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

Saudi money laundering: Aramco selling its losses while FEEding London's finance sharks

Saudi money laundering: Aramco selling its losses while FEEding London's finance sharks

While Klevius is forcing islam into a Human Rights corner, politicians support islamofascism

Sunday, August 13, 2017

Klevius: England has more than enough "islamophobes" (i.e. anti sharia and pro Human Rights) to win an election - and a majority of "muslims" would probably approve of it

What is islam - and who is a muslim? Klevius suggests letting all "islamophobes" (incl. "muslim" ones)  out of the closet - but BBC desperately defends islamofascist sharia. 

Merkel's flirt with Erdogan pushed England (not UK) over the Brexit cliff - May's flirt with the islamofascist Saudi "guardians of islam" lands it in a sharia swamp.



England committed a violation of fairness and legality when not allowing EU residents to vote about their own future - while allowing residents from non-EU nations to do so.

It would have been easy to include EU residents in this particular election.

Klevius advise to UKIP - independence for all parts of UK:

There's a huge demand for a new party. With just a slight altering UKIP could really be what its name stands for.



Anne Marie Waters islam criticism can give UKIP more votes than ever. The number of hiding "islamophobes" coming out in the voting boot would guarantee it. And if UKIP takes care of EU residents' full rights and then stops further immigration while putting the lid on sharia islamofascism - that would be a party program for success.

However, she has to pinpoint how sharia islam violates he most basic of Human Rights.

Talk Saudi based and steered OIC and its world sharia, Saudi Arabia's islamofascism spreading all over England with keen support from Theresa May, and explain to the people that islam in any meaningful form doesn't approve of the most basic of Human Rights, i.e what used to be the core of European values.

Moreover, ask the voters why England can't have a party leader whose opinion about sharia islam is the same as the one articulated by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

And why hide behind pathetic and truly evil rhetoric by only pointing to harmless cultural "muslims" - or "spiritual muslims" or just ignorant muslims without a clue about the true meaning of basic Human Rights and democracy, i.e. those who don't share the basic tenets of Saudi/OIC/Sharia islam and who happily would like to adopt to secular values witjhout having to fear islam's evil apostasy curse.

And why wouldn't islam be evil if its "custodians" are islamofascists and considered top muslims and leading and harboring the world's most important muslim organization (OIC)? Or are the islamic hate spreading Saudis no muslims after all?!

BBC (John Humhrey): It's tradition and pressure against women - but it's not legal. So why not let muslims continue these pressure traditions under sharia.


The deputy leader of the party ripped into the broadcaster during the debate on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, insisting England should have “a single legal system”.

But the presenter made the case that sharia courts were about adhering to “traditions” rather than implementing a parallel legal system.

Klevius: Racist and sexist islamofascist "traditions" are evil - period.


Klevius wrote:

Monday, May 01, 2017

Why is UKIP shooting itself in the foot with a Saudi/OIC made "islamophobia" bullet?


UKIP could get some half of the (non-sharia) muslim votes if they dared to criticize evil sharia islam instead of trying to kick out their bravest member, Anne Marie Waters.



Not only would a clear distinction between sharia muslims* and non-sharia "muslims" distinguish UKIP from Theresa May's pro-sharia policy, but it would also offer apostasy scared "muslims" a safe secret space in the voting boot - something that no other party seems to offer. In today's "islamophobia racism" accusations fascism, voters of all and no faith would finally have a channel for what they really think if a political party would just give them the chance.

* Defined as violating the most basic Human Rights equality as stated in the 1948 Universal Human Rights Declaration which was intended to stop all kinds of fascism - including religious ones.

Anne Marie Waters:   I would actually describe myself as a nationalist. I want the preservation of the nation-state. I’ve been very clear about that. The nation-state is the only way to guarantee accountable government. We cannot be governed by unelected globalist committees, as we are now. I mean, the United Nations may not have legal power to govern us, but our leaders are consistently seeking permission to run their own countries from internationalist bodies. I want the nation-state to run itself.

    The reason I object to “white nationalist” – and I have no problem with being white, and I have no problem with being nationalist – but the implication behind that is that I think you have to be white, for example, to be a British patriot. You do not. You do not. There are people of all colors in this country who want to preserve and respect British heritage and history.

Klevius comment: While Theresa May says that the Brits benefit from sharia, that doesn't mean that sharia is a "British value", does it. Nor is Theresa May's "investigation" of UK sharia courts serious because she uses a sharia muslim to complete the task. A serious investigator should have been someone whose expertise is UK law and Human Rights.


Tuesday, August 8, 2017

Klevius: Did Theresa May's "important ally", the islamofascist Saudi dictator family murder this dog walker?


83-year-old man died from "multiple stab wounds to his neck and head" after being attacked while walking his two dogs in woodland. Police lack theories/hypothesizes to work on - but Klevius has one to work from. 


Police: No known motive. Klevius: What about a qualified guess?


Ch Supt Fawcett added: "The motive remains unclear."

He said "dedicated teams" were investigating the case and a mobile police station has been set up at the scene. A cordon remains in place.

Klevius, who also happens to have a masters degree in criminology, now offers his help to the English police for free:

For solving a problem it's always good to start from some possible hypotheses.  But such a hypothesis need to be strong and therefore easily falsified. And we do know that violent muslims ready to commit hate crimes against the "infidels/kafirs" are behind most of these kinds of "stabbings to the neck and head". We also know that these muslims usually don't like dogs. So:

Two possible clues:

1 non-muslim stabbed to his neck and head.

Verse (47:4): When ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks.
Verse (8:12): When thy Lord was revealing to the angels, 'I am with you; so confirm the believers. I shall cast into the unbelievers' hearts terror; so smite above the necks.

2 Dog walker

According to Islam Questions and Answers, "It is not permissible for a muslim to keep a dog, unless he needs this dog for hunting, guarding livestock or guarding crops.

Needless to say, the more radical groups - such as e.g. Saudi supported Salafi muslims - take an even harsher stand in their interpretation of the already negative views expressed in the Koran and the hadiths. 

Theresa May says Saudi sharia cooperation is good for the Brits.

Is Theresa May an accomplice to this murder via her stubborn support of the islamofascist Saudi dictator family and its well known position as the main source of inspiration to islamic hate crimes against non-muslims?


Even if it turns out that this murder had nothing to do with muslims or islam, this fact would in no way disprove the use of such a working hypothesis that statistically is the most likely.

However, Ch Supt Fawcett has been told by Theresa May that, in the name of "diversity" (i.e. islam) and "sensitivities" (i.e. muslims)  he should avoid to express hypotheses such as the one offered by Klevius above. Moreover, it could cause more "islamophobia".

Is Theresa May an accomplice to this murder via her stubborn support of the islamofascist Saudi dictator family and its well known position as the main source of inspiration to islamic hate crimes against non-muslims?

And if it turns out that it really was a muslim hate crime against a non-muslim dog-walker, then it will probably be toned down and excused - e.g. by calling the perpetrator "mentally disturbed" etc.

Whereas Klevius defends everyon's Human Rights and never sides with violence and extremism, Theresa May is against Human Rights and indirectly supports Saudi extremism and islamic hate violence via her support of the world's main source of islamic extremism and spread of hate. And whereas Theresa May blames the messengers (the "islamophobes") for some extremely few (compared to attacks by muslims) and exaggerated* incidents by clearly mentally disturbed people, Klevius blames the underlining original hate ideology, its perpetrators and those who inspire them.

* When a mentally disturbed man drove a van against two muslims who were helping a third muslim already lying on the ground because of illness, it was reported that eight muslims were injured and one dead - without explaining that all the other minor injuries came from muslims who afterwards attacked the driver.

Polishphobia and EUphobia seem also to be "good for the Brits".

Klevius was the first (2005-6) to realize and publish on the web the islamic sex slave context as the explanation to the Viking phenomenon.

When a Polish man recently was accused of participating in the kidnapping of a model for to be sold as a sex slave to muslims in Mideast (compare Origin of the Vikings) but freed by the kidnapper "because she was a mother", BBC for many days and in every news report repeatedly emphasized that "the perpetrator was a Polish citizen living in UK" - but not that it was about muslim sex slavery in accordance with the Koran.

Sunday, August 6, 2017

Congratulations Netherland's football team to your Euro cup 2017 win - you're much better than the men's team. Klevius hopes it will pay off...


Despite BBC's anti women's football propaganda (i.e. by giving much more space to women's cricket etc) these women showed that football is the perfect sport for girls and women.





When in 1921 women's football became more popular than men's in England, the supporters were mostly men and the opponents were mostly women.

According to a female physician "the jerky movements" in football risked reproduction and therefore ought to be banned. However, almost 100 years later we still lack evidence of this "diagnosis".

Barbara Jacobs: So we are to assume that women's bodies unsuited to jerky movements? That's put paid to sex, hasn't it?

Klevius wrote:

Saturday, May 30, 2015


Klevius diagnosis of feminism: Bipolar self goal


In 1921 England had the world's best female football team. However, due to feminist resistance against females playing football FA banned them from its grounds. The decision was based on a female feminist physician's expert statement that "...the game of football is quite unsuitable for females and ought not to be encouraged."

In Sweden, from the late 1960's for about about a decade feminists (the communist Grupp 8 - Sweden's main feminist movement) very actively opposed female football. Later on Swedish feminists still oppose female football although more under cover and in the form of spitting at penis equipped football experts dealing with female football as "patriarchal domination" when in reality it's been the lack of female ones that has been the problem. And this lack is of course to a large extent to be connected to the active female dismissal of female football. Which fact doesn't exclude the "religious" renaissance for sexist men, not the least via islam. As Klevius has always pointed out: Chauvinism and feminism are married!


Women's World Cup 2015 starts next Saturday - how many girls know about it, can follow it, and are made interested in the world's most challenging and popular sport? 


It was extremely close that we could have ended up with a sharia muslim ("prince Ali) leading FIFA. A sharia muslim whose main work for women's football so far has been to open up for a veil demand on female muslim players around the world by lifting the ban on the veil (presented as something positive by BBC). 

Klevius is no fan of Blatter's suggestion about improving the interest in women's football by introducing "hot-pants"* on the pitch, but thinks it would be even less helpful for girls/women to have a sharia muslim at the top.

* No offense to "hot-pants" - but they would just cover up the real problem of sex segregation/apartheid. Football isn't beach volley.

 
Acknowledgement to Americans from the US: In the following the word 'football' really means FOOTBALL - not any form of rugby! In football a player isn't allowed to touch the ball with her/his hands inside the pitch - in American "football" players use only their hands during normal play.

In Cannes women are forced to wear high heels - in London they aren't allowed to drive! Sanctioned by feminism and religion.


Chasidic Jews in Stamford Hill, London, ban women drivers due to "modesty" and "dignity".


Rabbi Yissachar Dov Rokeach, has advised them to introduce a policy of not allowing pupils to come to their schools if their mothers drive. From August 2015 children would be barred from their schools if their mothers drove them there.

In an interview with a woman who had been a member of the Belz community for ten years until she divorced her husband, said that she didn't see the religious rules as problematic because she was "normalized" into them.

Klevius comment: Like muslim women. Those rules are based on Talmud, a 73 volume early medieval haystack full of cherries ready to pick for almost whatever reason. Talmud is a Jewish "effort" to discuss and guess what "God" could possibly have meant with cryptic paragraphs inscribed by early "prophets" in the pre-medieval Torah.

Feminism and religion

 Klevius, the world's foremost expert on sex segregation (no competition there - sad isn't it), has for more than three decades fought practically (personal life, educator, coach, etc) and theoretically (books, articles, academic thesis, TV, radio, media production, web sites and blogs, etc) for girls'/women's rights. However, although there are many stunning girls/women out there, they have almost no power against that power patriarchy that most women have let themselves lured into defending.


The original meaning of 'feminism' was to keep women segregated from men via their 'femininity'. That's why early feminists even opposed the vote.


The first definition of 'feminism' you get when googling it is:

the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.
synonyms:  the women's movement, the feminist movement, women's liberation, female emancipation, women's rights; informal women's lib
"a longtime advocate of feminism"


In other words exactly what Kleviushas worked for - except for the word 'feminis-m/t'. How could Klevius possibly call himself a 'feminist' if sharia (OIC) supporting muslims call themselves the same?!



Japan is the reigning world champion in women's football. They also took silver in the last Olympics. How come? Football is a tiny sport in Japan which was left contaminated not only by the horror and radioactivity from two US atom bombs but also by the US form of rugby (aka "American football") and base ball. The answer is that Japan didn't become contaminated with Western religions which are all based on sex segregation/apartheid*. In Judaic religions Eve was made out of a bone (a rib) that Adam could live without. She was made to entertain Adam (heterosexual attraction) and considered inferior to him so that he could be her guardian (sex segregation/apartheid).

* When Klevius compared Western and Japanese women's movements of the late 19th century he made an interesting observation. Whereas Western sources mostly discussed "women's sexual liberation" the Japanese sources were more interested in the opposite, namely how to protect themselves from unwanted sexual impositions. This could then be connected to Murasaki Shikibu's thousand years old novel (the world's first) Genji Monogatari which describes a woman trying to make sense of her experience of the heterosexual attraction (read Klevius more than decade old unchanged website if you don't know what it is - you'll have a hard time find it anywhere else on the Google web) that her body causes in male brains and how she should deal with it while not loosing herself in it. It's possibly the best book ever written (analyzed in Klevius 1992). 

However, today when we have 1) Human Rights, and 2) six decades of seeing revealed female forms everywhere, we (most of us) have learned: 1) Women are fully humans and should therefore have the same Human Rights as men, and
2) we (most of us) feel no urge whatsoever to sexually assault or rape a woman no matter how sexy we might think her body looks like. Even the very thought makes us (most of us) uncomfortable*. Biological heterosexual attraction is a one way affair but hetero erotics needs not only the woman's body but also her full will to participate or show up. Even pornography needs to convince the viewer that the woman wants to be sexy. Rapography and other erotics without some form of consent is simply necrophilia.

* Could this be the reason why some rapetivist cultures need to sexually dehumanize girls/women.

Here two responses to the article above that really shows the polarized world of women today: 


Tigger 9 days ago   

High heels are the western equivalent of 19th century Chinese foot-binding. I've never understood why women should wish this torture on themselves - even paying astronomical sums for the dubious 'privilege'.
flag / like / reply

    sszorin 9 days ago   

    @Tigger The fight against high heels is a waste of time and effort because most women prefer them. The answer is - design and make comfortable high heel shoes, physical pain should not accompany elegance. This said, 6in minimum is over the top. 3in is high enough for official engagements.
    flag / like / reply
    sszorin 9 days ago    


Klevius comment:  "Because most women prefer high heels"!? One might truly question the solidity of this latter statement. It's like saying "most women in Saudi Arabia prefer to wear a black burqa in 40 degree Celsius". However, more importantly, by saying so you impose the rule of "most" on those who might disagree. Just like sharia women want to impose restrictions on other girls/women.



Klevius wrote:

Saturday, July 09, 2011


Japan women beat Germany in the world's hardest* sport

* The combination of no hands allowed, extreme individual freedom, 1.5-2 hours play on a 100 m long and 50 m wide pitch. This is also why the rest of the world can't stop laughing when Americans call their rugby "football"! Moreover, there's no difference in rules and gears (except for sport bras of course) whatsoever between women and men (although islam wants to change that of course). You can be a good football player no matter of your size or constitution. The world's best male player, Lionel Messi, is 170 cm (no 2 Christiano Ronaldo is 186 cm)  and the world's best female player, Marta da Silva, is 163 cm (no 2 Birgit Prinz is 179 cm)!

Karima Maruyama's World Cup goal was a real classic when it comes to football technique. Running at high speed towards the side of the goal and then, at the right microsecond,directing a kick just outside the opposite goalpost makes the forward inertia in the ball curving it enough to be out of reach for the goalkeeper while still making its way to the inside of the post.

Klevius question: Is this the real reason why football is by far the most controversial of sports when it comes to female participation? Check out: Did feminists kill the World's best female football team in 1921?


Sexist BBC

While some of the most exciting matches are played in Women's World Cup BBC decides to neglect it all together and instead offers EIGHT HOURS OF F1 RACING added by some golf etc!!! No wonder British girls/women in general don't have a clue about football and are among the most sex segregated in the world. This is then reflected in British men's due attitude towards women. According to many of my Finnish and Swedish female friends who have experienced Britain British men are the most sexist they have ever encountered in the West!

Of all sports a girl can use (many girls don't use any sport at all) to sculpture her future physicsfootball is by far the best.



Klevius wrote:

Monday, November 17, 2014


A woman scored the goal of the year - but will it be dismissed because of sex segregation?


Some heroic Saudi women challenging (?) islamic sharia* and

 Stephanie Roche who scored the goal of the year



Stephanie Roche began playing football with the boys on the streets of her native Shankill (compare Pia Sundhage in Klevius PhD thesis). After a brief spell with Valeview FC was curtailed by rules against mixed–sex football she started playing only with girls/women.

See some other beautiful female goals further down.

Btw, this website is already banned by FIFA!


Wonder why. Is it because it, contrary to sharia, defends ALL people's Human Rights or is it because it supports female football - or both?

* Some stupid brainwashed (or deliberately evil) people might try to argue that there are many islams (just like feminists used to say there are 'many feminisms' before Klevius intellectually made it an illogical joke back in the 1990s). However, it all works like this. Saudi initiated, Saudi based and Saudi steered OIC has (via UN) declared not only that sharia should apply to all muslims but also that every muslim country can decide by itself what their particular sharia version means. Moreover, OIC's own global "reference sharia" (the so called Cairo declaration on "human rights in islam") openly declares that sharia always tops Human Rights - hence making the latter a criminal offence against sharia.  


Islam is a dictatorship - even in sports

The extreme stupidity of normative* islam

* Saudi Arabia is not only the Guardian of islam but also the most powerful force behind all the world's muslims world organization OIC which is not only initiated by Saudi Arabia but also based in Saudi Arabia/Jeddah and led by an islamofascist from the Saudi dictator family.
What is the difference between muslim Ottoman harems and the organized and widespread child sex abuse among muslims in the West (compare the Rochdale case and many other similar cases in UK etc). The vulnerable girls were already taken as Ottoman slaves or as the target for insensitive and basically purely commercial state interventions not in the best interest of the child (see the most important sociological paper from the last century, Angels of Antichrist - kinship vs social state) before they were abused. However, just as in the islamic muslim sex slave harems, the abused Rochdale girls themselves often denied being abused because of some futile favors they first seemed to get.

So next time you see a wealthy Saudi woman "defending" islam/sharia, please consider the extremely simple fact that under Human Rights women can do what they like with their bodies, but under sharia there is always impositions and limitations! So why choose sharia when it means imposing your life choice on others, including vulnerable girls?!


There seems to be an almost total lack of sociologist challenging sex segregation. A possible exception is Pierre Bourdieu's cautious and defensive Masculine Domination which, by the way, may well be his thinnest book. Already the title seems to try avoiding a closer look on feminine domination (of females).

According to Bourdieu. the effects of social position may in some cases reinforce the effects of gender, or in other cases attenuate them, without, it seems, ever eliminating them. By contrast, intensive practice of a sport leads to a profound transformation of the subjective and objective experience of the  body. It no longer exists only for others or, it is no longer merely a thing that is made to be looked at or which one has to look at in order to prepare it to be looked at.
Instead of being a body for others it becomes a body for oneself; the passive body becomes an active and acting body. In the eyes of men, however, those women who break the tacit relation of availability and in a sense re-appropriate their body image, and with it their body, appear as 'unfeminine', even lesbian (Bourdieu 2001:67-68).

In this respect Bourdieu seems to echo Tertullian who, in the early years of Christianity, labeled women's wish to free themselves from the male gaze (heterosexual attraction) as a 'sport of Nature'. Bourdieu continues:

If the old structures of the sexual division seem still to deter-
mine the very direction and form of these changes, this is
because as well as being objectified in disciplines, careers and
jobs that are more or less strongly characterized sexually, they
act through three practical principles which women, and also
their social circles, apply in their choices. The first is that the
functions appropriate to women are an extension of their
domestic functions - education, care and service. The second
is that a woman cannot have authority over men, and, other
things being equal, therefore has every likelihood of being
passed over in favour of a man for a position of authority and
of being confined to subordinate and ancillary functions. The
third principle gives men the monopoly of the handling of tech-
nical objects and machines (Bourdieu 2001).

However, sex segregation is much deeper and multi faceted. Heterosexual attraction need not be a problem neither for women nor men - this has been showed by the West since the 1960s (yes, many men used the time for abuse but most didn't) - but it can easily be used in a confusing/self-confusing manner which opens up for totalitarian sex segregation.

Sex segregation - could also be defined as unnecessary limitations connected to physical differences that has nothing to do with these limitations. However, what is needed in sex segregation studies is the most natural follow up questions. Who questions 'femininity' and 'sexual orientation' and why?

When you pull up that net Klevius wouldn't be surprised to see some (most?) women as well.



What klevius said/showed

Sunday, December 27, 2009


Islamic OIC is an evil dead end of sex segregation whereas football is freedom

Do you see the evil cloud on the map? It's sex segregation: OIC consists of 57 racist/sexist islamic nations which have agreed to violate the negative human rights, i.e. the basis for freedom & democracy!
WHAT A MEDIA HYPOCRISY WHEN THE MUSLIM NIGERIAN TERRORIST IS DESCRIBED AS "EXTREMIST" WHILE HIS TALIBAN LIKE SHARIA ISLAMIC HOME TOWN (stonings, mutilations, corrupt "Sharia banking" etc) IS DESCRIBED AS "MODERATE"! North Nigeria is a disgusting reminder of islamic slavery & islam's devastating effects on Africa through 1400 yrs! AND CONSIDER THAT KLEVIUS HAS FOR LONG BEEN YOUR ONLY TRUE, INTELLIGENT & WELL INFORMED NEUTRAL (yes!) VOICE AGAINST EVILSEX SEGREGATION ON THE NET (the link is abt women's football as well)!




 





Did Germany's Birgit Prinz, score the best ever goal (incl. those of men) in 2009?


The video is here

Klevius motivation:

1 The attack (from an in-throw) was as clean as it gets. Check out the video & consider how Simone Laudehr's extremely well placed pass (into an open but crucial area) is taken by Inka Grings who was initially further from the ball than Prinz, who runs in the opposite direction.

2 Inka Grings then does just the opposite to what one would have expected. Instead of running with the ball into the empty space from where she could have tried a cross to Birgit Prinz, she turns against & between two defenders and quickly squares the ball across the penalty area just before Birgit Prinz encounters the defenders.

3 Birgit Prinz accelerates strongly & manages not only to reach the ball before a defender crashes into her, but also to cheat the goalkeeper (see how the keeper moves to the wrong direction) while then perfectly turning her foot in the last fraction of a second to give the ball ultimate precision, before she is smashed to the ground by the flying defender.

Who said women's football is boring?


Size doesn't matter in football
However, although Birgit Prinz is a six footer (179 cm), in footbal you can be any size & still world class. Lionel Messi, the world's best male player 2009 is 169 cm/67 kg, while the next best (Xavi) is 170 cm/69 kg! Third place Ronaldo is 185 cm. Among women Marta da Silva (162 cm/57 kg) is the world's best player for the fourth year in a row, with Birgit Prinz right behind!

Football is the most emancipating sport in the world

This goal hasn’t even been mentioned among the best, perhaps because women’s football is hardly mentioned at all in the media. And the reason for this is the same as with evil islam, namely that so many women participate in directing girls into the sex segregation trap of their own *starting physically with Indonesian muslim women who mutilate every female child, to Western glamour feminists who push their daughters into the time consuming trap of empty & pointless artificial "feminization".

As Otto Weininger put it a century ago: "The main obstacle for women's emancipation is the Woman".
Klevius doesn't in any sense want to point out how women should behave, quite the contrary. He couldn't call himself intelligent if he would, could he! However, what Klevius does want to do is to help minimizing the number of girls who limit themselves or commit self rape becaudse of cultural sexism. In this Klevius stands in the deapest oppositition to islam, while Mr X US "president" says he "respect" islam (and no wonder, look at his islamofascist pals)!

Origin of islam & its evil parasitic booty/sex/slavery/reproduction formula
Btw, a professor friend (sociology) thinks I “uber-emphasize” sex segregation. My question then to him & to all of you is: How can one ever “uber-emphasize” something that affects negatively & directly HALF of the world population, & indirectly the WHOLE of the world population, & which is upheld on no logical grounds at all?! And which constitutes the cornerstone for the evil interface between islam & the rest of the world! And which constitutes the main difference in OIC's Cairo Declaration which (initiated by Saudi islamic theocracy) aims for the destruction of UN's 1948 Human Rights Declaration, combined with a global effort (via UN) to criminalize criticism of islam! Read more from Klevius (e.g. From Freud to bin Laden or What is sex segregation?) to understand why islam & feminism share so much & why the first feminists didn't support votes for women! And why feminists can't agree if Mary Wollstonecraft was a feminist or an anti-feminist!

Or perhaps Klevius Marriage, kinship & friendship

Or even better, the most important sociological paper from the last century: Angels of Antichrist - kinship vs social state



Islamofascist Qatar competing with islamofascist Saudi Arabia in the world's most popular sport - and Klevius contemplating sport bodies and performance.


BBC's poster boy Usain Bolt may not have been as good as BBC has tried to make him after all


Some 15 years ago Klevius launched a web page called A tribute to heroic women (and some tiny men) who showed the world (in the 1980's - before difference/glamour feminism shut the door for many a young girl! The page is part of klevius.info web museum and therefore not touched upon.

When Wilma Rudolph (180 cm/59 kg) back in 1960 run 100 m on a slow cinder track at 11.0 she wasn't anything close to a body builder.

Livio Berruti (180 cm/66 kg) run 1960 100 m in 10.2 and 200 m in 20.5 on a cinder track.


Jan Zelezny (182 cm/72 kg) still, after some 20 years, has the javelin world record 98,49 m (previous "record" by Hohn was made with a "sailing" javelin that isn't allowed anymore).

However, the same question about physical appearance and performance still remains. The best ones are never the really big ones or the really muscular ones.

The world's best striker trio ever consists of Messi 169 cm (who is considered the best), Neymar 175 cm (who is now the world's most expensive player) and Suarez 182 cm.

Oil/gas wealthy islamofascist dictatorships from the Arabian peninsula compete with each others to get their names associated with the world's best players in the world's best sport.

However, the beauty of football is that it fits all sorts of (sporty) body constitutions. But due to the skill level needed in top football not every sporty individual may fit - no matter how good he/she is in an other sport.

Usain Bolt: "The boss of Puma knows Dortmund and he made the call. They said they didn't mind and they'd be excited to have me train with them." "I'm going to do that after the season and see what happens. It'd be something big for me - if I could get in the Manchester United jersey that'd be massive for me."

However, Usain's dream is to play for Manchester United.

Klevius: Him being tall would certainly fit Mourinho's strange gathering of tall players - which fact may well turn out to be disastrous for the quality of MU's footballing.

Usain Bolt's decline has come during harder doping controls

Usain Bolt (195 cm/94 kg) beaten by the world's now fastest man Christian Coleman (175 cm/71 kg - 9.82 so far fastest time 2017).

Behind 9.58 sec world record (2009) holder Bolt, every other man to run under 9.79sec has served a drugs ban at some point in their career with Gay (9.69sec), Blake (9.69sec), Powell (9.72sec) and Justin Gatlin (9.74sec) all falling foul of anti-doping regulations.

Year     100 metres

2007     10.03    
2008     9.69    
2009     9.58    
2010     9.82    
2011     9.76    
2012     9.63    
2013     9.77    
2014     9.98    
2015     9.79    
2016     9.80    


2017 best 100 m

Rank     Mark     WIND     Competitor     DOB     Nat     Pos         Venue     Date

1     9.82     +1.3     Christian Coleman     06 MAR 1996     USA USA     1h1         Eugene (Hayward Field), OR     07 JUN 2017
2     9.90     +0.9     Yohan Blake     26 DEC 1989     JAM JAM     1         Kingston (NS), JAM     23 JUN 2017
3     9.92 A     +1.2     Akani Simbine     21 SEP 1993     RSA RSA     1         Pretoria (Tuks)     18 MAR 2017
3     9.92     -0.8     Justin Gatlin     10 FEB 1982     USA USA     1         London (Olympic Stadium)     05 AUG 2017
    9.93 A     +2.0     Akani Simbine     21 SEP 1993     RSA RSA     1r5         Pretoria (Tuks)     04 MAR 2017
    9.93     +0.4     Yohan Blake     26 DEC 1989     JAM JAM     1         Kingston (NS), JAM     20 MAY 2017
5     9.93     +0.8     Cameron Burrell     11 SEP 1994     USA USA     1h2         Eugene (Hayward Field), OR     07 JUN 2017
5     9.93     +1.6     Christopher Belcher     29 JAN 1994     USA USA     1h3         Eugene (Hayward Field), OR     07 JUN 2017
    9.93     +0.2     Christian Coleman     06 MAR 1996     USA USA     1h2         Sacramento (Hornet Stadium), CA     22 JUN 2017
    9.94 A     +0.2     Akani Simbine     21 SEP 1993     RSA RSA     1sf1         Potchefstroom (Puk McCarthur)     21 APR 2017
7     9.94     +0.9     Wayde van Niekerk     15 JUL 1992     RSA RSA     1r3         Velenje     20 JUN 2017
    9.94     -0.8     Christian Coleman     06 MAR 1996     USA USA     2         London (Olympic Stadium)     05 AUG 2017
8     9.95 A     +1.2     Thando Roto     26 SEP 1995     RSA RSA     2         Pretoria (Tuks)     18 MAR 2017
    9.95 A     -0.7     Akani Simbine     21 SEP 1993     RSA RSA     1         Potchefstroom (Puk McCarthur)     21 APR 2017
    9.95     -0.7     Justin Gatlin     10 FEB 1982     USA USA     1         Sacramento (Hornet Stadium), CA     23 JUN 2017
8     9.95     +0.7     Usain Bolt     21 AUG 1986     JAM JAM     1         Monaco (Stade Louis II)     21 JUL 2017
    9.9


Saturday, July 29, 2017

Fake "news" producing BBC's insidious propaganda for Saudi sharia islamofascism and against Human Rights, exemplified and generalized.


BBC again willfully and wrongly reported that it was because of European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decision that the brain damaged Charlie boy had to die.

 BBC's Saudi raised muslim "diversity" mouthpieceMishal Husain doesn't fast during Ramadan but rather drinks some alcohol and gives a s--t to "islamic modesty". She also brags about being able to live her life inthe West without any of the worries facing girls/women in muslim countries. Klevius: Good for you - but it isn't thanks to islamic sharia but thanks to Human Rights.

Nothing could be more wrong. The truth was exactly the opposite to BBC's reporting - and BBC was well aware of it, yet didn't hesitate to again abuse its monopoly position, paid by license fees and tax money, to not only distort the actual case but also to use it in its never ending campaign against Human rights for the purpose of paving the way for Sunni muslim sharia. And this isn't because of any special love of muslims in general (especially not Shia muslims in Iran and Mideast) but because it benefits the islamofascist Saudi dictator family who is not only the self declared "custodian of islam" - which fact keeps  all the world's muslims in a Saudi/OIC steered  hostage situation while protecting the worst forms of islam - but also due to its oil/gas wealth that has bought them influence over its neighbors and Western politicians and Salafi mosque builders.

The truth re. poor Charlie boy is that ECHR didn't even touch the case but instead referred to its 'margin of appreciation' which constitutes the border line against involvement by the court in national matters.

This 'margin of appreciation' has been questioned from both directions, not the least by Klevius in some cases he brought to ECHR on the behalf of families who had been trampled on by the Swedish social state, but which were repelled by ECHR on the grounds that they fell outside the 'margin of appreciation' and that there was no reason for the court not to believe that the Swedish state had the best interest of the child highest on the agenda and that the Swedish courts had a better insight than ECHR in cases where families and the state differed in evaluation. Read more about it in Angels of Antichrist referred to below.

Klevius wrote:


Tuesday, July 04, 2017

Klevius' Angels of Antichrist should be compulsory reading for everyone dealing with children and sociology.


From Angels of Antichrist to Pathological Symbiosis - a brief history about Klevius fight for Human Rights against the social state.

Children 'still at risk' of being abused through state/council inventions not only in Jersey but all over England.

As Peter Klevius wrote in Angels of Antichrist (1996) 'state bureaucracy has its own inertia' based on powerful legislative lobbying by state bureaucrats themselves, poorly regulated commercial interests and without due responsibilities, authority status, and a psychosocial swamp of hoax social "science". And all of this is "justified" because the state functions as the ultimate custodian.

However, by addressing and accepting the problems above - especially the fact that the social state now functions like whatever big corporation with the added benefits of authority and legislation, no clear profit and quality responsibility, and no problem with bankruptcy etc. - a slimmed down and more effective and humane welfare state could emerge. I.e. one that puts its "clients", not itself, first.

Angels of Antichrist was based on Klevius earlier articles as well as his experience as a solicitor for parents who had been robbed of their children without no real ground for it.

Angels of Antichrist is perhaps the most important sociological paper from the last Century - yet one of the least read and understood, possibly because it's the first to combine kinship, social state and sex segregation in one clear analysis firmly mounted to solid empirical (although often hard to swallow) facts.

Angels of Antichrist now resides on several locations on the web. Here some examples:


The original version from 1996





This article 'Where the law ends tyranny begins' from 1993 was published in Finland in Hufvudstadsbladet, and is a predecessor to Angels of Antichrist. Here later published on NKMR's web site.

And here's an other from 1994.

However, Peter Klevius himself recommends the updated version from 2006 on Klevius web museum, which deliberately hasn't been touched upon for more than a decade.

The social state hides its Human Rights atrocities behind the 'Margin of Appreciation'

Some points quoted from Angels of Antichrist (Klevius 1996):


the social state creates its own problems in a way which are beyond all conceptions of human rights

The authorized and monopolized interpretation of "the best interest of the child" (created by small and non-representative but strongly influential groups of legislators) has established a powerful and legal child trade system within the social state. (This legal child trade works within the "margin of appreciation" and thus, until now, out of reach for e.g. the European Convention of Human Rights.) Parents live under constant threat from the social workers, and their children can be abducted and placed into commercial foster "care" on the basis of purely subjective (e g psycho-dynamic) opinions.

Pamela Geller and others got it all wrong when accusing Human Rights because the very opposite is true, i.e. that ECHR doesn't rule within 'the margin of appreciation' which fact is clearly stated in this case. In this respect it resembles ECHR's reluctance to deal with cases of the state abducting children on questionable grounds, as Klevius pointed out in Angels of Antichrist (1992) after ECHR dismissed a couple of Klevius cases on the grounds that they were 'within the margin of appreciation'. Klevius still remembers the hopelessness he saw in the eyes of his clients.

ECHR: The Court bore in mind the considerable room for manoeuvre (“wide margin of appreciation”) left to the authorities in the sphere concerning access to experimental medication for the terminally ill and in cases raising sensitive moral and ethical issues, reiterating that it was not for the Court to substitute itself for the competent domestic authorities.

A further proposal was made to make it easier for the authorities to isolate pregnant women suspected of living in a way that could be harmful to the unborn child (the formulation does not say ’her’ child - the child is the property of the state). I think this can hardly be in accordance with the spirit and intention of the European Convention or of the UN Human Rights Convention.

Professor in jurisprudence Jacob Sundberg, who has defended human rights against the Swedish system for decades, became a serious dissident on the University of Stockholm in the late eighties (the ius docendi affair). His efforts and the incorporating of Sweden in EU have forced the Swedish juridical system to pay, at least some attention to what earlier was called "strange thoughts of catholic reactionaries from the south". The Swedish strategy seems, however to avoid these "strange thoughts" by lobbying their own.

Today the social state, more or less, runs its own race with little dependence on political parties and the legal actions against children are largely subjective; there are, in other words relatively few drug abusers, alcoholics and clearly mentally disturbed persons among the parents. This trading of children has expanded beyond all imaginable limits and today makes up one of the heaviest costs of the municipalities in Sweden. Thus, the proportion of foster children in Sweden is 6-12 times higher than in Japan, a welfare state where, according to UN statistics, the quality of children's lives are valued most highly in the world. It hardly needs mentioning that Japan is the oldest and most family centred developed country in the World. In fact, the interventions made by the social authorities have been roughly proportional to juvenile delinquency of non-economic types. In Japan, child-criminality is still on a very low level whereas the Swedish figures might well be among the highest in the world. We are hampered in realistic assessment about this, however, since such cases are transferred to the social authorities, out of reach for statistics and international police-agreements.

Conclusions

If I were a stockbroker and if the social state was on the list I would probably invest in it. Which stocks could be safer? However, I’m not sure I like the business idea.

We might ask: After such a clean sweep, what is left on the dining table to eat? There is not really very much that presents itself in the way of alternatives to a rigid, biological, fundamentalist society. Some sort of protection, however is needed for the free, atomized souls inhabiting society, mother- and fatherless and with limited or, in practice, often superficial or non-existing kin- or friendship ties.

The totalitarian enemy grows at approximately the same rate as the individual weakens. Kinship, friendship and family values are needed but without being strangled by religion and sex segregation. A rule of law based on human rights, but these rights must be formulated so that they provide a bulwark against the very real enemy threat: the social state. Individuals have to be protected by the negative rights of the individual, in sharp contrast to the collective (society’s) positive rights of the socialistic ideology. Pluralism versus centralized state power.

In conclusion I would like to quote a hesitant Swedish feminist Maud Eduards; "But can women trust the state to take care of their interests? And will a society ruled and regulated by the state, with mean possibilities of private life, benefit women?"

This I will argue is a relevant question for women, men and children around the world. Although it is a rare one, the book I dearly would like to read is part two of Selma Lagerlöf’s "The Miracles of Antichrist". This is even rarer because she never came to write it. My guess is that its name might have been "Angels of Antichrist".


Shouldn't social state people be sentenced for manslaughter, child abuse etc.?


The most serious charge of manslaughter in England is gross negligence manslaughter which carries a maximum life sentence on conviction.

Gross negligence manslaughter is a form of involuntary manslaughter where the offender did not intend to kill or cause really serious harm.  Instead the death resulted  from gross negligence.

The complex law was clarified in a House of Lords ruling in 1994 in the case of R v Adomako. The test for gross negligence manslaughter is now known as the Adomako Test. It has four stages.

To secure a conviction, the Crown Prosecution Service must show firstly the existence of a duty of care to the deceased.

Then, it must prove that duty of care was breached,

and thirdly that the breach of duty  caused or else significantly contributed to the deaths.

Finally, prosecutors would have to convince a jury that the breach should be characterized as gross negligence, and therefore a crime.


Gross negligence manslaughter is used to prosecute people who fail in a duty of care, causing someone's death.

Klevius question: When will people who were responsible for this be prosecuted?
Klevius question: Does molesting non-muslims by muslims deserve a shorter sentence?


Klevius scientific follow up analysis of Angels of Antichrist is a thesis called Pathological Symbiosis, which is the hereto most thorough one in its field. It not only the first to trace this hoax psychodynamic "diagnosis" to all its sources, but it also meticulously investigates legislation about it as well as its practical usage in social work and in the judicial process. And as an extra bonus it offers an appendix containing email correspondence with the author of the text that was used in the preparatory works for the Swedish Parliament - which, btw, mostly wasn't aware of it because it was cleverly hidden within a few lines in a many hundred pages work. Not even Klevius professor Henrik Tham believed it to be true before Klevius put the book in front of him.

When Klevius lectured about this he was contacted by the Swedish Government's muslim advisor who got so scared so he proposed that muslims should be exempted from the child care act (LVU).



Klevius wrote:

Tuesday, May 05, 2015


Why didn't you resque these girls from muslim predators? UK police: We thought they were child prostitutes (sic)!


The social state is much more devastating to children than any private company - and waste much more money!


A UK mother who found 125 names of potential (most/all muslims?) sex abusers on her daughter’s mobile phone claims she was told by police in Rotherham it would be a "breach of the girl’s human rights" if they investigated.

Klevius translation: Note that we are talking about underage girls who would have no Human Rights protection against social state interventions (aided by the police) whatsoever (to understand this and the tiltle see Angels of Antichrist and Pathological Symbiosis). What they really meant was that it would be a breach of the muslims' human rights (read "diversity policy") if they investigated. And this is the dilemma - Human Rights cover all, including muslims, whereas sharia opposes Human Rights - which fact doesn't hinder muslims (and their supporters) from abusing Human Rights when it serves themselves.!

The parasitic social state that feeds itself on behalf of the taxpayers and children while giving a s--t to non-muslim girls abused by muslims. Don't approve a penny before getting rid of the parasites residing in the social state! And one thing is definitive: Ed Milliband will continue supporting these parasites.


Rotherham has been totally dominated by Labour since World War 2. Compare the total dominance of the Swedish social democrats who created the disastrous Swedish social state all the way from Gunnar and Alva Myral's "social hygiene"  in the 1930s and due eugenics to the explosive tax injection in the 1970s and due birth of the modern social state. Some results: The Swedish "girl problem" (which Klevius has written about since 1993), high child/youth criminality, and a school system that 2015 is classified among the worst within OECD and heavily criticized in a recent OECD report. Yet Sweden has compulsory school attendance and doesn't admit homeschooling at all for normal children (alone in Europe together with Germany whose Hitler imposed law is still in power).

Learn more on Angels of Antichrist and Pathological Symbiosis


Joyce Thacker has been a central figure in the responsibility for letting children be abused and even murdered. How much does she get from your tax money, and will she be rewarded in the usual way for defending islam while not defending children.

Politicians in bed with islamofascism is a disaster for Human Rights

A vote for Ed Milliband is a vote against children's rights

Ed Miliband is the son of Polish immigrant parents. His mother, Marion Kozak, is a Polish Jew who survived the Holocaust thanks to being protected by Poles. His father, Ralph Miliband, was a Belgian-born Polish Jewish Marxist academic who fled with his father to England during World War II.

Rochdale is notorious for its muslim sex predators abusing white British girls taken into "care" by the social state.

Rochdale Labour councillor Shakil Ahmed is the dad of now freed(?!) terrorist suspect Waheed Ahmed who was arrested and accused of trying to go to Syria with eight of his relatives.



'Extreme islam' and 'extremist muslims' vs. ?

No, there is nothing to counter evil islam. Extreme islam has no alternative simply because islam is extreme in itself. Islam can never comply with the basic universal equality principle of Human Rights. That's because islam is based on racism and sexism, i.e. supremacy! Klevius therefore fully agrees with Erdogan's statement that there are no moderate muslims because there is no moderate islam.

And they are all around us ready to squeeze in more of islam whenever opportunities arise - and always ready to excuse islam from whatever that can be seen as unfavorable to islam.



BBC behaves precisely as those who let muslims continue their sex slavery (aka "grooming") in Rochdale, Rotherham and elsewhere!






Chief Crown Prosecutor for the north-west of England, Nazir Afzal was "removed" due to 'on-going drive for efficiency' after being investigated for allegation he sent a text message to a (muslim?) defendant in a court case.

Nazir Afzal to BBC's (deliberately?) toothless (and therefore useless) presenter Edward Stourton: It has nothing to do with islam. I know that the vast majority of offenders are British white male.

However, although white British men (because most Brits are "white" - "colored" muslims constitute below 3-5% and Pakistani/Bangladesh muslims even less) are the majority of abusers in the British population as a whole, the specific type of grooming offence and especially the very highly organised sex abuse such as we’ve seen in Rotherham and elsewhere, is dominated by muslims and follows Koranic principles from the origin of islam.

Thursday, July 27, 2017

Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea have never attacked England - Saudi Arabia/Sunni Salafi islam/Sunni Salafi muslims have repeatedly done so. So why is the former declared a "considerable threat" while the latter is declared an "important ally"?


BBC today continues its racist approach against EU residents and EU citizens for the purpose of making England/London* more sharia (Saudi/Sunni islamofascist) compliant.


* London is a Saudi sharia money laundering hub sponging on financial fees etc. which don't benefit ordinary residents in England at all (do note that 'resident' is the legal definition of who has residential rights in England - being a citizen doesn't necessarily give access to those rights).

England mainly voted against muslim immigration from Turkey - but BBC and Theresa May & Co smear EU citizens who weren't even allowed to vote about their own future, while non-EU residents did. Brexit would never have won with a fair and democratic vote incl. EU residents whom it was all about.

When will Theresa May and BBC address and economically assess the value/cost of muslims in England in the same way as they do about EU residents/citizens?

And when will they include all the pension etc. money continuing to stream into England after Brexit? That heap of money is three times bigger that what English residents in EU will cost England.

And finally, why is it so important to import more male muslims and often also their hugely extended families which are usually from the upper classes of their islamic country of origin, while a completely different moral logic seems to apply to non-muslims?



Klevius wrote:

Wednesday, March 22, 2017


UK PM escaping when "the best ally", the islamofascist Saudi dictator family attacks the Parliament.

Why is she continuing dealing with and supporting the worst spreaders of hate and evil?

Islam's "custodians", the islamofascist Saudi dictator family (together with Saudi based and steered OIC) constitutes the heart of evil islam in today's world. So why an "ally"?



The islamofascist Saudi dictator family is said to be the world's largest source of funds and promoter of Salafist muslim jihadism, which forms the ideological basis of terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda, Taliban, ISIS and others. Moreover, donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.

The violence in Afghanistan and Pakistan is partly bankrolled by wealthy donors from the Arabian peninsula whose "governments" support them. Three other muslim Arab countries which are listed as sources of militant money are Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates, all neighbors of Saudi Arabia. Taliban and their militant partners the Haqqani network earn "significant funds" through UAE-based businesses. Kuwait is described as a "source of funds and a key transit point" for al-Qaida and other militant groups. The Pakistani militant muslim outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba, which carried out the 2008 Mumbai attacks, used a Saudi-based front company to fund its activities in 2005. According to studies, most of suicide bombers in Iraq are Saudis. 15 of the 19 muslim hijackers of the four airliners who were responsible for 9/11 originated from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon. Osama bin Laden was raised in Saudi Arabia - just like BBC's sharia presenter Mishal Husain btw.

Starting in the mid-1970s the islamic resurgence was funded by an abundance of money from Saudi Arabian oil exports. The tens of billions of dollars in "petro-islam" largess obtained from the recently heightened price of oil funded an estimated "90% of the expenses of the entire faith."

Throughout the Sunni Muslim world, religious institutions for people both young and old, from children's maddrassas to high-level scholarships received Saudi funding, "books, scholarships, fellowships, and mosques" (for example, "more than 1500 mosques were built and paid for with money obtained from public Saudi funds over the last 50 years"), along with training in the Kingdom for the preachers and teachers who went on to teach and work at these universities, schools, mosques, etc.[108] The funding was also used to reward journalists and academics who protected the islamofascist Saudi dictator family and its spread of hate; and satellite campuses were built around Egypt for Al Azhar, the world's oldest and most influential islamic university.

Saudi-based Wahhabism or Salafism preaches that (Sunni) muslims should not only "always oppose" infidels "in every way," but "hate them for their religion ... for Allah's sake," that democracy "is responsible for all the horrible wars of the 20th century," that Shia and other "wrong-muslims" were "infidels", etc. According to former Prime Minister of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew, while this effort has by no means converted all, or even most, muslims to the Saudi Wahhabist islam, it has done much to overwhelm more moderate local interpretations of islam in Southeast Asia, and to pitch the Saudi-interpretation of islam as the "gold standard" of religion in minds of muslims across the globe.

Patrick Cockburn accused the islamofascist Saudi dictator family of supporting extremist islamist groups in the Syrian Civil War, writing: "In Syria, in early 2015, it (i.e. the islamofascist Saudi dictator family) supported the creation of the Army of Conquest, primarily made up of the al-Qaeda affiliate the al-Nusra Front and the ideologically similar Ahrar al-Sham, which won a series of victories against the Syrian Army in Idlib province."

While the islamofascist Saudi dictator family's "government" denies claims that it exports religious or cultural extremism, it is argued that by its nature, Wahhabism encourages intolerance and promotes terrorism. Former CIA director James Woolsey described it as "the soil in which Al-Qaeda and its sister terrorist organizations are flourishing." In 2015, Sigmar Gabriel, Vice-Chancellor of Germany, accused the islamofascist Saudi dictator family of supporting intolerance and extremism, saying: "Wahhabi mosques are financed all over the world by Saudi Arabia (i.e. the islamofascist Saudi dictator family). In Germany, many dangerous islamists come from these communities." In May 2016, The New York Times editorialised that the islamofascist Saudi dictator family allied to the U.S. had "spent untold millions promoting Wahhabism, the radical form of Sunni islam that inspired the 9/11 hijackers and that now inflames the islamic State".




Klevius additional comment: The pattern seems familiar when compared to the original aggression of islam in cooperation with (some) Jews*. Just take a look at the Jewiah-islamic relations by checking out e.g. the myth of "the Andalusian paradise", or the twisted life of Maimonides (you know, the "great Jewish thinker" who only survived islam by pretending to be a muslim).

* Today Jews who are critical to islamic Human Rights violations are forbidden by Theresa May from entering UK (e.g. Pamela Geller) while Jews who are supportive of the Saudi cause are welcomed and honored.

Klevius wrote:

Wednesday, August 05, 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/saver/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" which hindered (for a time) hindered internal divisions. On top of this was the Dhimmitude taxation system under the sword.

4 Understanding these point 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 bachwardness. Africa is an example of how a parasitic ideology was able to drain a whole continent.


Klevius will tell you much more later. Keep tuned and excited!



Sunday, July 23, 2017

BBC again neglected women's football while boosting for boring cricket and higher salary for Mishal Husain.


Mishal Husain thinks that £250,000 isn't enough pay for her being BBC's top muslim sharia poster woman.


Cricket, introduced by British empire colonizers, is a boring and less physical and technical "sport" than football. Girls lured into school cricket spend most of their PE hour watching others. Cricket is also mostly played among muslims who have conservative views on sex segregation (e.g. sharia apartheid in Pakistan, Bangladesh etc.).

So Mishal Husain's boosting of cricket, sharia islam and more pay seems just as bigoted and hypocritical as her bragging about how she doesn't care about fasting during Ramadan but rather drinks some alcohol. She also brags about not seeing any threats to her way of life - despite the fact that she well knows most muslim girls/women don't have a chance because they have to obey that sharia islam she defends while pretending not to defend it.

Klevius comment: Disgusting - makes me vomit.

England's and Scotland's women are today playing crucial games in the European Cuo 2017. But not a single mentioning of it by BBC in their main midday news hour - where they talked a lot about women's cricket instead.

Klevius question: Why???