Fake science from Stanford - and Peter Klevius warning (and cure) about it from 1992

If your research/analysis isn't popular it will be dismissed/neglected - no matter how truthfully it's made. Same thing if your research/analysis doesn't comply with those in power* (PC media - incl. so called "scientific" journals).

* Do understand that science has two legs, a particular and a general. The particular consists of tiny bits of research that then has to be translated into the whole. And whereas the former only demands technical knowledge of the research process, the latter demands both intelligence and as little bias as possible. Bias in the former would just mean it's no real science, whereas bias in the latter is inevitable, yet should be kept by all means to a minimum. Unfortunately many researchers are unable to distinguish between the particular and the general. However, Peter Klevius thinks he possesses more than average research intelligence. Why? 1) He had super intelligent parents, 2) he has been told by two of Finland's top professors (from two completely different disciplines - philosophy and neuroscience) that he has the perfect talent for precisely this altering between the particular and the general, 3) he has no financial ties with what he researches (which fact, in fact, is used belttle him), 4) he calls himself a physical as well as cultural "bastard" meaning that he is free from most types of "community bias", 5) he leads a happy life and has his moral stance towards others completely connected to the (negative) Human Rights declaration of 1948. 

So true science and fake "science" are irreconcilable. However, this isn't immediately obvious because, like e.g. HIV, the scientific process that was aimed at eliminating bias, itself became the best hiding place for cultural, political, religious, financial etc. bias.

Drawing by Peter Klevius from a lecture about the chapter Science and its References in Demand for Resources (Klevius, 1992:40-44, ISBN 9173288411).

Fake science rooted in Stanford - and applauded by BBC (which is heavily connected to islamofascism via the islamofascist Saudi dictator family's UK connections).

So true science and fake "science" are irreconcilable. However, this isn't immediately obvious because, like e.g. HIV, the scientific process that was aimed at eliminating bias, itself became the best hiding place for cultural, political, religious, financial etc. bias.

Four academic examples from Klevius own experience:

1 A thesis in social anthropology was criticized for not being written "in the fashion we do it here", although the thesis was simultaneously highly praised for "the author's intelligent writing" and "superb use of citations" (Klevius himself warns for "citation cartels" in his 1992 book Demand for Resources).

2  An other thesis in sociology in the 1990s was criticized for showing that perpetrators of child sexual abuse, as reported in the most prominent scientific literature, was least likely to be a biological parent, and most likely to occur outside the home. This study was in response to the Swedish state radio which had a long daily "incest" insert in their main news hour over a period of 18 days, where sex abuse numbers by stepfathers, step siblings, peers etc. were presented in a way that made the listeners believe it was parental incest. The series seems to have been a direct support for more funds to the "social state"* (aka the "welfare state"). An opponent asked Klevius: "Why do you do this?" Klevius answer, that he wanted to warn for the serious consequences for the child in case of false accusations - and the fact that other more prevalent abuse went unnoticed, was met with total silence. Moreover, that the so far biggest study on the welfare of children taken into care in the Swedish system didn't stand up to even the lowest expectations, was also met with something resembling disgust. And finally, that the world's most extensive study on child sex abuse in Finland didn't at all correspond with the picture given by media and social state bureaucrats and politicians, seemed to have no value whatsoever compared to the state radio propaganda.

*To understadn the "social state" do read Angels of Antichrist and Pathological Symbiosis.

3  In Klevius thesis "Pathological Symbiosis" it was shown that social state bureaucrats directly influenced and managed to implement a criterion for abducting children from their parents based on a psychological non sense term (which history Klevius thoroughly traced back to Freud's time). When it became the law it wasn't any longer taken seriously even by researchers in psychology but became popular among welfare officials. And to hide this insidious criterion from ordinary people it was hidden in the preparatory works which people rarely read. And the text in the law paragraph used the old formulation "or some other condition in the home", but now also applying to the new hidden criterion "pathological symbiosis". Moreover, in psychologists' statements used in court hearings there was no mentioning about "pathological symbiosis" but rather its "legal synonyms" such as, for example, "the mother doesn't understand the needs of her child" etc.. Klevius would never have seen it was it not for him working as a solicitor in child custody cases and reading through several hundred cases which looked suspicious when it came to the reason for taking a child into the care of the social state.

4 A thesis about how to analyze restraints on girls'/women's freedom imposed by sex segregation and poorly understood/analyzed connection to heterosexual attraction, was criticized by a female professor with the following words: "Why don't you want to let women lead their lives as they wish?" Quite a surprising remark considering that Klevius thesis used the 1948 Human Rights declaration and its emphasis on 'sex' not being used as an excuse for restricting any Human Rights. The simple minded professor obviously thought it somehow threatening to let women free from sex segregation restrains.

BBC's guest from the Medical Research Council discussing fake research: Irreproducibility could give rise to new results.

Peter Klevius: Sorry, but that's not science - it's luck.


85% irreproducibility, i.e. replication failed.

Out of 5 cancer studies only 2 could be reproduced.

Causes mentioned:

publication crisis

pressure from funders

priority based on what the researcher have published before - not the scientific quality of the actual work at stake.

incompetency

too small sample size

studying the wrong thing (compare Klevius drawing above)

"curated" literature (compare what Klevius wrote 1992 - especially about citation cartels and lists.

selective reporting

statistics manipulated - usually by leaving out important data (i.e. not just simple tampering with data) or by sampling errors.

peer review - which may be equally polarized as politics, hence bundling/tying "peers" in a certain paradigm/discourse enclosure (see Klevius cure on Inside Klevius mind on Klevius' web museum - not touched upon for more than a decade).

Peter Klevius bias check on fake assessment of fake science - i.e. "pseudo-science quacks" from Stanford.

Here's an example of pseudo-science quacks (psychology) presented as science by John Ioannidis (Stanford) and commented by Peter Klevius (no surprise it's published in a "social state" paper - read Klevius' Angels of Antichrist or his thesis Pathological Symbiosis, to really understand this):

Yes, Klevius, who plays in the heavyweight class, apologizes for correcting a guy from a lower class. However, Klevius isn't interested in John Ioannidis' IQ disability but rather in his bias (witting or unwitting) and the framework he offers by defending "pseudo-science quacks" like psychology by calling it "science". Reminds Klevius of his own example in Demand for Resources (1992 ISBN 9173288411) where a phycisist and a psychologist studied the effects of an egg falling on the head of a person. Whereas the physicist's findings were replicable (the main pattern of the cracks in the shell and due flow of soft material), the psychologist's findings (reaction of the test person) were not. And even if the test person (compare test bench) was altered by being informed in advance, that would only either have made the study meaningless, or being used to "verify" the obvious without getting even close to a result deserving the term science. Not to mention the problem with citations, falsifiability etc.. Wittgenstein (the mentor of his successor at Cambridge, G H von Wright, who mentored Klevius) would probably not have approved of it.

John Ioannidis: Science is the best thing that has happened to humankind because its results can be questioned, retested, and demonstrated to be wrong. Science is not about proving at all cost some preconceived dogma.

Peter Klevius: Well, that's what child psychology has been doing since Freud. As is the sex segregation dogma that Klevius was the first to puncture (see e.g. Pathological Symbiosis, and other works by Klevius revealing the core problem of social state "science" and sex segregation). Children have no say of their own, and are therefore the perfect market place for "pseudo-science quacks". And only a child can today be legally forced into "gender dogmas" (compare DSM). Moreover, the "social state" (see e.g. Angels of Antichrist, and Pathological Symbiosis) is the perfect field for growing "quacks" because it not only pushes forward its own agenda and due legislation, but it also possesses authority - i.e. the exact opposite to the private sector (yet it of course transgresses into the private sector whenever it suits it). The "social state" exists in a protective bubble labeled "welfare" (for whom? - read Angels of Antichrist).

John Ioannidis: Despite this clear superiority of the scientific method, we researchers (sic) are still fallible humans. 270 investigators working for five years published in Science the results of their efforts to replicate 100 important results that had been previously published in three top psychology journals. The replicators worked closely with the original authors to make the repeat experiments close replicas of the originals. The results were bleak: 64% of the experiments could not be replicated.

Peter Klevius: "Working close with the original authors" was their first mistake, and probably gave a too positive result (also compare Tienari et al adoptive study and their own "instrument" for assessing their own evaluation of their own study, referred to in Klevius' Angels of Antichrist, 1996).

John Ioannidis: We often feel uneasy about having our results probed for possible debunking. We don’t always exactly celebrate when we are proven wrong. For example, retracting published papers can take many years and many editors, lawyers, and whistleblowers – and most debunked published papers are never retracted. Moreover, with fierce competition for limited research funds and with millions of researchers struggling to make a living (publish, get grants, get promoted), we are under immense pressure to make “significant”, “innovative” discoveries. Many scientific fields are thus being flooded with claimed discoveries that nobody ever retests. Retesting (called replication) is discouraged. In most fields, no funding is given for what is pooh-poohed as me-too efforts. We are forced to hasten from one “significant” paper to the next without ever reassessing our previously claimed successes.

Peter Klevius: "We"?! Try to hide behind the back of reliable quantitative science? Psychology is a so called "qualitative science" which started as a quantitative measuring of factual animal behavior, but sadly ended up as a "qualitative" guesswork about human future behavior - i.e. a mission completely impossible keeping in mind the endless and never reachable amount of existing (but not accessible) "experience data" and their possible reactions to a myriad of possible future settings for the child/adult. In other words this is just folk psychology wrapped in money.

John Ioannidis: Multiple lines of evidence suggest this is a recipe for disaster, leading to a scientific literature littered with long chains of irreproducible results. Irreproducibility is rarely an issue of fraud. Simply having millions of hardworking scientists searching fervently and creatively in billions of analyses for something statistically significant can lead to very high rates of false-positives (red-herring claims about things that don’t exist) or inflated results.

Peter Klevius: Let me just quote myself (in a hasty translation from Swedish) from my book Demand for Resources (1992:43): Especially within the realm of social science these tendencies are reaching worrying dimensions, and one can already see how citations are streamlined for political purpose in a way where legislation  is "prepared" via tailored "research" as a part in society's - to borrow Habermas - "increased manipulation of motives/social control". However, the system itself becomes a new paradigm and discourse where this bias becomes so overwhelming that it can only be questioned outside itself (for how to do this, see Inside Klevius Mind - http://klevius.info/IQdepth.html?1076884215269 - on Klevius web museum, which is left untouched since more than a decade ago). In this respect it resembles sex segregation, where true* feminism (i.e. segregational) hinders scrutiny of women's own role in it.

* In popular usage 'feminism' is often seen as women's right to transgress over "gender lines" i.e. the very opposite to sex segregation in feminist theory/ies (read some of Klevius many 'sex tutorials'.

John Ioannidis: This is more likely to happen in fields that chase subtle, complex phenomena, in those that have more noise in measurement, and where there is more room for subjective choices to be introduced in designing and running experiments and crunching the data. Ten years ago I tried to model these factors. These models predicted that in most scientific fields and settings the majority of published research, findings may be false. They also anticipated that the false rates could vary greatly (from almost 0% to almost 100%), depending on the features of a scientific discipline and how scientists run their work.

Peter Klevius: Scientific bias feeds on noise! Without it politicized "science" wouldn't be possible. When Klevius in a TV debate critiziced the quality of social state interference in children's lives and that these consequences weren't properly dealt with, he was accused for not being the criminologist his academic credentials said he was. Obviously, being a criminologist meant that one should not be critical of the social state (which feeds most criminologists).

John Ioannidis: Probably the failure rate in the Science data would have been higher for work published in journals of lesser quality. There are tens of thousands of journals in the scientific-publishing market, and most will publish almost anything submitted to them. The failure rate may also be higher for studies that are so complex that none of the collaborating replicators offered to attempt a replication. This group accounted for one-third of the studies published in the three top journals. So the replication failure rate for psychology at large may be 80% or more overall.

Peter Klevius: By "lesser quality" Ioannidis apparently means journals publishing studies/analysis which aren't PC and/or streamlined for psychology and the social state.

John Ioannidis: This performance is even worse than I would have predicted. In 2012 my anticipation of a 53% replication failure rate for psychology at large was published. Compared with other empirical studies, the failure rate of psychology seems to be in the same ballpark as replication failure rates in observational epidemiology, cancer drug targets and preclinical research, and animal experiments.

Peter Klevius: There's no replicability in psychology. What he rants about is simply statistics. "In fields that chase subtle, complex phenomena, in those that have more noise in measurement, and where there is more room for subjective choices to be introduced in designing and running experiments and crunching the data" truly scientific results cab never be produced. And if the results are "replicable" it's just at the same level as folk psychology - or possibly even less if there's "scientific" bias involved.

John Ioannidis: However, I think it is important to focus on the positive side. The Science paper shows that large-scale replication efforts of high quality are doable even in fields like psychology where there was no strong replication culture until recently. Hopefully this successful, highly informative paradigm will help improve research practices in this field. Many other scientific fields without strong replication cultures may also be prompted now to embrace replications and reproducible research practices. Thus these seemingly disappointing results offer a great opportunity to strengthen scientific investigation. I look forward to celebrate one day when my claim that most published research findings are false is thoroughly refutedrr across most, if not all, scientific fields.

Peter Klevius: There can never exist a fair "replication culture" in psychology (incl. so called psychodynamic "theory") because it suffers from the same disease as psychoanalysis, feminist theory etc., i.e. more or less openly admitting not being scientific in the first place, yet trying to convince us of being above folk level.

Sharia muslims' (or their accomplices) efforts to declare Human Rights "blasphemic" constitute the worst threat* to the Free World.

* When BBC today fakes the truth about threats facing the world, they pile up a number of countries (of course starting with Russia), but carefully avoid mentioning the one country (if you can call an oil rich dictator family a "country", that is) that has by far caused the most suffering around the world, i.e. Saudi Arabia (and this seems to be the only thing BBC has in common with Trump - avoiding to mention the islamofascist Saudi dictator family).

Human Rights vs "alternative rights"

The Saudis use islamofascism exactly as it was used from its origin. And Western politicians rather turn against their own citizens accusing them for "not being conducive to the interest of their country and its "important ally". Most attacks against US and UK (incl. against their citizens) can be tracked back to the islamofascist Saudi dictator family - as can a variety of islamic terrorist organizations (Boko Haram , Islamic State, al-Qaeda etc. etc.). However, the most insidious threat comes from Saudi based and steered OIC and its sharia (for the moment toned down in UN rhetoric, but nonetheless equally potent under the surface). OIC's main purpose seems to be silencing (and even criminalizing) criticism of Human Rights violations.

Klevius, the proud "islamophobe" defending the most basic of Human Rights, is closely related to a bird called Phoenix.

Three years ago someone (a muslim?) at Google deleted one of Klevius basic Human Rights defending blogs. However, Klevius immediately created a new and filled it with, if possible, even more critical writing against the dark fascistic powers threatening the free world just some 70 years after we defeated fascism the last time - and produced the revolutionary Universal Human Rights Declaration (1948) against totalitarian fascistic ideologies. However, it also, for the first time ever, offered all the world's women equality with men.

Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, 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.

However, this article is impossible in islam - that's why Saudi based and steered OIC came up with "alternative" islamic "human rights" (i.e. sharia).

Whereas a sane and civilized person would think that Human Rights freedom for everyone to lead their lives as they wish would suffice, islam thinks differently and instead for freedom wants impositions (especially against women and other non-muslims). And as Klevius has repeatedly said since 9/11: Human Rights allows sharia but sharia doesn't allow Human Rights.

What would John Peters Humphrey have thought about Canada today?

Klevius wrote:

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Hello Eric Schmidt! Is Google's censor policy steered by anti Human Rights muslims? Will Dante, Churchill, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Klevius and others now be banned so Google can continue protecting the worst ideological crime history knows about?!

Someone at Google is deleting Klevius' Human Rights defending blogs! Is Eric Schmidt aware of it?!

John Peters Humphrey is the last prophet of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights - and he's defamed by Humanrightsphobics - yet all the Billions of Atheist followers take it 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 revelations:

"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!

Human Rights and islam are irreconcilable: Klevius knows it, OIC knows it - how come that Google doesn't know it?

Mohammed suffering in the worst part of Dante's Hell. Dante was the starting point for the Renaissance and the Italian language and, until now considered a milestone in European and world thinking. However, today islam supporters call him 'a product of medieval thinking', although the only (and worst) of medieval thinking today is islam.

The Saudis already banned Human Rights as terrorism - is Google now nicely following its islamofascist Saudi masters?

Nowhere on the web (or anywhere else for that matter) can you find Klevius uttering anything even close to racism or sexism or so called "hate speech" - precisely the contrary - namely a defense for everyone's (incl. muslims) Human Rights against Sharia and other forms of fascisms! Unless, of course, Google complies with Saudi islamofascists according to whom Human Rights is equalized with terrorism and therefore banned by the 'guardians of islam'.

Where are these creepy bastards at Google hiding - and how do we make them visible and responsible?

This is what a "team" at Google wrote to Klevius when deleting Klevius' blog Origin of the Vikings (which contains the same material as do all the other blogs and web sites by Klevius):

'Hate'!? As Klevius doesn't 'hate'*, then it must be the muslims' own hatred via islam and exposed in Klevius' defense for Human Rights that is the problem!

And we have already seen this strange logic in the defense of muslim islamofascism. If muslims get "offended" and aggressive because of Human Rights, then this aggression is blamed on Human Rights, not islam! Much like if in traffic you meet someone driving in the wrong direction on your lane you should be blamed for criticizing her/him for doing it (or just reporting about her/him doing it). Moreover, it would also be claimed that the reckless driver was not a driver at all but an 'extremist', and that therefore to blame her/him as a driver would insult and offend other drivers, and that her/his behavior has nothing with traffic to do whatsoever.

Klevius questions: Who are these "reviewers" at Google anyway; who controls them; how do you face them with their own ignorance(?) or deliberate evilness. Does Google use muslim imams for assessing what should be allowed to say about islam?! Or is this really what Google and Eric Schmidt stand for?!

Eric Schmidt (Google chairman speaking in Hong Kong): 'Google believes very strongly in a free internet. The mainland (China) just passed the law about the 500-reposts thing. Then you will definitely think about it before you write. It's a problem, (it) means your voice is not fully heard.'

Klevius: Really?


Winston Churchill (who defended UK against German fascism in WW2): "How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!
Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia
in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many
countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods
of commerce and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the
Prophet rule or live.  A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and
refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity.  The fact that in Mohammedan
law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as
a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the
faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. 

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion
paralyzes the social development of those who follow it.  No stronger retrograde
force exists in the world.  Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.  It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step, and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it (Islam) has vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”

Ayaan Hirsi Ali: is very critical of the position of women in Islamic societies and the punishments demanded by Islamic scholars for homosexuality and adultery. She considered herself a Muslim until 28 May 2002, when she became an atheist. In an interview with the Swiss magazine Das Magazin in September 2006, she said she lost her faith while sitting in an Italian restaurant in May 2002, drinking a glass of wine: "...I asked myself: Why should I burn in hell just because I'm drinking this? But what prompted me even more was the fact that the killers of 9/11 all believed in the same God I believed in." She has described Islam as a "backward religion", incompatible with democracy. In one segment on the Dutch current affairs program Nova, she challenged pupils of an Islamic primary school to choose between the Qur'an and the Dutch constitution.

In an interview in the London Evening Standard, Hirsi Ali characterizes Islam as "the new fascism": "Just like Nazism started with Hitler's vision, the Islamic vision is a caliphate — a society ruled by Sharia law – in which women who have sex before marriage are stoned to death, homosexuals are beaten, and apostates like me are killed. Sharia law is as inimical to liberal democracy as Nazism." In this interview, she also made it clear that in her opinion it is not "a fringe group of radical Muslims who've hijacked Islam and that the majority of Muslims are moderate. [...] Violence is inherent in Islam – it's a destructive, nihilistic cult of death. It legitimates murder."

Hirsi Ali stated that she was also "not a Muslim" as she had lost the fear of the Qur'an and of Hell and lost respect for "its author" and messenger; and that she felt a "common humanity" with those she once "shunned", such as Jews, Christians, atheists, gays, and sinners "of all stripes and colours."

In the magazine Reason, Ayaan Hirsi Ali stated that not just 'radical Islam' but 'Islam' must be defeated. She stated: "Islam, period. Once it’s defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It’s very difficult to even talk about peace now. They’re not interested in peace."

Hirsi Ali criticises Islam's "prophet" Muhammad on the grounds of both his morality and personality. In January 2003 she told the Dutch paper Trouw, "Muhammad is, seen by our Western standards, a pervert", as he married, at the age of 53, Aisha, who was six years old and nine at the time the marriage was consummated. This led to a lawsuit by a number of Muslims in 2005. The civil court in The Hague acquitted Hirsi Ali of any charges.

She also has stated her opinions about Muhammad's personality: "Measured by our western standards, Muhammad is a pervert. He is against freedom of expression. If you don't do as he says, you will be punished. It makes me think of all those megalomaniacs in the Middle East: Bin Laden, Khomeini, Saddam (didn't she mention the Saudis?!). Do you think it strange that there is a Saddam Hussein? Muhammad is his example. Muhammad is an example for all Muslim men. Do you think it strange that so many Muslim men are violent?" In a 2003 interview with the Danish magazine Sappho, she explains parallels she sees between the personality of Yasser Arafat and that of Muhammad.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali opposes not just the genital mutilation of girls, but also the practice of circumcision of boys as practiced by Jews and Muslims, as well as the routine infant circumcision practiced in the United States. In her autobiography, Infidel, she writes: "Excision doesn't remove your desire or ability to enjoy sexual pleasure. The excision of women is cruel on many levels. It is physically cruel and painful; it sets girls up for a lifetime of suffering. And it is not even effective in its intent to remove their desire."

A quotation from her on the subject: "girls dying in child birth because they are too young [...] The rise of radical Islam is an important part of this. I feel I have the moral obligation to discuss the source."

When in Dutch parliament, she proposed obligatory annual medical checks for all uncircumcised girls originating from a country where female mutilation is practiced. If a girl turned out to have been circumcised, the physician would report this to the police, with protection of the child prevailing over privacy.
Freedom of speech

In a 2006 lecture in Berlin, she condemnded the right to claim someone else's dislike or criticism as an offence against muslims or islam, following the muskim riots after Jyllands-Posten's Muhammad cartoons. She condemned the journalists of those papers and TV channels that did not show their readers the cartoons as being "mediocre of mind" and of trying to hide behind those "noble-sounding terms such as 'responsibility' and 'sensitivity'". She also praised publishers all over Europe for showing the cartoons and not being afraid of the "hard-line Islamist movement", and stated "I do not seek to offend religious sentiment, but I will not submit to tyranny. Demanding that people should refrain from drawing him is not a request for respect but a demand for submission."



*

Wednesday, January 01, 2014

Support Peter Klevius campaign for Universal Human Rights!

Human Rights are above politics, ideologies etc. Human Rights are for you! If you want them you better apply now before they are sold out!

By supporting Peter Klevius' campaign for Human Rights - and therefore against OIC and islam - you save millions of children and adults from continuous suffering, and make their future possibilities a little brighter. Negative rights for a positive future. 'Negative rights' are those rights of the individual which defend us against impositions (similar as traffic rules).

Peter Klevius intellectual defense for everyone's Human Rights works on two levels:

1 Keeping up a constant intellectual pressure on "reforming" islam. Of course islam can never be truly reformed so what this simply means is that islam is made, little by little, less islamic.

2 Counteracting the widespread misinformation about islam and muslims, hence avoiding naive and ignorant people from falling pray to islam and muslims - while simultaneously exposing those who deliberately approve of islam's Human Rights violating Sharia already voted through in UN by the help of OIC's more than notorious islamofascist voting bloc and some additional traitors.

In John Peters Humprey's (pbuh) 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).

So what is modern islamofascism?

The main purpose of OIC is to gather all the world's muslims under a worldwide Umma that is protected from Human Rights criticism. And for that purpose OIC (ab)uses UN, and in an extension, via UN tries to implement national laws all over the world that not only keep islam out of scrutiny but even makes criticism of islam a crime! This lobbying is going on all the time with weak and vulnerable and/or just traitor politicians while most of the people are kept in deep ignorance about islam through extremely Saudi biased education and the threats of being accused of racism or "islamophobia".

And no, it's not a conspiracy theory. It's all to be found in UN's official documents and on the web.

And no, it's not the question of some "minor adjustments". No, this is big and OIC's own actions (e.g. officially abandoning some of the most basic Human Rights) in the UN easily proves Klevius right on this point.

And basically it's all about sanctioning islamic racism and sexism, i.e. the very original pillars that in the first place made islam attractive for the lowest of human behavior!

Sunday, August 25, 2013

Klevius Human Rights tutorial for ignorant muslims and their supporters

The evilness of islam explained in simple English

There are no Human Rights in islam - only islamic "human rights" (Sharia)

Because islamofascists and their supporters lack any credible argument in favor of islam, but 1,400 years of historical evidence* for the very opposite, they have to use the lowest of means to blur the picture of the evil medieval slave Leviathan. So, for example, are those who dare to criticize this pure evilness

* Not to mention the extremely obscure origin of islam. According to Britain's (and the world's - after Klevius) foremost islam researcher when it comes to its extremely violent early stages, Hugh Kennedy, "Before Abd al-Malik (caliph 685-705) Mohammed (allegedly dead 632) is never mentioned on any official document whatsoever".

The main reason that Klevius considers himself the world's foremost expert on the origin of islam is that he (sadly) still happens to be the world's foremost expert on sex segregation/apartheid, i.e. what constitutes the basis for rapetivism and islam's survival (and which is the main reason OIC abandoned Human Rights in UN and replaced them with islamofascist Sharia).


Only truly pious (so called "extremist") muslims are truly evil. However, all non-extremist (secularized) "muslims" aren't necessarily good either if they knowingly use the evilness of islam for their own satisfaction. Only ignorant "muslims" can be excused.

While contemplating the pic below, do consider the inevitable fact that islam (in any meaningful form) doesn't approve of our most basic universal Human Rights! That's the main pillar of the problem, dude!

So those muslims who don't fit in either category need to face Erdogan, OIC and Human Rights violating Sharia - or admit they are no real muslims.

Klevius comment: I for one cannot see the slightest space for political islam in a democratic society based on the belief in Human Rights. Can you?

Introduction

What is religion?

First of all, being religious is an exception. The average world citizen doesn't believe in the Judeo-Christian/islamic "god"*. And the reason we hear so much about "religion" is the same as after 9/11, namely its bad consequences.

* The belief in a "creator" presumes a "creation". Or, in other words, the creation of a "creator" necessitates "creation". However, outside "monotheistic" mythology, the most common view is and has always been, as pointed out by Klevius (1992) that there has always been something from which later shapes emerge (just like Eve emerged out of Adam). However, the main point of "monotheisms" has from scratch been racism and sexism, i.e. in opposition to the enlightened view of every human's equal right no matter of sex etc., (just as we have it in traffic).  

Based on historical and contemporary evidence, religion - if with this word we mean Judaism (the chosen people) and its branch Christianity and its tail branch islam - is  certainly not " community cohesion" but rather "community confusion" when mirrored against the main idea of Human Rights.

There are three main reasons for people to become religious:

1  They are born into a religion, and if they are muslims it's considered the gravest of crimes (apostasy) to leave islam.

2   A religious person feels a need to defend actions s/he cannot logically approve of without the aid of a "god".

3   A religious person feels a need for forgiveness, and due to the above (2) an other human won't do because s/he might use logic. "God", however, can always be excused by arguing that no human can understand "god's" decisions/actions.

From a sociological point of view the reason why the above (2) problem even arises in the first place is because of a lack of continuous updating of crucial and basic relations. This in turn happens when families etc. are scattered in time and space due to work, school, separate activities etc. and when the lack of updating causes misunderstandings/opportunities that are misused for personal gains.

Adding to religious confusion is its deliberate sex apartheid which also stays in direct opposition to the Human Rights view that one's sex ought not to be used as an excuse for altering or denying rights.

However, by sticking to honest logic and a Human Rights philosophy (equality) all of this can easily be avoided.

Life´s a passionate faith in a project of uncertainty whereas e.g. Islam is godless (Koran is "god's" words and the final reporter is dead) misuse of power and life denial. Arbitrarily giving away parts of your life to a "god" outside the world is partial suicide (and in Islam's case also feeds earthly totalitarianism/fascism/racism/sexism)! (for more read Klevius definition of religion)

Is she Sharia compliant?

If she is Sharia compliant then she lacks Human Rights precisely based on the same logic that made OIC introduce the so called 'Cairo declaration on human rights in islam' (Sharia) which now, via UN, constitutes the framework for everyone wanting to call him/herself a muslim and, as a consequence, a Human Rightsophobe.

Turkish Human Rightsophobic conference wants to discuss how to censor media and make criticism of islam a crime all over the world

This fanatic* muslim (now replaced by an extremely intolerant Saudi islamofascist, Iyad Madani) and his muslim world organization (OIC) is the most dangerous threat to Human Rights

 * who dreams about a Turk led muslim world empire under Sharia, just as Hitler dreamed about a Grossdeutschland. And who blinks the miserable failures of the Turk led Ottoman slave empire which fell in the deepest decay after West had abolished slavery for good.

Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu, the Egyptian born Turkish Fuhrer of OIC (based in Saudi Arabia) will make the opening speeches of the “International Conference on Islamophobia: Law and Media” to take place in Istanbul on Sept. 12 and 13, along with Directory General of Directorate General of Press and Information Murat Karakaya and Deputy Prime Minister Bülent Arınç. Other islamofascism supporting Human Rightsophobic speakers include John L. Esposito, Norman Gary Finkelstein, Marwan Mohammed, Nathan Lean, Saied Reza Ameli, Halim Rane, Stephen Sheehi and Ibrahim Salama.

Klevius clarifying comment: Recent internal Turkish criticism against Ihsanoglu is due to the split between Ottomans and Arabs. Ihsanoglu is half Arab and loyal to the Saudis who wanted Muslim Brotherhood erased. That's why he kept silent when the Egyptian army killed the brothers.

Common Misconception about Basic Human Rights and islam/Sharia

It seems that no matter what the ideology of islam causes, it's never islam if the consequences are unwanted (Klevius 2001).

Islam sneaked in on an oiled post-colonialist commerce sold to the public as a combination of “guilt”, ”compassion” and negative “white middle age man”* rhetoric. Of course

* The concept of the “white middle age man” has always been popular, not only among feminists, young “revolutionaries” and “colored middle age men”, but also among the “white middle age men” themselves because by criticizing the “white middle age man” one lifts oneself above one's own category, much like “true muslims” do compared to “secularized muslims” (or vise versa).

OIC's Cairo declaration and Egypt's constitution

Zaid Al-Ali is a senior advisor on constitution building at International IDEA: The proposed changes (of Egypt's constitution) will not have any impact in the immediate term on the way in which Egyptians live their lives, but they remove a tool that hard-line Islamists might have tried to use in the future to impose a harsher vision of society. It is worth noting however that the technical committee maintained article 2, which imposes the principles of Islamic sharia as the main source of legislation in the country. It also kept the distinction that was first introduced in 2012 between "heavenly religions" (Islam, Christianity, and Judaism) and the rest, whose right to practice rituals is curbed. The technical committee also proposed to reestablish the ban on religious parties, but also indicated that political parties cannot "undermine public order," an incredibly vague term that is subject to abuse (article 54).

In terms of women's rights, the 1971 and the 2012 constitutions were both not particularly generous. They both included vague references to morality, to traditional family values, and to women's "obligations towards family and society." The technical committee, which was dominated by men, has essentially maintained the same wording and the same principles in relation to this issue. Women are therefore equal to men within the limits of Islamic sharia, the state is still responsible for protecting the "original values of Egyptian families" (article 10), and the state will also still provide assistance to women to satisfy their "obligations towards family and society" (article 11). This is precisely the wording that caused so many liberals to denounce the Muslim Brotherhood-led process in 2012.

Peter Klevius: "The state will provide assistance to women to satisfy their obligations towards family and society" (article 11 Egypt const.). Ugly sexism wrapped in nice wording.

Women are equal to men ONLY “within the limits of Islamic sharia” because they have "obligations towards family and society" (article 11 Egypt const.).

"Heavenly religions"* (Islam, Christianity, and Judaism) and the rest (article 2 Egypt const.). A triple stage racism similar to when black supremacist racists in Nation of islam divide the world in the good blacks, the inferior non-blacks, and the evil whites.

* However, apart from the racist fact that people who don't want to belong to the "heavenly religions" are deemed less worthy, among the "heavenly religions" islam is always the “only true religion” because the other "heavenly religions" have got it all wrong. This fact must certainly be connected to the problems Jews and Christians continuously face in muslim countries and even elsewhere - compare e.g. the horrifying case of Malmö in Sweden. The Swedish newspaper Skånska Dagbladet reported that attacks on Jews in Malmo totaled 79 in 2009, about twice as many as the previous year, according to police statistics. In March 2010, Fredrik Sieradzk of the Jewish community of Malmö told Die Presse, an Austrian Internet publication, that Jews are being "harassed and physically attacked" by "people from the Middle East. In December 2010, the Jewish human rights organization Simon Wiesenthal Center issued a travel advisory concerning Sweden, advising Jews to express "extreme caution" when visiting the southern parts of the country due to an increase in verbal and physical harassment of Jewish citizens in the city of Malmö. And so on. See more on Wikipedia and do note the usual "only a small number of muslims are jihadists" but never "an even much smaller proportion of Swedes are Nazis". Moreover, all Swedes are Swedes whereas all muslims aren't necessarily pious muslims at all, which fact alters the proportionality even more.

Whereas Human Rights allow you to lead your life as you wish without necessitating others to do so, Sharia does the opposite

So why do you suffer from such a grave form of Human Rightsophobia? Why do you want all other women to be restricted just because you yourself want to be restricted?! What disturbs you so much that you want to impose your way of life on others - or, alternatively, in a racist manner despise them?

ARTICLE 6 in OIC's Cairo declaration:
 

(a) Woman is equal to man in human dignity, and has rights to enjoy as well as duties to perform; she has her own civil entity and financial independence, and the right to retain her name and lineage.

(b) The husband is responsible for the support and welfare of the family.

ARTICLE 7:
(a) As of the moment of birth, every child has rights due from the parents, society and the state to be accorded proper nursing, education and material, hygienic and moral care. Both the fetus and the mother must be protected and accorded special care.

(b) Parents and those in such like capacity have the right to choose the type of education they desire for their children, provided they take into consideration the interest and future of the children in accordance with ethical values and the principles of the Shari'ah

ARTICLE 22 in OIC's Cairo declaration:
 

(a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari'ah.

(b) Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari'ah

(c) Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith.

Two too common islamofascist statements supported by Saudi based OIC (all muslims world organization) and its Sharia declaration (also called Cairo declaration on human rights in islam):

1 The modern democracies of today have not yet attained what the Faith of Islam ordained fourteen and half centuries ago.

Peter Klevius: Very pleased to hear that. And I truly hope they never will.

2 Islam allows complete freedom of though and expression, provided that it does not involve spreading that which is harmful to individuals and the society at large. For example, the use of abusive or offensive language in the name of criticism is not allowed.

Peter Klevius: Criticism of islam is, according to OIC's Sharia, ALWAYS abusive and offensive no matter how it's worded!

Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig's (a supporter of islamofascist Sharia) presentation of islamic "human rights" (i.e. Sharia) offers a wonderful opportunity for Peter Klevius to really point out how islam (Sharia) is diametrically opposite the real Human Rights (also called Negative Human Rights because of its lack of positive impositions in basic rights):

Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: Though the influence of political motives, rivalries, and deliberations has made complicated the correct formulation of this problem, but this should not prevent thinkers and genuine humanists from snooping into this problem and ultimately obtaining a solution (Klevius: Yes, I do!). In the West, it is only since the last two hundred years or so that human right became a subject of eminence among the political and social issues of Western society and an issue of fundamental significance.

Peter Klevius: Please Mirza, you can't be that stupid! You're as far you can get from the truth (perhaps not too surprising considering you're trying to defend the biggest lie in the history of the world). The process started long before islam even existed and eventually developed into the 1948 Human Rights Declaration which rests on an unbeatable logic that islam has never been even close to. On the contrary, islam and its Sharia (in whatever form) always restricts basic (negative*) Human Rights via (positive*) islamic impositions.

* Whereas positive rights oblige or open up for action/imposition, negative rights oblige inaction. If you don't threaten the rights of others (as muslims do if they follow Sharia) you shouldn't be bothered. Just as you shouldn't be bothered by the police unless an offense against the law is suspected.

Negative rights include freedom of speech and expression, freedom from violent crime, freedom of belief (as long it doesn't affect Human Rights of others), habeas corpus, a fair trial, freedom from slavery etc.

The right to private property has no direct (only indirect – the right not to be robbed of one's property) connection with negative Human Rights.

A negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another person, religious group, a government etc.

Moreover, this also includes legislators, i.e. that a law that contradicts Human Rights cannot be considered lawful.

And for those who try to circumvent the logic of negative Human Rights by referring to enforcement or laws, you don't understand that Human Rights are not laws but the very basis for legislation.

How far the law can restrict Human Rights is a matter between us humans but balanced by the underpinning idea of negative Human Rights in much the same way as traffic rules are tailored for the actual reality – not any specific ideology. Traffic rules should be as smooth and democratic as possible for the purpose of flow, safety etc. just as laws should be as little intrusive on freedom as possible.

Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: During the last few decades this prominence reached its peak in the West with the formation of UN after the Second World War and the subsequent drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but we Muslims know it very well that if the Western World and the Western civilization have paid attention to this matter in the recent centuries, Islam has dealt with it from all the various aspects of Human Rights many centuries back.

Peter Klevius: Is a slave an equal? And is a muslim woman equal to muslim man as according to Human Rights? Apart from paillaging, islam has sponged on slaves and women for 1400 years!

Moreover, islam is an Arabic religion and Arabic islam is considered superior to islam experienced via other languages. On top of that you have the Sunnia Shia divide - not to mention all other branches considered inferior or blasphemous by other muslims.

Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: The first thing that we find in Islam in the correlation of basic human rights is that it lays down some rights for man as a human being. In other words, it means that every man whether he belongs to Muslim state or not, whether he is a believer or unbeliever, whether he lives in some forest or is found in some desert, whatever be the case, he has some basic human rights just because he is a human being, which should be recognized by every Muslim.

Peter Klevius: Well, that doesn't make any sense at all, does it. Either you mean he (what about she) has to comply (as a Dhimmi) with Sharia or he is a blasphemous infidel.

Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: The Security of Life and Property:

The first and the foremost basic right is the right to live and respect for human life. The Holy Quran says: “Whosoever kills a human being (without any reason) manslaughter, or corruption on earth, it is though he had killed all mankind”.

Peter Klevius: Why did you put the most important part "without any reason" within brackets? Not complying with Sharia, or perhaps not being a true muslim, or being an infidel standing in the way for islam, or just an infidel who happens to have the wrong passport, belief etc. may be such a reason. Not to mention the reason the 9/11 muslim terrorists had to murder innocent people in the US just because they felt islam was under attack from the West.

Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: The Protection of Honor:

The Quran does not allow one’s personal honor to be abused: “O you, who believe, do not let one set of people make fun of other set. Do not defame one another. Do not insult by using nicknames. Do not backbite”

Peter Klevius: No wonder muslims are over sensitive - not the least towards each others. Just check the news!

Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: The Right to Protest against Tyranny:

This is mentioned clearly in the Quran: “God does not love evil talk in public unless it is by someone who has been injured thereby”. This was acknowledged by Abu Bakr, who said in his very first address: “Cooperate with me when I am right, and correct me when I commit error. Obey me as long as I follow the commandments of Allah and His Prophet, but turn away from me when I deviate”.

Peter Klevius: Indeed, reminds me of the "Arab spring" and all those muslims who fight all those muslims who have "deviated".

Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: Freedom of Expression:

Allah gave Adam liberty of free choice between right and wrong. It is the same reference that Allah almighty says in Quran: “Then He showed him what is wrong for him and what is right for him”. Islam allows complete freedom of though and expression, provided that it does not involve spreading that which is harmful to individuals and the society at large. For example, the use of abusive or offensive language in the name of criticism is not allowed.

Peter Klevius: So how could criticism against islam under Sharia not be "abusive"?!

Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: Equality before the Law:

Islam gives it citizens the right to absolute and complete equality in the eyes of the law. According to Islamic concept of justice, absolutely no one is above the law. This point was made in a very dramatic fashion by the Prophet himself. One day, a women belonging to a high and noble family was arrested in connection with a theft. The case was brought to the Prophet with the recommendation that she be spare the mandated punishment for theft (amputation of the hand). The Prophet replied: “The nations that lived before you were destroyed by God because they punished the common man for their offenses and let their dignitaries go unpunished for their crimes. I swear by Him Who hold my life in His had that even if Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad, had committed this crime, I would have amputated her hand.”

Peter Klevius: These fairy tales are laughable, not only because they are without any historical connection (not even mentioned in the Koran), but, more importantly, because women are not even close to equality with men in before the Law (Sharia). Moreover and again, "before Abd al-Malik (caliph 685-705) Mohammed (allegedly dead 632) is never mentioned on any official document whatsoever..."

Peter Klevius: The modern democracies may rightly argue that the world is indebted to them for establishing the equality and freedom. These countries could take the credit for introducing Human Rights and abolishing slavery (which is still sanctioned in islam) and abolishing judicial discrimination of women (except for in the US*). However, instead it seems that these countries try to do their utmost to downplay these important achievements, and instead they are supporting the very opposite.

* The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution designed to guarantee equal rights for women. The ERA was originally written by Alice Paul and, in 1923, it was introduced in the Congress for the first time. In 1972, it passed both houses of Congress and went to the state legislatures for ratification. The ERA failed to receive the requisite number of ratifications before the final deadline mandated by Congress of June 30, 1982, and so it was not adopted. However, most people are unaware of this important deficiency in the US legislation compared to Human Rihghts.

Why does BBC use most of its news hour on Michael Flynn (US) and Paul Nuttall (UKip)? Klevius: Because they constitute obstacles against the free spread of sharia islamism that BBC supports.

How deeply is islamism* embedded in US and UK democracies - incl. in the media?

* Do note that 'islamism' doesn't necessarily mean muslim terrorism. Most islamism centers on basic Human Rights violating sharia islam.
A Muslim Brotherhood Congressman (Ellison) is now a leading contender for chairman of the DNC (Clinton's and Obama's party).

And in the bushes just a few miles from the White House muslim born (apostate?!) and raised Barakeh Hussein Obama Dunham Soetoro (or whatever), is preying with his Organizing for Action (OFA) scheming to sabotage Trump’s presidency with whatever means.

President Trump and the free world is under full attack by islamofascism that has infected media and politicians.

And in the UK Theresa May supports sharia islam and the welcoming of more sharia islamists from Commonwealth states - while rejecting EU citizens and European Human Rights Court, which declared sharia islam incompatible with European values based on Human Rights equality.

Theresa May and her allies have also told the Brits that Britain should only import the cream of people - meaning wealthy or highly educated and skilled people.

So Klevius question is of course: How would that affect e.g. Bangladesh?

Try criticizing Peter Klevius' writings by calling him an "islamophobe" - and face your own ignorance (or something even worse?!) in the mirror of crispy clear Human Rights logic and historical facts!

Ban sharia islam  - now!

Try criticizing Peter Klevius' writings about islam (or call him an "islamophobe") and you inevitably also criticize and even violate the most basic rights in the 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration, which was produced for the very purpose of defending us against totalitarian and fascist ideologies - no matter if they call themselves ". Whenever Klevius criticizes islam and muslims, it's always outside what is meant with the term 'religion'. Also European Court of Human Rights (2002) agrees with Klevius, as does the 1981 Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. Whatever Klevius has written and spoken about islam since 9/11 has been in accordance with what renommed (i.e. accepted by the UK government and its state propaganda tool BBC) British* islam historians say about the origin of islam, and what renommed Human Rights bodies say about sharia islam today.

* Due to the fact that the "British empire" to a large extent was infected by islam long before the British coonilization. 



While British voters wanted sharia muslims to leave or adapt to basic Human Rights equality and to stop more sharia muslims coming in via EU, Theresa May (and BBC) wants EU citizens and Human Rights to leave and muslims and their sharia to stay and multiply. The so called "review" of sharia courts in UK is made by a sharia muslim.

Klevius wrote:

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

Why hasn't BBC's islamofascist Sharia muslim presenter Mishal Husain told the Brits about muslim benefits and state fundings

Klevius hint: www.muslimracism.info/com/org can't be found as web addresses! Try to google 'muslimracism' and see what you get!

Who will start state funded 'muslimracism' about Koran induced hate crimes? And how much would it cost taxpayers to track all street etc hate crimes fueled by islam, Koran texts and the example of the alleged* Mohammed?

* According to UK's foremost islam historian Hugh Kennedy, Mohammed didn't exist on any official document whatsoever before Malik introduced him in the islamic mythology long after his alleged death. However, according to Klevius (also compare The Hidden Origin of Islam) what might have existed is the naming as MHMD (meaning Christ) of one or several Judeo-Christian leader/s of Arab thieves/looters. The evilness was excused by reference to "God's will" and the "infidel" and later on  the (evil) "effectiveness" of the original formula (the lure of looting/murdering/enslaving/rapetivism kept together with apostasy ban) had to distance itself from Byzantine and its parent ideology (a Syrian Christianity variant) and their both root ideology Judaism. And for that reason Malik invented the muslim Mohammed and the Koran.

What if BBC and Sun would have scrutinized muslims instead of a few poor EU citizens that possibly could have got a tiny fraction of the taxpayers' money muslims have received?!

Klevius question to BBC and Mishal Husain: Why don't you make a report on how much benefit/funds muslims get in UK compared to non-muslim EU-citizens?!

 The islamofascist Saudi dictator family doesn't want Jerusalem to become the center for islam - why would they?

The evil of islam today is mainly rooted in the islamofascist* Saudi dictator family.

* According to Amnesty, Human Rights bodies etc. the Saudi dictator family (aka "Saudi Arabia") is one of the worst violators of Human Rights. Protecting this evil by referring to it being an "important ally" and therefore instead smearing and accusing critics (i.e. using same evil tactics as the Saudi family) seem untenable in a modern civilized democracy.

Trump won thanks to his promise to ban muslims. Brexit won thanks to stopping muslims entering UK via EU. 

 So why do UK politicians and media try to divide and incite hatred against mostly non-muslim EU citizens - well knowing that racism against Polish etc. people has a far lower threshold (thanks to "muslim sensitivities", "diversity" etc. and to hate propaganda by BBC and politicians - later followed by Sun etc.) in UK than against muslims?!

Defense of Human Rights is called "populism" and "islamophobia" by BBC.

However, sharia islam is in fact the very reason for nationalism, while politicians try to blame other nationals.

It's said that islam is struggling with its own identity.

However, that's not true. Islam's true identity is evil (see above) and remains so unless this evil is removed from it. However, when one tries to remove islam's evil - e.g. by using the Human Rights tool - islam simultaneously becomes a religious eunuch, hence loosing its main allure for many (most?) muslims.

Neither the US Constitution, nor any other legal body outside the islamic sharia realm, protects sharia islam as a "religion".

The word “religion,” which comes from the Latin word religare, means “to tie, to bind fast.”  This etymology is favored by many based on its ability to explain the power religion has over people and the communities in which they live.  Religion is commonly, but not always, associated with a particular system of faith and worship of a transcendent deity or deities.  In human rights discourse, however, the use of the term “religion” also includes support for the right to non-religious beliefs, such as atheism or agnosticism.  In 1993 the Human Rights Committee, an independent body of 18 experts selected through a UN process, described religion or belief as “theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief.”

Joseph Williamson: Taken strictly and without exemptions sharia law and the American Constitution stand at great and irreconcilable odds with each other. However, some Muslims have already accepted the position of sharia in the United States of America and support it. Others adamantly deny that sharia will ever be subordinate to
another law.


1981 Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief

Article 1:

3.    Freedom to manifest one's religion or belief may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

Article 2:

2.    For the purposes of the present Declaration, the expression "intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief" means any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on religion or belief and having as its purpose or as its effect nullification or impairment of the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis.

Is the islamofascist Saudi dictator family black mailing Trump? However, continuing dealing with the islamofascist Saudi dictator family is playing with fire - both home and abroad.

Andrew C. McCarthy: Trump’s goal is not to exclude Muslims from our country; it is to exclude sharia supremacists, a significant subset of Muslims.

Klevius: Right. Every true muslim is a "sharia supremacist" and those who say they're not either lie or are no real muslims while still being called "muslims", hence contributing to "sharia supremacism" - possibly because of sharia islam's strict view on apostasy.

The evilness (i.e. anti Human Rights) of islam itself combined with Saudi oil wealth used for politics, war and terror, and the fact that the islamofascist Saudi dictator family (still) possesses the "capital" of islam, together constitute the real knot to be cut in Mideast.

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family of course doesn't want Jerusalem to become the center of islam. That's why they stick with Israel  - for the moment.

Neither does Israel. Israel in fact functions as a defense for the islamofascist Saudi dictator family against the islamofascist regime in Iran.

Moreover, both parties hence count on support from the US.

However, the islamofascist Saudi dictator family's loyalty isn't worth a fistful of desert sand blowing in your face. They wouldn't care less if Israel was blown away - as long as Jerusalem doesn't affect their status as the "guardians of islam".

Instead of distinguishing between evil* muslims and civilized Human Rights "muslims"**, friendly fire seems to be the most populist solution.

* 'Evil' is here based on what historians tell us about early islam.

** If you prefer you can have the quotation marks on the former. However, Klevius departs from the origin of islam, which, according to history as well as muslims' own texts, was all about looting, enslaving, raping etc.. 

 

Again Klevius thinks BBC may miss parts of this scandalous story:

UK's speaker of the House pf Commons can't stand President Trump because "he's racist and sexist" - but has no problem with ultra-racist and ultra-sexist muslim supremacy.

The bigoted and hypocritical UK speaker of the House, John Bercow, who has had multple problems with tax payers money, and who has no problem whatsoever to invite some of the worst Human Rights violators the world of today knows about. 

 Article 2 of Kuwait's constitution identifies islamic sharia as a main source of legislation. So for example, before a family court the testimony of a woman is worth half of that of a man. Kuwait also blocks web content "prohibited by Sharia" - i.e. Kuwait blocks criticism against sharia when it violates Human Rights.

Why fight President Trump when the real enemy is basic Human Rights violating sharia islam?

Or is it precisely therefore? It's so much easier to spit on Trump, isn't it. A blond, "white", "right-wing" (although he isn't nearly as "right-wing" as his party) President who wants to tackle the biggest problem of our time - sharia islam.

Trump is the perfect target for those defending islamofascism while having run out of decent arguments for it.

 Is Trump against women's equal rights?

We don't know exactly where he stands (except for the stupid dress code of course, which he shares with possibly most men and women - but not with Klevius). However, he clearly isn't far away from ordinary male UK PMs - and miles better than the Saudi islamofascists.

 Is Trump a racist? No, there's nothing indicating this. His ban isn't against muslims but against fundamentalist muslims who hate America.

Klevius repeats his suggestion since 9/11: Only accept muslims who share a civilized and logical Human Rights equality as already stated in the 1948 Human Rights declaration against all kinds of fascisms and totalitarian ideologies - incl. islamofascism.
.

BBC (ab)uses muslim children for faking islam's history for the Brits.

US Constitution does not protect a religion that is against the US Constitution

The disgusting face of Human Rights violating sharia islam - and the embarrassing faces of the sheep submitting to its lies.

Acknowledgement: Klevius opposes many of President Trump's views (e.g. about women "dressing like women" or his religiosity). However, when it comes to women's rights he easily outperforms sharia supporting Hillary Clinton and the leader of "women's march" Linda Sarsour. The very fact that President Trump doesn't approve of sharia is what made him President in the first place.

These US women are still waiting for any result from their march half a century ago for The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA).

US women still have a long way to walk towards full equality - and Klevius suggests islamic sharia may not be the best road to choose.

 Two 13 year old muslim girls told British compulsory fee paying listeners that "they get so angry when people don't understand how peaceful and just islam is". 

This happened just minutes before the main news hour, so to reach as many Brits as possibly.

Klevius thinks this is an appalling example of a fake angling of the free world's (based on Human Rights equality) problem with medieval sharia islam in the world of today.

And how come that these girls didn't reveal a trace of islam education? Klevius suggests that they should read the BBC story below from 2009.

Mona Sadiqi (BBC's house sharia muslim whom Theresa May appointed to check sharia courts in UK): Islam's "prophet" was keen on keeping peace".

Klevius: What an ignorant (?!) statement - and completely at odds at everything we know (compare e.g. Hugh Kennedy, Robert G. Hoyland, etc. British scholars about early islam which was all about attacking, looting, enslaving and humiliating non-Arabs/non-muslims (reminds of recent exhibitions of the muslim faith, doesn't it).

Criminalizing criticism against islam under the oxymoron "islamophobia" is the best encouragement for muslim islamofascists.

Trump's measures appear "aggressive" simply because of the enormous divisive gap caused by the Obama administration and many Democrats.

And when it comes to women, how can anyone in her/his sound mind not understand that Human Rights equality is better for them than Human Rights violaing islamic sharia which imposes restrictions on the baisis of sex - the female sex that is.

An ethnic group or ethnicity is a category of people who identify with each other based on similarities, such as common ancestral, language, social, cultural or national experiences.

However, where is the tick box for Finland-Swedish non-socialist Atheist Klevius (leaving male sex - i.e. not the stupid "gender" -, skin color, age, physical fitness, beauty level, fashion etc. aside)?

To even consider criticism of islam being "racist" or a "crime" is in itself a pseudo fascist (or pure ignorance/political opportunism) crime against the most basic of the Human Rights!

And if you want to talk about an islam completely separated from its origin and its violent leader(s) then do it clearly instead of letting evil muslims occupy the same space as "muslims" who support civilized modern Human Rights equality.

Everyone also needs to correct the fake history about islam - especially (apart from its bloodthirsty origin with its slavery, genocides, mass murderes, institutionalized rape campaigns etc.) the disgustingly wrong picture of the myth of the Andalucian "golden age".

Peter Klevius "islamophobic" comments embedded in BBC's 2009 "islamophobic" text:

Do remember that Hugh Kennedy is the guy who agreed with Robert G. Hoyland: "Before Abd al-Malik (caliph 685-705) Muhammad (allegedly dead 632 but see Pourshariati) is never mentioned on any official document whatsoever...".

Klevius explanation: This statement approved by two of UK's foremost experts on early islam, means that the "prophet" Mohammad as understood by muslims, didn't officially exist when islam is supposed to have originated.


Also consider that the hiding place for islam's evil today is in Human Rights violating sharia. And therefore all talk about "islamophobia" in fact only contributes to more islamic evil.

And finally, OIC's sharia declaration is called "islamic human rights" for the sole purpose of further blurring the line and making Human Rights violations "human rights".



British Broadcasting Corporation BBC
Early rise of Islam (632-700)
Last updated 2009-09-03

The Muslim community spread through the Middle East through conquest, and the resulting growth of the Muslim state provided the ground in which the recently revealed faith could take root and flourish.

The military conquest was inspired by religion, but it was also motivated by greed and politics.

    Men fought for their religion, the prospect of booty and because their friends and fellow tribesmen were also doing it.
    Hugh Kennedy, The Armies of the Caliphs: Military and Society in the Early Islamic State, 2001

Peter Klevius: There's absolutely nothing supporting "religious belief" as a main factor - but overwhelming support for enslavement, murder, rape, genocide, colonialism etc. "justified" with religion.

But this mixture of motives combined to form a process that forged Islamic and Arab ideals and communities into a fast-growing religious and political identity.

Peter Klevius: No, it was just the pillaging and greed together with rapid institutionalized growth due to sharia confinement of girls/women, and a "missionary" tactics under the jihad sword - meaning enslavement or slaughter of those who didn't submit (or who weren't even allowed to be anything else than slaves) or couldn't pay the dhimmitude tax. Moreover, early muslims kept themselves isolated in garrisons from the "infidels" they sponged on.


The history problem

There are many accounts from the period about the early Muslim conquests, but much of the material is unreliable and written to present things in a way that glorified the victors and their God...

    As explanations for the great events of the seventh century these are at best partial. This is not to say that the Muslims were not brave and that the conviction that they were doing Allah's will was not significant: it clearly was. But their opponents also had firm ideological commitments and there is no reason to assume that individuals were likely to be any less brave. Despite the great mass of words, the full explanation for Muslim victory still eludes us.
    Hugh Kennedy, The Armies of the Caliphs: Military and Society in the Early Islamic State, 2001

Peter Klevius: Ok Hugh, let Klevius give you "the full explanation" that "eludes" you. Think about it like this: If you rob caravans, oasises etc. and tell the young boys/men there to join in more of the same booty and sex hunting or get murdered, the answer is simple. However, to reach this point of reasoning you need to let go of the "eluding" idea of a "peaceful religion" that only seeks "Allah's justice".


Conversion by conquest?

The early advance of Islam went hand in hand with military expansion - whether it was the motivation for it is difficult to tell, although one recent book suggests that Islam certainly facilitated the growth of Muslim power.

    ...only one possible explanation remains for the Arab success-and that was the spirit of Islam... The generous terms that the invading armies usually offered made their faith accessible to the conquered populations. And if it was a new and upstart faith, its administration by simple and honest men was preferable to the corruption and persecution that were the norm in more civilized empires...
    George F. Nafziger, Mark W. Walton, Islam at War: A History, 2003

Peter Klevius: Not even Hillary Clinton would have called these guys "the deplorables". They were nothing more than ordinary robbers carelessly wrapped in a populist version of deliberately twisted Judaic/Christian texts.


And Islam benefited greatly from the astonishing military success of the armies of Arabia...

    the real victor in the conquests was not the Arab warlords, but Islam itself... Simply put, Islam may have sped the conquests, but it also showed much greater staying power. It is useful to realize that the power of Islam was separate from much and more permanent than that of the armies with which it rode.
    George F. Nafziger, Mark W. Walton, Islam at War: A History, 2003

But the Arab military adventures do not seem to have been intended as a religious war of conversion.

    In the wake of the Ridda wars, and of the Arabs' sudden conquest of most of the Near East, the new religion became identified more sharply as a monotheism for the Arab people.
    As is well known, the Arabs made no attempt to impose their faith on their new subjects, and at first in fact discouraged conversions on the part of non-Arabs.
    Jonathan P. Berkey, The Formation of Islam: Religion and Society in the Near East, 600-1800, 2003


The justification of conquest

Whether or not Islam provided the motivation for early Muslim imperialism, it could be used to provide justification for it - in the same way that it had previously been used to support Muhammad's own actions against his opponents.

The Qur'an has a number of passages that support military action against non-Muslims, for example:

    But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)...
    from Qur'an 9:5

    Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book...
    from Qur'an 9:29

Other passages confirmed the rightness of the ancient military tradition of looting from the defeated, and specified how the booty should be divided.

This is not surprising, as the armies of those days were not like modern armies - but more like a federation of tribal mercenary groups who were not paid and whose only material reward came from the spoils of war.

Peter Klevius: Why this strange remark about "those days"? "Those days" are here again, dude! Thanks to those of today preaching muslims to "follow Mohammad's example". This is the very curse of islam, i.e. that it's tied to its medieval past via its own "prophet" and the Koran.


After Muhammad's death
Islam as a political force

The political status of Islam, and the role Muhammad had given it as a political as well as a religious force, was reinforced in the military conquests.

    A caliph such as Umar seems to have regarded himself, first and foremost, as the leader of the Arabs, and their monotheistic creed as the religious component of their new political identity.
    Jonathan P. Berkey, The Formation of Islam: Religion and Society in the Near East, 600-1800, 2003


The conquest of Arabia

After the death of Muhammad in 632 CE, the young Muslim federation came under strain. Some of the tribes decided that as their loyalty to Islam had been primarily to Muhammad himself, his death allowed them to end their allegiance to Mecca and to Islam.

To make things more difficult, the Prophet had not left clear instructions as to who should lead the community after his death.

Fortunately the community immediately chose the Prophet's close companion and father-in-Law Abu Bakr, as his successor. Abu Bakr was known as the first caliph (from khalifa, the Arabic for successor).

Peter Klevius: Why "fortunately"?! Has BBC asked the opinion of Shia muslims? How does BBC know that pan-Arabist islam has been a less bloody path?


Abu Bakr took swift military action against the communities that wanted to break away. These campaigns, known as the apostasy or ridda wars, effectively consolidated Arabia into a single country under Muslim control within two years.


Expansion in the Middle East

Abu Bakr died in 634 and was succeeded by Umar ibn al-Khattab, the second caliph, who ruled until 644. Umar found himself the ruler of a large unified state, with an organised army, and he used this as a tool to spread Islam further in the Middle East.

Umar's early campaigns were against the Byzantine Empire. Following the decisive Battle of Yarmouk in 636, the former Byzantine states of Syria, Palestine, and Lebanon were conquered by the Muslim armies.

Shortly afterwards the Muslim army attacked the Sassanid Empire in Iraq, gaining a massive victory in 637 at the Battle of Qadasiya, and gradually conquering more and more of Iraq over the next dozen years.

Peter Klevius: Do note BBC's manipulative wordings on how "muslim armies" suddenly turned into a "muslim army" when it faced civilization.


This conquest was made much easier by the weakness of the Sassanid Empire, which was wounded by internal conflicts and a lengthy war with the Byzantine Empire.

Within a few years the Muslims had also conquered parts of Egypt to the South and Anatolia and Armenia to the North.

Peter Klevius: And now has even the "muslim army" disappeared. Only the muslims continue the militant "conquest".