Excusing islam from its consequences
Not only is BBC a disgusting institution in that it harbors exactly the
same low moral as do the bankers, media people etc they choose to
criticize. But while BBC presents itself as the servant of the public,
the truth is something quite the contrary, i.e. a misleading propaganda
institution to a large extent steered from some of the most despicable
of islamofascist countries. This is why BBC so eagerly defends islam and
puts brackets on islam for the purpose of sheltering islam from its own
consequences - i.e. from the very origin and soul of itself.
Two recent and horrifying examples of BBC-s total lack of compassion for
people while defending the world's by far most evil ideology throughout
1400 years:
Example 1: BBC tries to convince its listeners that islam is
innocent in the case of muslim sex groomers (i.e. sex slavers - as you
do know by now islam and its Koran clearly sanctions sex slavery as well
as conventional slavery - in fact, the very essence of islam). BBC does
this by presenting "findings" from a UK muslim women's organization
(sic) which points out that also Pakistani girls were among the victims
of the widespread sex enslavement of young girls in the UK.
Klevius slaughtering of this utterly pathetic, hypocritical and bigoted argument:
According to islam, secularized* girls are no real muslims anymore!
These girls had actually escaped islam (represented by their families,
their imam and their "honor") and hence constituted a legitimate target
for being made sex slaves "possessed by your right hand" as it's clearly
stated in the Koran.
* How "secularized" may greatly vary
among different muslim "communities" but one thing is certain - a muslim
girl/woman can never be free and equal to a muslim man! A muslim
girl/woman is denied Human Rights (compare OIC's Cairo declaration for
all the world's muslims)!
And other excuses, such as "but muslims obey the laws of the country"
are just forced temporal exceptions and equally pathetic and worth
nothing in the light of how islamic Sharia sees girls' and women's Human
Rights as defamatory against islam.
Read more about this disgusting sex segregation furthest down on this posting.
Klevius new word 'rapetivism' today got 34,900 hits on Google.
Example 2: BBC's extreme push for a violent attack on the Syrian
people. I.e. BBC in the service of the Saudi Sunni islamofascists who
want to commit genocide on the Shia community wherever it exists.
We are certainly used to see Kerry making a fool out of himself, not
the least in his failed presidential campaign. And now he again slipped
his mouth out of control thereby giving the Syrian people some respite
to the US bombings.
The worst US "president" ever, muslim born (apostate?!) eagerly wants to hurt Syrian people so to please the Saudis
Not the slightest evidence that the accused used chemical weapons - but a
multitude of reports about Al-Qarda and its allies both having them and
using them. How can you people by this war monger's lies. Are you the
Germans of today?!
How many Jews, Christians, Shiites and Atheists in Arab muslim
countries? Very few, and depends on when you ask - they are eradicated
in the same pace as Obama prepares his slaughtering of non-Sunni
Syrians!
What you now see is perhaps the most hypocritical deliberate and
murderous planned use of Western fire power for the purpose of helping
the most intolerant islamofascist country in its genocide of Shia
muslims, Christians , Jews and non-believers.
How many mosque rats at Leicester University?
Sexist islam in UK universities
Leicester University is one of the world's most sexist universities. You
may not believe me but the truth is (an other professor witnessed it)
that a female professor there, when presented with criticism against
islam's rejection of women's full Human Rights via Sharia, said "Why
don't you want to let women lead their lives as they wish". Yes, you got
it right. She saw the restriction of women's rights as a right!
Moreover, she also blamed the messenger for not allowing women to NOT
HAVE THEIR FULL RIGHTS!
I will go deeper into this and also name the professor in an upcoming
post. Her female students need to know this, and as usual, it seems that
Klevius is the only one daring to really address this ultimate sexism.
In the meantime, read this a decade old web writing by Klevius on the topic:
Sex segregation and rapetivism - the pillars of islam
Rapetivism and heterosexual attraction
HSA (heterosexual
attracton) is biological attraction between two related forms with one
part predestined as the receiver/reproducer. HSA can be one- or
double-sided, i.e. both parts can actively search for each other
(compare two magnets) or only one part (usually the male) has an inbuilt
attraction towards the other sex.. Feminists use to confuse/deny this
with cultural sex-segregation aimed to cover up short-comings in a
manner not far from the confused and chaotic blend of erotics,
friendship and misinterpreted projections that we used to call love..HSA
can itself never be bi-sexual. Neither has HSA anything to do with
rape/"rapetivism" (which is, in fact, a form of necrophilia). Although a
man may experience HSA aesthetics where a woman doesn't, it hasn't
necessarily anyhing to do with sexuality before a "mutual trigger" is
released (and that hasn't even to be physically directly connected). And
even then there is nothing preventing withdrawal at any point. If not,
then we are talking something else. More on From Klevius without love
Sexuality
(eroticism) is not solely connected to HSA because it is in no way
limited to heterosexuality. In fact one cannot even evaluate its
strength in terms of hetero- or homosexuality.Sex segregation
(modern) is the purported (i.e. deliberate) effort to bridge (and
sometimes to cover incompetency, felt or real) socially, personally and
politically an obvious lack of corresponding rights between the sexes - a
phenomenon similar to that when individuals, classes and races that had
"failed" were attributed biological explanations. Classic (not modern)
sex-segregation, on the other hand, is the sex-division produced by
practical circumstances. Hence the word modern should be understood as
only partly related to what we conceive as the era of modernity. Feminism and psychoanalysis
are the means by which modern sex-segregation is upheld. Strivings for
non-segrgation through equal rights (basic human rights: negative
rights, i.e.the right not to be imposed segregational or other "rights"
that oppress the individual in question, and positive rights, i.e. the
right to an equal participation in the democratic society e.g. through
the right to vote, to be elected, to perform or not to perform any act
that does not violate the rights of others) thus does not count as
feminism. Feminism is per definition always biological essentialism.
Biologically implanted HSA (in the male) represents a possible,
theoretical base for feminism because it targets the real and relational
difference between the sexes. Whereas procreation (after conception) is
not necessarily predestined to heterorelation of any kind HSA always
is, no matter if there are two physical persons of opposite sex present
or not. Only a certain part (HSA) of what we could title general
hetero-pornography is totally dependent on the real or assumed presence
of two sexes. If we are hungry and if we believe that a sandwich dummy
is a real and good one then our behavior/longing is "biological" rather
than "cultural". "Assumed" in this context should of course not be
considered "cultural" but rather a tool for limiting conceptual
confusion re. "cheating sexes", i.e.. for example, when a male
"misinterprets" what he think is the female sex according to his own
view on that sex..Non-essential sex-segregation is a logical paradox
that excludes the possibility of equal feminism. Apart from the obvious
biological essentialism that is embedded in the concept as such, it is
impossible to defend an equal, "non-essentialist" feminist position
other than as a transient stage. And if that is the case then this
"transient stage" constitutes the framework on which life and death of
feminism depends. Consequently there seems to be no other way of
discriminating between progressive and reactionary actions than by
assessing underlying motives.
Sharia sex segregation or Human Rights for girls/women?
In every possible form of Sharia girls/women are forced to lead their
lives in sex apartheid of varying degrees. But according to Human Rights
every girl/woman has the right to decide herself what kind of life she
wants to lead - incl. a sex segregated life if she so wishes.
In islam women and non-muslims are all "infidels", and the only thing
that really distinguishes a woman as muslim is her "duty" towards islam
to reproduce (physically and/or culturally) as many new muslims as
possible. .
In John Peters Humprey's world view "infidels" didn't exist
John Peters Humphrey (peace be upon him
and Human Rights) is the last prophet of the Universal Declaration on
Human Rights - and he is utterly defamated by muslim Humanrightsophobes - yet all the
Billions of Human Rights followers take it (too?) calmly.
John Peters Humphrey (who actually existed and who wasn't a pedophile or
a murderous scumbag or a fanatic warlord or a terrorist) wrote the
first draft of the Universal Human Rights Declaration (peace be upon him
and Human Rights).
Here's part of his profound and sacred original revelation:
"Subject to the laws governing slander and libel there shall be full
freedom of speech and of expression by any means whatsoever, and there
shall be reasonable access to all channels of communication. Censorship
shall not be permitted"
Klevius comment: By 'libel' and
'slander' John Peters Humphrey of course meant something directed to an
existing individual, not a totalitarian ideology!