Islam, the worst ideological crime ever against humanity (no matter how leniently you estimate its victims) still
continues its disregard and contempt for human rights, resulting in barbarous acts through a multitude of visible and invisible jihadism, assisted by supporting or neglecting media and politicians.
An important consequence of Negative Human Rights (i.e. a minimum individual bubble free from imposition) is that they can never be racist or sexist because they are "empty" compared to positive ("divine" or "human") "rights". Although everyone should have the right to education, that doesn't mean an islamic Koran shanting madrassa tutoring on how to destroy Negative Human Rights.
While muslim islamofascists are inevitably protected by those very Negative Human Rights they so eagerly want to destroy, democracy doesn't apply to them because of the same reason. A vote from a muslim who wants to replace freedom with islamic sharia (as OIC has already done by adopting Cairo declaration) is to be classified as treason.
In BBC and baroness Warsi* terminology more than one Billion muslims (Sharia OIC) qualifiy as "extremist" and "idiots". Or does it mean that the minority rest, incl. Warsi, ought to be classified as islamophobes?
* Warsi is an undemocratic politician (i.e.not elected but appointed by an other politician) in the English House of Lords.
Islam is an ideology originating in human slave parasitism. Islamic finance started with slaves as the main currency and capital. The Wall Street of islam was the slave market in Mecca. For the purpose of defending this immorality, a Jewish* ideology (all the wealthy people in Mohammed's Arabia were Jews incl. those Jews believing in Jesus) was first radically contrasted against Vagina Judaism (matrilinealism changed to patrilineal Penis Judaism, i.e. islam), and then, much later, roughly "finetuned" by Malik's invention of Mohammed and a "Koran" in the interface between the new ideology and the old Book".
Why BBC?
According to BBC's Director General Mark Thompson, BBC has been massively biased to the left. He points out that there’s a growing nervousness about discussion about islam and its relationship to the traditions and values of British and Western society as a whole. This is unfortunate since BBC and other major channels have a special responsibility to ensure that debates about faith and society should not be foreclosed or censored.
BBC is notorious for defending islamofascists by referring to the very (negative) Human Rights that islam intends to destroy, while when it comes to Human Rights of Christians and other non-muslims targeted by islamic ideology, BBC (like many others) is silent or rather presents islamic atrocities in terms of "clashes" etc.
* 'Jesus may well have been the "original" idol on which the Mohammed figure was applied. An irony, isn't it.
Although BBC's islam reporting is awfully tendentious, where it's not completely lacking (re. e.g. muslim hate crimes directed against infidels), it's merely an example of bad and islamophobic journalism (avoiding mentioning islam although they support it), it's a good one. British Broadcasting Company is fed by compulsory taxes/fees. BBC is British and Britain has already submitted to some hundred islamic sharia courts (a fact that is even more worrisome because of England's lack of a a constitutional court). Don't let yourself be duped by "it's only family law and islamic finance", because those two are by far the most essential ones in islamic totalitarianism. What is lacking is continuously produced by OIC within the walls of UN.
Britain also has a schizophrenic view on its former colonies in particular and the (often islamic) third world in general. As a Scandinavian one can not but wonder why many Brits are so extremely sexist (sex segregated), a trend that might be traced back at least to the swinging sixties (to really understand this you need to educate yourself with Klevius specialty, namely the evil of sex segregation). British women hence lag far behind many other countries, and are thus more likely to submit to islamofascist values. Add to this Britain's close connections to its former islamic colonies, and the fact that Britain eagerly swaps its Western Enlightenment (Human Rights) values in exchange for oil and oil money from Arab capitalists (who have got everything they have thanks to Western technology - islam is completely incapable of feeding itself without slaves or oil/gas).
Why OIC and islam?
OIC consists of 56+1 muslim majority nations who have agreed to implement islamic sharia as described in their Cairo declaration (see pic at the top of the page). A direct cause for this racist/sexist Human Rights violation was the freedom Human Rights secured also for girls/women. OIC, led by Saudi Arabia, realized what BBC seems to have difficulties understanding, i.e. that Western Universal Human Rights stay in direct opposition to the very (parasitic) soul of islam. For this end OIC has decided to violate Human Rights by replacing its most important tenets with islam's most racist and sexist ones as outlined in sharia. An additional consequence of this is that OIC's islamic sharia also regulates what can be said or not about islam. The Turkish Secretary-General of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the second largest public international organisation after the United Nations, warned against using freedom of expression "to offend islam". This must be an extraordinary historical utterance. Neither Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot, have been quoted as saying their ideologies had been offended.
Segregation or race/sex blindness?
An important part of recent years' weird islamophilia has to do with islam's main pillar racism/sexism. Racism/sexism is always fed by segregation. However, for some time now it has been quite popular to boost racism/sexism by alleging the opposite, namely that by not being racist/sexist you might be targeted by racism/sexism. This strange logic actually happens to be the very definition of racism and sexism! Yes, I know, it's a cute but dirty trick to lure people with inferiority complex by the help of racism. Targeting the "whites" and the "West" from Mecca, the most racist, sexist and intolerant place on earth, by mongering hate among Mecca's/islam's victims, simultaneously functions as blinds against institutionalized Arabic slave racism/sexism throughout 1400 years, as well as boosting the power greed of already massively wealthy Arab "princes".
BBC: Why do more UK women than men convert to islam?
Klevius: Because of islamofascism and your misleading propaganda, stupid!
Some 100.000 unsuspecting (?) UK women have already converted to islamofascism, but only a tiny fraction of men. Why? Because only muslim men, not muslim women, are allowed to marry non-muslims according to islam. So when muslims from backward islam contaminated nations escape to the West, it's only the muslim patriarchs who can mingle with non-muslims. And because of her usually bottomless ignorance about islam, combined with racist attitudes from the muslim patriarch's muslim family, she often considers it easier to convert! Remember, the very lure of islam is its racist infidel message. Read Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Infidel before you marry a muslim man! And avoid Sharia banking if you want to help islam's victims and avoid even more islamofascism!
OIC sponges on backward barbarism for the purpose of violating Human Rights by introducing islamic sharia which, among other evil things, excludes
According to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 1.
• All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2.
• Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3.
• Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4.
• No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Although all of these articles are violated in islam, do note "without distinction of any kind, such as sex". This is the very obstacle for ALL VARIETIES OF ISLAM! However, OIC (57 islamist nations, i.e. the islamic world* Umma under the Saudi caliphate) has frenetically tried to remove the protection of LGBT people from UN's list of extrajudicial executions. An amendment, however, passed with 93 countries voting yes, 55 voting no and 27 abstaining. And the only reason OIC didn't get it its way was because some Western countries threatened to stop their welfare payments to these backward islam contaminated nations! But think again! UN, which was created for the purpose of defending individuals against fascit totalitarian movements, was on the verge to follow OIC's islamofascist proposal!
* "world Umma" because OIC, via its Cairo declaration on "human rights", extends its sharia power to all muslims in such a way that the protection Western "muslims" have lived under in the West is now undermined via UN resolutions which demand criminalization of whatever is considered negative information about OIC islam and its murdering, raping and robbing "prophet".
Islamic sharia OIC has for long attempted to reverse gains made for LGBT people at the UN. Islamic sharia OIC (57 muslim majority nations) objected to the idea of any legal definition to “sexual orientation”, hence paving the way for, among other atrocities, so called “gay killings”, popular in for example Mr X “president’s homeland Kenya where his “cousin” and strongly supported friend Odinga agitates for the arresting of all “homosexuals”**. “Round up every homosexual and lock them all up” was this islamofascist’s message.” He didn’t mention killing but was that just political vocabulary?!
**Basically the term ”homosexual” has less to do with sex and more with sex segregation. Why? Because what is at stake here when it comes to Human Rights, is not whether or how people do sexal performances, but quite the opposite, the right not to be tied by one’s sex!
No comments:
Post a Comment