were peaceful explain the death of these policemen in the first week? Could the chants of protesters actually kill a policeman?
From the beginning of the crisis, we have always reiterated that there were armed militants infiltrating protesters and shooting at the police. On other occasions, these armed militants were in areas close to the protests and shot at both protesters and police forces to lead each side into-believing that they were shot at by the other. This was proven through investigations and confessions, which were publicised on a large scale in the media.

Thursday, April 06, 2017

How did Trump end up as a whore of Saudi islamofascism?


Only Klevius analysis of the origin of islam gives you the correct (and easy to see for yourself if you just check islam's history) answer. Avoid fake descriptions of islam!


Is this the man behind the sarin attacks in Syria?


There's absolutely nothing different with islam of today and in its beginning. Except perhaps that representatives of islam's victims today keep calling it "a great religion" and "the religion of peace".

Saudi islamofascism (the "guardians of islam's holy places") is backed by its 1.5 Billion (usually unwitting) "foot soldiers" collected under the Saudi based and steered OIC sharia against Human Rights.

The latest example of Saudi military strikes outside its borders (except for the Saudi atrocities in Syria and Yemen etc.) is the muslim terrorist from Kyrgyzstan who murdered innocent people in St. Petersburg. He was a Saudi product from a program that started less than a decade ago and now has resulted in more mosques than schools in Kyrgyzstan - a country that previously after the fall of USSR showed no extremist tendencies whatsoever before the Saudis entered the scene. Same might perhaps also be said about the latest muslim terrorist attack in London. However, most of the victims induced by Saudi hate mongering are never even counted for because they are usually explained away as "isolated incidents". However, these are just the openly violent attacks induced from Saudi Arabia. A much bigger problem is the spread of muslim sharia - and supported by many non-muslim Western politicians, such as e.g. Theresa May etc..

Jews and muslims were both collaborators and enemies in the past - just as they are today.

Just a very few examples from the top of the iceberg:

Jews helped the muslim raiders to conquer Medina.

Jews helped the muslim raiders to conquer Mideast.

Jews helped the muslim raiders to conquer Iberia.

Jews helped the Ottoman muslim raiders to conquer parts of Europe.

Jews are helping/cooperating with Saudi islamofascists for the purpose of defending themselves from Iranian islamofascists.

However, due to the Iranians not talking Arabic nor having access to Mecca and Medina, Saudi islamofascism is definitely more dangerous.

And Israel could easily negotiate both a strong defense against Iran as well as cooperating with it. An islam cut off from/balanced against pan-Arabism would create an ideological "terror balance" that might work as well as "the cold war" worked in the West, until islam is finally desarmed from its Medieval evil.

Islam was originally an ideological weapon in the service of terror for booty, slaves etc. And just as successful criminals get attention when flashing with stolen wealth, islam got a reputation for gaining wealth on robbing and enslaving people with Allah's permission. As a consequence islam created a criminal "aristocracy" bathing in wealth while ordinay muslim men were just happy with islam giving them unrestricted access to sex.

There is no religion without its usage. And referring to a "private religion" or individual "religious spirituality" is pure non sense and has nothing to do with real sharia islam.


Klevius wrote:


Wednesday, August 5, 2015

The Jewish origin of islam


Islam is a sect grown out of Judaism via Christianity.


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 Understanding these points is also understanding that islam originated as a parasite and therefore never functioned as inspiration in itself for innovations etc. This is why every islamic colony has ended in backwardness. Africa is an example of how a parasitic ideology was able to drain a whole continent. Saudi Arabia is an other example of how islamic backwardness has managed to keep the oil wealthy country in a state of deep immorality and abuse of Human Rights and which islamic hate mongering has caused more suffering per capita than any other country on Earth. 9/11 was just a tiny droplet in comparison with what the islamofascist Saudi dictator family has caused around the world.










.

Monday, March 27, 2017

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

 

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



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

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

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


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


Klevius wrote:

Tuesday, March 14, 2017

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

  The Empire the Foundation and the Mule

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

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

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

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





Klevius wrote:

Monday, March 13, 2017

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

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

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

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


Klevius introduces a new word, 'Bracism'


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

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

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

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

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

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

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











Klevius wrote:


Tuesday, July 19, 2016


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


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

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

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



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

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

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

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

Muhammad: I have been made victorious by terror


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

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

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

The historian Abul Husain Muslim Nisapuri writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, March 06, 2017

~115,000 year old 1,800cc "mongoloid" skull from China fits perfectly in Peter Klevius theory on human evolution


~105,000- to 125,000-year-old archaic human crania from Xuchang, China shows incipient mongoloid and Neanderthal traits - may be Denisovans. 



Neanderthal male ~1600cc  (~50,000bp), Xuchang 1 male 1800cc (~115,000bp)  Jinniushan female ~1400cc (260,000bp).                   

Zhan-Yang Li et al.: Two early Late Pleistocene crania from Lingjing, Xuchang, China, exhibit a morphological mosaic with differences from and similarities to their western contemporaries. They share pan–Old World trends in encephalization and in supraorbital, neurocranial vault, and nuchal gracilization. They reflect eastern Eurasian ancestry in having low, sagittally flat, and inferiorly broad neurocrania. They share occipital (suprainiac and nuchal torus) and temporal labyrinthine (semicircular canal) morphology with the Neandertals. This morphological combination reflects Pleistocene human evolutionary patterns in general biology, as well as both regional continuity and interregional population dynamics.

The ~260,000bp incipient "mongoloid" Jinniushan from northern China - a corner stone in Peter Klevius' published theory on human evolution since 1992.

Klevius question in his 1992 book was twofold:

1 How come that there was a "mongoloid" big brained skull in northern China  two ice age cycles before present, yet nothing really happened before ~50,000bp?

2  How come that the oldest modern Africans are "mongoloids" - but much younger in Africa than the China fossils?

Add to this the remarkable Liujiang from China (see below).


Both fossils show clear cold adaptation (mongoloid) traits. However, Jinniushan (right) is older and has a bigger cranial capacity although it's female.

In Demand for Resources (1992:28 ISBN 9173288411) in a chapter about human evolution, Peter Klevius used only one example, the remarkable Jinniushan skeleton/cranium:

In northern China near North Korean border an almost complete skeleton of a young man who died 280,000 years ago. The skeleton was remarkable because its big cranial volume (1,400cc) was not expected in Homo erectus territory at this early time and even if classified as Homo sapiens it was still big. The anatomically completely modern human brain volume is 1,400 cc and appeared between 50-100,000 years ago. One may therefore conclude that big brain volume by far predated more sophisticated human behavior (Klevius 1992:28).

Today, when many believe the skeleton is female, the brain size becomes even more remarkable.

However, today, after the revelation of Homo floresiensis, there's a clear candidate to answering Klevius questions above: tropical island dwarfed brain, and its genetic spread up to the previously dumb but big skulled (to compensate for some of their dumbness) northerners. When these genes met the result was an explosion of intelligence in some of the northerners.

Klevius wrote:

Thursday, March 15, 2012 (with some random updates)

The Red Deer Cave people add more evidence for Klevius’ ape/homo hybridization theory


The irrefutable art track in Northern Eurasia (see map below) has no contemporary equivalent in other parts of the world. Based on what we know now it had no fore bearers whatsoever in any period of time. Moreover, it seems that there was even a decline before "civilizations" started tens of thousands of years later! Yet Klevius seems to be the only one addressing this most interesting (besides genetics) fact! According to Klevius (and no one else so far) the new and more efficient brain evolved in a jungle environment (SE Asia?) and spread up until meeting with big headed Neanderthals hence creating the modern human who later spread and dissolved with archaic homos. In this process Homo erectus was most probably involved as well.

Updated info about the origin of Klevius' theory

Keep in mind that mainland SE Asia possibly harbored physically truly modern humans already before the time range (12,000/18,000 ybp - 98,000 ybp) of the Homo floresiensis remains in the Flores cave.



Liujiang, SE China (est. 100,000-140,000ybp)


If this Liujiang skull had been found in Africa or Mideast Wikipedia and other media would be overfilled. But this is all you get now (summer 2015 update) from Wikipedia about this extremely important skull:



The Liujiang skull probably came from sediment dating to 111 000 to 139 000 which would mean it's older than the oldest Homo floresiensis remains on Flores. Nothing even remotely close to this modern skull has ever been found in Africa, Mideast or Europe this early. In other words, we have the extremely archaic looking Red Deer Cave people 100,000 years after this extremely modern looking Liujiang population at approximately the same region. Even the least probable estimate of 70,000 bp would make Liujiang more modern looking than anything else.

Also compare Lake Mungo remains in Australia with an mtDNA that differs completely from ours (incl. Australian Aborigines). Sadly the remains have been kept out of further research because of stupid* "Aboriginal"(?!) greed (for the purpose of making certain people more "special" than others for no good reason at all (also compare the ridiculous Kennewick man controversy). Does it need to be said that the Mungo remains are as far from Australian Aborigines in appearance as you can imagine. However, according to Alan Thorne, 'Mungo could not have come from Africa as, just like Aboriginal Australians don't look like anybody from Africa, Mungo Man's skeleton doesn't look like anybody from Africa either. LM3 skeleton was of a gracile individual, estimated stature of 196 cm, which all sharply contrast with the morphology of modern indigenous Australians. Compared to the older Liujiang skull Mungo man had a much smaller brain.

* There's no way anyone can state who was "first" in Australia - and even if there was, then there's still no way of  making any meaningful connection to now living people.



Updated map


Most "mysteries" in genetics disappear by abandoning OOA and changing direction of HSS evolution. Only South East Asia offered a combination of tropical island/mainland fluctuations needed to put pressure on size reduction paired with evolutionary isolation in an environment where only those survived who managed to shrink their heads while keeping the same intelligence as their mainland kins with some double the sized brain. Homo floresiensis is evidence that such has happened there.


Denisovan is an extinct species of human in the genus Homo. In March 2010, scientists announced the discovery of a finger bone fragment of a juvenile female who lived about 41,000 years ago, found in the remote Denisova Cave in the Altai Mountains in Siberia, a cave which has also been inhabited by Neanderthals and modern humans. Two teeth and a toe bone belonging to different members of the same population have since been reported.

Analysis of the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of the Denisovan finger bone showed it to be genetically distinct from the mtDNAs of Neanderthals and modern humans. Subsequent study of the nuclear genome from this specimen suggests that this group shares a common origin with Neanderthals, that they ranged from Siberia to Southeast Asia, and that they lived among and interbred with the ancestors of some present-day modern humans, with about 3% to 5% of the DNA of Melanesians and Aboriginal Australians deriving from Denisovans. DNA discovered in Spain suggests that Denisovans at some point resided in Western Europe, where Neanderthals were thought to be the only inhabitants. A comparison with the genome of a Neanderthal from the same cave revealed significant local interbreeding, with local Neanderthal DNA representing 17% of the Denisovan genome, while evidence was also detected of interbreeding with an as yet unidentified ancient human lineage. Similar analysis of a toe bone discovered in 2011 is underway, while analysis of DNA from two teeth found in layers different from the finger bone revealed an unexpected degree of mtDNA divergence among Denisovans. In 2013, mitochondrial DNA from a 400,000-year-old hominin femur bone from Spain, which had been seen as either Neanderthal or Homo heidelbergensis, was found to be closer to Denisovan mtDNA than to Neanderthal mtDNA.

Little is known of the precise anatomical features of the Denisovans, since the only physical remains discovered thus far are the finger bone, two teeth from which genetic material has been gathered and a toe bone. The single finger bone is unusually broad and robust, well outside the variation seen in modern people. Surprisingly, it belonged to a female, indicating that the Denisovans were extremely robust, perhaps similar in build to the Neanderthals. The tooth that has been characterized shares no derived morphological features with Neanderthal or modern humans. An initial morphological characterization of the toe bone led to the suggestion that it may have belonged to a Neanderthal-Denisovan hybrid individual, although a critic suggested that the morphology was inconclusive. This toe bone's DNA was analyzed by Pääbo. After looking at the full genome, Pääbo and others confirmed that humans produced hybrids with Denisovans.

Some older finds may or may not belong to the Denisovan line. These includes the skulls from Dali and Maba, and a number of more fragmentary remains from Asia. Asia is not well mapped with regard to human evolution, and the above finds may represent a group of "Asian Neanderthals".

Jinniushan and Floresiensis - the keys to Denisovan and the truly modern humans

Jinniushan had a bigger brain than anything in contemporary Africa




In Demand for Resources (1992:28 ISBN 9173288411) in a chapter about human evolution, Peter Klevius used only one example, the remarkable Jinniushan skeleton/cranium:

In northern China near North Korean border an almost complete skeleton of a young man who died 280,000 years ago. The skeleton was remarkable because its big cranial volume (1,400cc) was not expected in Homo erectus territory at this early time and even if classified as Homo sapiens it was still big. The anatomically completely modern human brain volume is 1,400 cc and appeared between 50-100,000 years ago. One may therefore conclude that big brain volume by far predated more sophisticated human behavior (Klevius 1992:28).

Today, when many believe the skeleton is female, the brain size becomes even more remarkable.

Since 1991 when Klevius wrote his book much new information has been produced. However, it seems that the Jinniushan archaic Homo sapiens still constitutes the most spectacular anomaly (together with Homo floresiensis) in anthropology. So why did Klevius pick Jinniushan instead of one of the more fashionable human remains? After all, Klevius was a big fan of Rchard Leakey (he even interviewed him in a lengthy program for the Finnish YLE broadcasting company) and there was a lot of exciting bones appearing from the Rift Valley.

In the 1980s Klevius paid special attention to Australian aborigines and African "bushmen" and noted that the latter were mongoloid in appearance (even more so considering that todays Khoe-San/Khoisan are heavily mixed with Bantu speakers). But mongoloid features are due to cold adaptation in the north and therefore the "bushmen" had to be related to Eurasia. Klevius soon realized that the Khoisan speakers had moved to the southern Africa quite recently as a consequence of the so called Bantu expansion. More studies indicated that the "bushmen" had previously populated most of east Africa up to the Red Sea and beyond.

So the next step for Klevius was to search for early big skulled human remains in the mongoloid northern part of Eurasia. And that search really paid off.

This happened more than 20 years before the discovery of the Denisova bracelet and the human relative Denisovan in Altai. 

Klevius book Demand for Resources (1992) in which these thoughts about mongoloid traits were published also predates Floresiensis with more than a decade.