Are you or your representative(s) for or against basic Human Rights equality?

Peter Klevius global morality can only be challenged by violating the most basic of Human Rights.

Everything Peter Klevius writes (or has written) is guided by the anti-sexist. anti-racist, and anti-fascist Universal* Human Rights declaration of 1948. In other words, what is declared immoral and evil is so done as measured against the most basic of Human Rights (the so called "negative" rights - i.e. the rights of the individual not to be unnecessarily targeted with restrictions and impositions). Unlike the 1948 Universal Human Rights (UHR) declaration, islam denies Human Rights equality to women and non-muslims. And violation of such basic Human Rights can't be tolerated just by referring to "freedom of religion".

* This means accepting everyone - without exception due to e.g. sex, religion, lack of religion, "security" etc. - as equal in Human Rights. The individual is protected by negative Human Rights, but of course not against substantiated legal accusations - as long as these are not produced as a means that violates the basic Human Rights (compare "not necessary in a free, democratic country"). The legislator may not produce laws that seek to undermine some individuals rights. This also includes e.g. "freedom of religion", i.e. that this freedom doesn't give the right to unfree others, or cause others to be in an inferior rights position. If by islam you mean something that fully adheres to basic Human Rights equality, then you aren't targeted by Peter Klevius islam criticism. However, if you mean islam accepts violations of the most basic of Human Rights, then you may also call Peter Klevius an "islamophobe" - and he will be proud of it. And when it comes to "security" it can't mean "offending" opponents to basic Human Rights.

This is why any effort to twist or accuse the writings of Peter Klevius as "islamophobia" etc. can only be made from a standpoint against these basic Human Rights. As a consequence, no body of authority can therefore accuse, hinder etc. Peter Klevius without simultaneously revealing its own disrespect for these Human Rights. Conversely, Peter Klevius can not accuse anyone who agrees on these rights - i.e. this leaves e.g. "islamophobia" etc. accusations against Peter Klevius without merit.

Every effort against these basic Human Rights is treason against a country calling itself free and democratic.


Some basic facts to consider about Klevius* (except that he is both "extremely normal" and extremely intelligent - which fact, of course, would not put you off if you're really interested in these questions):

* Mentored by G. H. von Wright, Wittgenstein's successor at Cambridge.

1 Klevius' analysis of consciousness is the only one that fits what we know - after having eliminated our "pride" bias of being humans (which non-human would we impress, anyway?). Its starting point is described and exemplified in a commentary to Jurgen Habermas in Klevius book Demand for Resources (1992:30-33, ISBN 9173288411, based on an article by Klevius from 1981), and is further explained in a commentary to Francis Crick's book The Astonishing Hypothesis under the title The Even More Astonishing Hypothesis (EMAH), which can be found in Stalk's archive and which has been on line since 2003 for anyone to access/assess.

2 Klevius out of island/mainland fluctuating Southeast Asia Denisovans up to big skulled Siberians as the birth of much more intelligent modern humans who then spread all over the world, is the only analysis that fits both genetic reality as well as tool and art sophistication seen in e.g. the Denisova cave (no dude, Blombos etc. don’t come even close).

3 Klevius criticism of Human Rights violating sharia islamofascism (e.g. OIC) which is called "islamophobia" by islamofascists and their supporters who don't care about the most basic of Human Rights (e.g. re. women). Klevius' "islamophobia" has two roots: 1) UN's 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration, which, contrary to any form of muslim sharia, doesn't, for example, allow sex to be an excuse for robbing females of their full Human Rights equality, and 2) the history of the origin of islam ( e.g. Hugh Kennedy, Robert G. Hoyland, K. S. Lal etc.) which reveals a murderous, pillaging, robbing, enslaving and raping racist/sexist supremacist ideology that exactly follows precisely those basic islamic tenets which are now called "unislamic" but still survive today (as sharia approved sex slavery, sharia approved "liberation” jihad, academic jihad etc.) behind the sharia cover which is made even more impenetrable via the spread of islamic finance, mainly steered from the islamofascist Saudi dictator family.


4 Klevius analysis of sex segregation/apartheid (now deceptively called “gender segregation”) and heterosexual attraction - see e.g. Demand for Resources (1981/1992), Daughters of the Social State (1993), Angels of Antichrist (1996), Pathological Symbiosis (2003), or Klevius PhD research on heterosexual attraction/sex segregation and opposition to female footballers (published in book form soon).

Britisharia Human Rightsphobia

Britisharia Human Rightsphobia

Saudi induced muslim attack on UK Parliament. How many elsewhere? And what about Saudi/OIC's sharia

Saudi induced muslim attack on UK Parliament. How many elsewhere? And what about Saudi/OIC's sharia

Racist UK Government and BBC

Racist UK Government and BBC

UK's sharia ties to Saudi islamofascism threaten EU (and UK) security

UK's sharia ties to Saudi islamofascism threaten EU (and UK) security

Peter Klevius "islamophobia"/Human Rightsphobia test for you and your politicians

Warning for a muslim robot!

There's no true islam without Human Rights violating sharia

There's no true islam without Human Rights violating sharia

UK PM candidate Rees-Mogg: Germans needed Human Rights - we don't. Klevius: I really think you do.

The Viking phenomenon started with bilingual Finns raiding/trading sex slave to Abbasid (ca 750)

Klevius 1979: Human Rights rather than religion

Klevius 1979: Human Rights rather than religion

BBC (imp)lies that 84% of the world is "monotheist" although most people are A(mono)theists

BBC (imp)lies that 84% of the world is "monotheist" although most people are A(mono)theists

Peter Klevius' 1986 experimental zero budget refugee video

Klevius can no longer distinguish between the techniques of BBC and Nazi propaganda - can you!

By squeezing in Atheist ideologies/philosophies as well as polytheisms under the super set BBC calls "religion", and by narrowing 'Atheism' to what it's not (Atheism is what it says on the tin - no god) they produced the extremely faked proposition that 84% of the world's population is "religious". Moreover, BBC also proudly claimed that the 84% figure is rising even more. Well, that's only by relying on those poor women in Pakistan, Bangladesh, English muslim ghettos (where most so called "British" women don't even speak English) etc., who still produce many more children than the average in the world. But Klevius doesn't think this abuse of girls/women is anything to cheer.

The main threat to your Human Rights

The main threat to your Human Rights

BBC, the world's biggest fake/selective news site - with an evil agenda

BBC, the world's biggest fake/selective news site - with an evil agenda

BBC's compulsory fee funded propaganda for Saudi sharia islam

Monday, May 5, 2014

It wasn't Boko Haram but islam that sex enslaved the Nigerian schoolgirls!




We do know every form of Sharia is evil because it ALWAYS violates the most basic of Human Rights. However, wouldn't it be interesting to know how BBC's muslim islam presenter Mishal Husain's Sharia differs from Boko Haram's - and who has more support in the Koran, e.g. re. "infidel sex slaves that your right hand possesses"!



Fani-Kayode (a former Minister of Aviation): When some people are prepared to use religion as a political tool, shed as much innocent blood as possible and pervert the very tenets of the faith that they claim to espouse, one must decide whether those of us that do not share their world view are prepared to remain in the same cage as those that are clearly nothing but ravenous beasts.

Klevius comment: They follow Mohammed by the help of their Saudi masters! You know, the Saudi "king" et co who applauded (by blaming the victims) the 9/11 Saudi muslim terrorist attack.



Fani-Kayode: And whether anyone likes to accept it or not there are quite a number of people who fall into the category of Boko Haram sympathizers even though they remain in the shadows. For example there is a very combative, visible and vocal individual from the north-western part of our country who has been accused of covertly funding and supporting the Islamist cause and terrorism for many years.

That same individual was described to the FBI as a ‘’trusted mentor’’ by Umar Faruk Mutallab, the Nigerian ‘’underwear bomber’’, who attempted to blow up a plane filled with passengers as it was about to land in the United States of America a few years ago.

Again that same individual has been accused of having a hand in one of the most heinous and brutal sectarian murders in the history of our country when a young man by the name of Gideon Akaluka, from Benue state, was cold-bloodedly beheaded by a rampaging mob in Kano for supposedly ‘’desecrating the Koran’’. Akaluka’s severed head was paraded on a long pole all over the streets of the city before a cheering and roaring crowd for many hours and the whole gory event was actually video-taped by the perpetrators themselves. Such barbarity has rarely been seen in the history of our country.

Yet this individual has not been brought to justice or even questioned about these matters. Is it any wonder that Boko Haram appears to be going from strength to strength? The truth is that they have many friends in high places and President Goodluck Jonathan himself once alluded to this. Another individual, who was a former Head of State, was quoted as saying the following in 2001-

”I will continue to show openly and inside me the total commitment to the Sharia movement that is sweeping all over Nigeria. God-willing, we will not stop the agitation for the total implementation of the sharia in the country. Muslims should vote at the next Presidential election only for someone who will defend their faith”.


I really do wonder whose freedom they seek to secure and who they are fighting for? Is it the freedom to kill our people and to abduct and enslave our children? Such sentiments and expressions of sympathy for the enemies of our people are a national disgrace and those that express them ought to be called out and held to account.

It is either that we succumb to them, accept their demands, bow to them and allow them to change our way of life or we fight them into the ground, eliminate every single one of them, flush them out, burn the Sambisa forest to the ground, avenge our people, preserve our way of life and restore our self-respect and dignity.

It is either that we accept their evil, concede to the establishment of a Taliban-style Islamic fundamentalist state in the whole of our country and espouse it wholeheartedly or we fight a brutal, bloody, long and righteous war to preserve the unity of our nation, to protect the secularity of our state and to enthrone righteousness and justice.

Klevius question: Wouldn't it save a lot of blood and suffering if you simply got rid of that creepy god you say you share with islam and therefore protect?! There's a crystal clear alternative: Human Rights! No religion can fully accept Human Rights! Religion is Devil's finger. There is no "moderate islam" says Erdogan!







Fani-Kayode: The Haramites of Boko have already made their choice and they made it long ago. And that choice is to subject the Nigerian people to terror, murder, humiliation, carnage and bondage and bring us to servitude and to our knees. They will continue to effect this satanic agenda unless and until we get off our knees, stand up like men and say ”enough is enough”. They will continue to do so unless and until we are ready to say that Nigeria is worth dying for and that we are ready to fight back. May God deliver Nigeria.

Klevius comment: God Allah already has!






Oh. I see Sharia as a means to commit Human Rights violations without being held responsible, thinks Iyad Madani, the Saudi Fuhrer of !


Boko Haram has a deep history of involvement with Saudi Arabia: Muhammad Yusuf found refuge in Saudi Arabia to escape a Nigerian security forces crackdown in 2004; Boko Haram has reportedly received funding with the help of AQIM from organizations in the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia; and Boko Haram’s spokesman claimed that Boko Haram leaders met with al-Qa`ida in Saudi Arabia during the lesser hajj (umra) in August 2011. More recently, the leader of a Boko Haram cell that was responsible for the November 25, 2012, attack on a church inside a military barracks in Jaji, Kaduna, was in Saudi Arabia during the months prior to the attack.

Boko Haram even has a “diplomatic” presence in Saudi Arabia, in addition to other militant connections. In August 2012, a Boko Haram faction led by Abu Muhammed negotiated in Mecca with a Nigerian government team led by National Security Adviser Sambo Dasuki and advised by General Muhammed Shuwa. President Jonathan has rejected new talks with this faction, however, on the grounds that “there can be no dialogue” with Boko Haram because it is “faceless.” Abu Muhammed’s proposed negotiating team included, among others, the Cameroonian Mamman Nur, who lost a power struggle with Shekau to lead what became the main Boko Haram faction after Muhammad Yusuf’s death in July 2009. Therefore, Abu Muhammed’s claim to represent Shekau’s faction is likely false, and Shekau’s spokesman called Abu Muhammed a “fake” in August 2012.








Muslim born  (apostate?!) Mr X "president" Barry Barakeh Hussain Mohammad Dunham Obama Soetoro (or whatever) defends Boko Haram!


Jessica Rubin: Don't worry.  Boko Haram is not really a terrorist organization, says the State Department.

According to the Obama State Department, Boko Haram isn't really a terrorist organization.  Johnnie Carson, assistant secretary of state for African affairs, testified at subcommittee hearings chaired by Senator Coons, that Boko Haram is not an organized, ideologically driven movement like al-Qaeda and that the violence attributed to Boko Haram is the result of natural social dynamics driven by poverty, social inequality, and police and government brutality and corruption.

Carson dismissed the idea of designating Boko Haram a terrorist organization and claimed that -- despite Boko Haram's repeated statements about its goals of forcing Islam and sharia on Nigeria -- this conflict is driven not by religion, but by "social inequities."  In fact, he went on to urge that the U.S. step up development assistance to "Nigeria's restive Muslim-majority north" as it urged the Abuja government to address grievances underlying violence.
"Boko Haram," by the by, means "Western ways are evil."

If the State Department were to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist group, that would trigger a government-wide U.S. effort to isolate the group and cut off its finances.  But no, Boko Haram is just a "restive" Muslim group with "grievances" which need to be addressed.  Or else what?  Or else (hint, hint) they just might morph into a real ideologically driven terrorist organization like al-Qaeda.

The logic is mind-numbing.  Basically, it boils down to arguing that X is not really a terrorist group because its terrorist activities have a non-ideological basis, and the U.S. had better appease them, or they might just become a real ideologically driven terrorist organization.

This deep thinking is the foreign policy extension of the liberal domestic meme that so-called criminals are just misunderstood, unfairly treated, marginalized victims of social oppression driven by anger and resentment -- as any normal person would be.



Klevius' advice: If you're a Human Rights violating Sharia muslim - why don't you dare to openly admit it or, alternatively, openly commit apostasy. Don't be a coward like Obama! Think about the Nigerian schoolgirls and 1,400 years of continuous islamic enslavement, hate crimes against "infidels", genocides, rapetivism etc, in short, the worst ideological crime history knows about!


No comments:

Post a Comment