* 'Islamofascist' is here defined as a muslim who supports the violation of the most basic Human Rights. Simple as that! If Sayeeda Warsi doesn't support sharia in this sense (e.g. OIC's sharia declaration) then she better come out as an apostate, i.e. committing the worst crime known to islam (which is already in itself the worst crime ever against humanity).
** Using the hateful "islamphobia" against defender of Human Rights can only be classified as racist hate speech. Remember that "islamophobia" in sharia islam is synonymous with "blasphemy"!
Muslim Sayeeda Warsi, unelected "Minister for Faith islam", has stated that the UK is 'committed to working with the United Nations Human Rights Council to implement blasphemy resolution 16/18.' However, the majority of Brits don't have a clue about this because no one has informed them about it - especially not BBC whom even Klevius has beaten when it comes to informing about OIC.
Sayeeda Warsi today on BBC: Islam forbids the killing of innocent people.
Klevius: Absolutely! And by "innocent" islam means the killers and those who support them! Either directly or by "being offended" (a term that should be read "islam's inferiority complex" against Human Rights). Those who didn't support Muhammad when he slaughtered all the Jews in Medina were not innocent according to the strongest part of islam, i.e. back then Muhammad's sword waiving muslim thugs, and today Warsi's beloved OIC which has criminalized the most basic of Human Rights and replaced them with muslim sharia.
Sayeeda Warsi today on BBC (about a gallup): British muslims felt more loyal to Britain and had a much bigger trust in institutions than white Britons.
Klevius: Absolutely! And it's appalling! And why shouldn't they when the institutions are made sharia compliant by the help of "diversity trained officials" who are scared to death to be called racist "islamophobes" or have already been exchanged to sharia muslim officials. And no one cares about muslim racism and hate crimes against the Brits.
Klevius wrote:
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
Muslim ethnicity - not geographical location - behind "Asian" or "Pakistan" sex abuse/murder of white girls!
The disgusting face of the social state
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 of children.
However, she seems not very visible on Google News despite the biggest sex slave shock ever in Britain happened under her watch!?
To get a theoretical background to this please read what Klevius wrote some 20 years ago (Angels of Antichrist in the social state - the most important sociological paper written in the last century) and a decade ago (Pathological symbiosis in the social service).
Also consider The Swedish girl problem.
However, what you really should give a serious thought is why Joyce Thacker is defended?
The now reported over 1400 child (young girls "rescued" from their families by the social state) sex slaves taken and abused lately by British muslims is just a tiny glare from the tip of the iceberg. And although it's common and accepted all over the muslim world, in Western countries it's protected under the "islamophobia" slogan.
It's not islam! Really? So muslim jihadists, and muslim sex offenders just happen to follow the text in the Koran and the historical origin of islam in this respect?!
And some other disgusting females supporting muslim sex slavery
Is the Darfur genocide a "random muslim scare story", Nesrine Malik? As a Sudanese you should know, shouldn't you. Or the global muslim sex abuse and trafficking of underage girls?
Nesrine Malik: In 2012, nine men were convicted of child exploitation and grooming of vulnerable young girls in Rochdale. Similar grooming gangs were identified in Derby, Rotherham and Oxford..The fact that these grooming gangs were Asian and Muslim ('muslims' were almost never mentioned - it's entirely Malik's own spice to ther story), and their victims white, became central to their offences in public discourse and media coverage. How was this done? Newspaper articles, radio shows and TV panel discussions adopted, discussed and repeated the claim of Muslim grooming and abuse. By popularising a notion that their crimes were somehow mandated by a sharia law that condoned sexual exploitation of non-Muslims. That is, not only is their religion relevant, it is blessing their crimes, or at least informing their culture. This was simply not true but it was repeated and sublimated into fact. "Muslim grooming gangs", a description about as unhelpful as the "Christian paedophile Jimmy Savile". It was a scenario in which a factually erroneous religious justification was used to explain an anomalous episode.
Max Dunbar: “I used to get outraged about people like Nesrine Malik. Here we have an independent woman working in finance in secular London, telling women in the developing world that theocracy really isn’t so bad as they make out. Isn’t this an imperialist attitude? But in the end, the appropriate response isn’t outrage: it’s a dark and riotous laughter at the arrant stupidity of it all.”
It was because they were muslims they were so leniently handled with by social workers, police, courts, etc. - not because they were from Asia! Non-muslim Russians from Asia would hardly have been equally leniently handled!
Who else than Klevius can tell all these abused or about to become abused girls about sex apartheid and the true origin of islam?
When a girl trapped in a limiting sex segregated upbringing suddenly realizes the heterosexual attraction of her ass she might easily get lost - especially if her attachment to her parents is cut off by the state power of senseless social authorities. Combine this to the Koran that tells you that infidel girls your right arm possesses are legitimate. And add to this that, according to islamic logic, the West (more or less by its very existence) is attacking islam and therefore war booty is legal.
And who else than Klevius can tell all of you others that your tax money to the social state is of no use - but contributes to abuse! Yes, Klevius has seen all the evidence through academic studies as well as on the actual field as a solicitor in cases were the state wants to abduct children for no real reason other than placing them in commercial foster or care homes they themselves often have commercial interest in. Moreover, the social state has itself developed into a self serving commercial interest spiced by political interest.
Again, read Angels of Antichrist and Pathological symbiosis before you even open your big mouth in these matters.
Here's what Klevius wrote
Friday, September 28, 2012
Was it muslim (or muslim "sensitive") social workers/police who failed Victoria Agoglia and other white vulnerable ("trash") girls in Rochdale etc?
Angels of Antichrist (no idiot, Klevius isn't Christian)
is by far the most important sociological paper written in the last Century. In summary it shows that there is no connection at all between tax money invested in thedoesn't have to show results (or the results can be arbitrarily manipulated by itself)
its parts work as authorities
it has monopoly
it writes, more or less, its own laws via its extensive bureaucracy and lobbying (for a horror example from Sweden of how democracy is sidestepped by bureaucracy see Pathological Synbiosis)
its main interest is to feed itself
it started as a dump for the spill over (women) of sex segregation (in the post-industrial automation), i.e. women (who couldn't go to the private sector) were paid to get away from their children (often to take care of children of others). As Klevius has shown in his thesis groundbreaking (but largely neglected) Pathological Symbiosis (with all the references you may ask for to really see how bad the social state is in taking care of children) this process also includes an element of feel of guilt boosted by "motherhood" psychology, i.e. that women who couldn't take care of their children because they were working started pathologizing women who did take care of their children.
Although the welfare state was born in the 1940s the social state emerged on a powerful new tax platform in Sweden in the 1970s with some roots in much earlier practices.
In Angels of Antichrist (which, so far, is the world's only serious/informed attempt to an overall interdisciplinary approach on the social state) and Pathological Symbiosis it's shown beyond reasonable doubt that there's absolutely no evidence (see e.g. Vinnerjung's comprehensive study on foster children) that the social state has contributed any good social work on the whole despite the enormous amount of money invested in it. And this is no rocket science to understand. How could a young sex segregated woman without children of her own and brainwashed for many years in courses based on all the time changing and heavily biased flimsy but fashionable non sense psychology ans sociology, possibly know anything else than khow to get the most out of it for herself?
So when Jim Taylor, chief executive of Rochdale Borough Council, refuses to answer whether he'll get rid of those social workers who called sexually abused/raped (by muslims from Pakistan) white girls (whom the social state already had taken "care" of) and who were in their early teens, "prostitutes" "life choice" and didn't in any way react to the cries for help, then this is a pattern that has been around for long also in Swedish schools etc as Klevius has written for a decade on his sites and blogs.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment