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

Thursday, September 25, 2014

Exactly following the Koran/Hadits, Saudi Arabia and the Islamic State behead and persecute exactly as prophet Mohammed did - yet muslim "scholars" see nothing islamic in it!


Why is evil Saudi Arabia supported in its extreme intolerance and racist hate of Shia muslims?



The prophetic terror slaughter of Jews and other "infidels" in Medina and elsewhere is  at the core of islam


Violent jihadism against the "infidels" was the trade mark of prophet Muhammad and sharia (in whatever form) is always against themost basic Human Rights but compulsory to everyone wanting to call himself a muslim (a woman can never be fully muslim). Ask every muslim you encounter if he approves of sharia or Human Rights. If he says both he lies you straight up your infidel face!

No one in his full mind can argue that the original islamic expansionism was a jihad "in defense of islam". It was islamic jihad for conquest, enslavement and rapetivism period.

Wanna know the origin of islam? Look at the Islamic State!

Unlike Saudi Arabia, however, the Islamic State doesn't have a sword on their flag!







Do the muslim test by asking them if they are against Human Rights. If they are not they are no real muslims, according to OIC (all muslims world Ummah) and every possible form of Sharia! And don't get yourself fooled by muslims (or their supporters) using the taqiya oxymoron islamic "human rights" because that is in fact sharia (see OIC's Cairo declaration 1990)!

In other words, a true muslim is then per definition always a supremacist racist and sexist individual through the tie to islam and Sharia. And there is no real  islam without Sharia! Got it dude? And stop cheating yourself and others with that "moderate islam" crap, will you!



 Diana West: Megyn Kelly interviewed Maajid Nawaz about the Islamic State (ISIL), the latest Muslim horde on a jihad to establish a “caliphate” (pan-Islamic regime) based in sharia (Islamic law). Nawaz could be considered a defector from Hizb ut-Tahrir, one of the revolutionary Islamic groups, some violent, some removed from violence, dedicated to the establishment of a caliphate based in Islamic law, from al-Qaida to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

Nawaz said goodbye to all that in 2007, he says. In 2008, he and fellow defector Ed Husain founded Quilliam, a British “counter-extremism” foundation named for William Quilliam, a 19th-century British convert to Islam. Abdullah Quilliam, as he became known, opened the first British mosque on Christmas Day, 1889. “Co-exist,” right? It’s no stretch, however, to imagine Sheikh Quilliam at home in Hizb ut-Tahrir as a fatwa-issuing advocate of the caliphate and sharia both. He also issued a fatwa prohibiting Muslims from fighting for or assisting Britain (“contrary to the sharia”), then fighting Muslim tribes in the Sudan.

Scholar of Islam Andrew Bostom first brought these fatwas to my attention, but they are now accessible on Abdullah Quilliam’s Wikipedia page. Should we take a “counter-extremism” think tank in Quilliam’s name seriously? Could the name have been a mistake? Or is it a joke on gullible infidels? A wink to stealth jihadists?

This piqued my interest in Kelly’s Nawaz interview. Zeroing in on the ISIL beheading of Steven Satloff, she asked: “Where does their thinking come from? ... The first reaction many here in the United States and around the world had was these people who are doing this are psychopaths.”

Really? Such mystification wasn’t my first reaction. I know where their thinking comes from. It comes from Islam. Who doesn’t know that but the highly educated and politically empowered? Not for nothing does the immutable Koran say (Surah 47, Verse 4): “Therefore, when ye meet the unbelievers, smite them at their necks,” among other directives of open-ended jihad. Then again, take the life of Muhammad, Islam’s “perfect man.” He followed his jihad campaign against the Qurayzah, a vanquished Jewish tribe, by beheading all of the 600 to 900 men in the tribe, setting the example for Muslims through the ages. Mohammed also condemned the tribe’s women and children to slavery, keeping some women for himself and his companions, which, bonus, set an example of jihad sex slavery.

Surely this suggests it’s the extremism of Islam that requires “countering.” Will Nawaz agree?

Of course not. In response to Kelly’s question, he repeatedly blames a generic “ideology” that must be “undermined.”

Kelly asks: “You can’t help but look at the killer and think, ‘How could he possibly have come from anything resembling humanity?’”

Nawaz replies: “Yes. Of course we’ve seen this before, we saw it with Nazism in Nazi Germany and that phrase, ‘the banality of evil.’”

Wait a sec. Have we been hearing “Allahu Akbar,” or “Heil Hitler” on all those Islamic snuff videos? Never mind. With a few cliches about “group think” and “the new normal,” Nawaz is back to calling on society to work “to undermine the ideology that underpins (these acts).”

Kelly asks: “Do you feel the Muslim community has been vocal enough in doing that?”

Nawaz pivots in reply. “I think no one’s been vocal enough. I mean, look, Muslims need to do more, but so, frankly, does President Obama.” He then raps Obama for announcing he had no Islamic State strategy — but, hey, our best pundits have no state of Islam conversation. “So, Obama needs to do more,” Nawaz continues. “Mainstream society needs to do more. One way in which mainstream society can do more is to accept that this isn’t a clash of civilizations between Islam and the Western world. But in fact, it’s an intra-religious struggle within Islam.”

My ears pricked up. “Accept” what? Answer: that this crisis of our age, the Islamization of the West, is only so much intra-Islamic jockeying. That we should shut up about the demonstrably Islamic nature of the attacks on the West, on our liberties, our security, on our allies, our children, our law and culture, and not fight back against them. “Accept” that Muslims will work it all out among themselves —not that Islam, of course, has anything to do with it.

This is dangerous, deceptive nonsense. Then again, how might Nawaz’s way work? One quick way to “counter” “extremism” is to prevent ISIL fighters from returning to their Western countries by canceling their passports. But Nawaz opposes this no-brainer. On Twitter, he called it unimaginative, adding: “Passports can be faked.” Huh?

Quilliam co-founder Ed Husain (now at the Council on Foreign Relations) elaborated in an op-ed. Canceling passports of “hardline Islamists,” he wrote, could cause them to target the U.K. because they would see Britain as having “nullified” their “apd al amaan” — or “covenant of security” — which they believe Britain offers.

Thus, what amounts to an “extremist” protection racket should remain in place, at least according to the “counter-extremism” specialists.





Here's what Klevius wrote about Saudi Arabia's violent islamofascist flag

Friday, December 10, 2010

Islamist OIC (led by Saudi Arabia) is the worst threat against Human Rights!

According to Tony Blair, the evil of religion is in fact distortion of religion. However, according to Klevius, the opposite is true. The origin of "monotheisms" was racist/sexist evil, and the later possibly good parts were, in fact, distortion of monotheisms (as, for example, early Christianity). And the purest form of evil monotheism is to be found in the origin of islam!

For your information! December 06, 2009 Klevius wrote: "It was probably islam, not Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito who murdered Meredith Kerchner". The murder was most probably influenced by Saudi/Koranic hate mongering!
Saudi Anthropologist Sa'd Al-Sowayan suggests removing the jihad sword from Saudi flag. However, Klevius suggests removing islam!

Klevius question to the Chinese (and the World)
: Why did the Chinese workers in Mecca have to convert to islam to finish what the Arab muslims were incapable of doing?! And what about the islamic apostasy ban? Can these workers drop islam when finished without breaking the Sharia of the "guardians of islam"?!





Klevius question: How many of these know what they are really bowing for?

Treacherous islam

The koranic (2:256) "there is no compulsion in religion" (la ikraha fi d-dini) is generally misunderstood to mean that no one should use compulsion against another in matters of faith.

However, the circumstances governing the origin of islam differed from those of today so that presuppositions for religious tolerance made no sense other than as beneficial for parasitism. Today islam has to fight against the unbeatable* logic of the universal Negative Human Rights.

The real original meaning was that no one can be compelled to islam (the “right” belief). Koran, then, doesn’t proclaim tolerance, but rather an emphasize on the importane of a rigid and heavily ritualised belief in Mohammed’s gangsta gang (im)moral.

Contemporary islam apologetics’ naïve or deliberate “interpretation” of “no compulsion in religion” as religious tolerance, only contributes to the widespread misunderstanding of islam’s true original nature, and due danger it poses.

* “Unbeatable” precisely because they lack content, i.e. are filled with freedom. Moreover,they stay in direct opposition to the positive impositions in islam/Sharia. We cannot rigidly settle for any particular moral axiom in an inevitably changing world. Laws, no matter if “man made” or “god’s will”, will hence also change. So why put “allah” in between and then call the change “interpretation” or “adaptation”?!

No comments:

Post a Comment