Klevius considers sharia* muslim women like e.g. Sayeeda Warsi and Mishal Husain as having serious issues with their morality. So here's Klevius' moral tutorial for them.

* If Mishal Husain doesn't support Human Rights violating sharia, but only a "Westernized islam", she'd be better telling the rest of muslims about it. But she keeps silent while hiding behind the world's biggest microphone called BBC from behind which she can spit at Human Rights defending "islamophobes" and accuse the suffering in islamic countries not on islam but on the very same West her family preferred instead of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Why is it that it's only Klevius who wants to vomit when encountering this bigoted hypocrisy - or is it? 

Bigoted and deeply hypocritical (or just racist and Human Righsphobic) muslim sharia women enjoy the West's Human Rights freedom while islam ravages their muslim homelands as it has always done for some 1,400 years. How does it feel for suffering women in islamic countries hearing Mishal Husain bragging about not fasting during Ramadan but instead drinking some alcohol while giving the finger to any suggestion of islamic "dress code" etc., and boasting about how she can lead her life in the West (thanks to Human Rights - not sharia) without thinking about consequences familiar to her muslim sisters in muslim/islamic countries.

Moral and justice - and the mirror reflection called a "monotheist" "God".

As the world is and always has been in an unstoppable motion, every effort to try to stop it isn't only in vain but usually also dangerous. A car has a steering wheel so to follow the world - not vise versa. However, this function also facilitates an individual goal of the trip.

Moral is temporarily and locally fluid, yet always possessing a (moving) center point of gravity. It's against this background one has to understand "the old Greeks" and their analysis of the individual (the social atom), the state, and justice.

Justice is, according to Thrasymachus, established by the strong in order that the weak will serve her/his interests. The strong are therefore better off disregarding justice and serving their own interests.

However,

Would Klevius rape women he considers sexy if given the power to do so without consequences?

or

Would Klevius rob or otherwise hurt people if given the power to do so without consequences?

Klevius doesn't think so. Why? Because Klevius is afraid of being alone in whatever activity. This "cowardice" constitutes the very essence of Klevius being a human among other humans. If you don't understand this as yet please check out the reasoning behind the 'negative Human Rights', i.e. the difference between racist/sexist impositions and the freedom of the individual among other individuals. After that you won't no longer be able to defend islamic sharia or to hide its real essence by talking about "consensual contract" etc. when in reality sharia is part of the whole islam. This latter point is what Theresa May should have addressed in her sharia "investigation" if she really cared about those girls and women who suffer under this deception.

So what about the objection that one could  do unjustice together with others? Impossible, because Klevius would still feel alone, because he would be forced to assume that the others either are ignorant or suffering the same loneliness as Klevius would suffer in a similar context. In this respect there's no difference between islam and a gang.

So what about believing that something non human justifies unjustice? No problem, Klevius is a non-socialist Atheist, not because he has chosen to be so but because there's no alternative to negative Human Rights. Religion is always a lesser good in comparison - in fact, that's the very definition of a "monotheist" religion. And now someone less bright or just evil person might try to dismiss this by talking about "what we don't know about", i.e. what they think is "God" (and which is called the 'unreachable' in Klevius 1992 book Demand for Resources) but which in fact is they themselves (see chapter Existencecentrism in Klevius 1992 book).

The meaning of life is its own definition i.e. uncertainty (Klevius 1981) just like the meaning of football (no dude, I'm not talking about American handball) is its maximization of uncertainty by being the only sport where no tools or hands are allowed when the ball is in play inside the pitch.

Klevius moral formula is a bedrock you can't beat - so why not follow it:

1 There's no absolute and fixed moral.

2 Therefor we have to repeatedly agree on a minimum moral.

3 In doing so we are logically forced to approve of negative Human Rights, i.e. not to impose restricrions other than neccessary in a democracy based on as much freedom as possible for all - no matter of sex, race etc. And, for the truly dumb ones, do note that this definition excludes the freedom to restrict freedom.

BBC: Should EU citizens have the right to stay? Klevius: Should muslims have the right to stay?

Goebbels could have learned a lot from BBC about how to spread divisive hate propaganda. 

Sharia islamofascism supporting BBC has eagerly searched for racist English citizens who don't want EU citizens to stay in England. Klevius now wonders why they have never asked the same question about muslims? EU citizens moved within EU with a common value basis. And according to the "islamophobic" European Court of Human Rights, sharia islam doesn't comply with EU values.

 Unlike residents from Commonwealth who were allowed to vote about Brexit, EU citizens, whom it reallyconcerned, had no vote. With EU votes there would have been no Brexit at all. This means Brexit is illegal from a basic democratic point of view.

Moreover, Theresa May and her racist supporters try to rob EU residents from even more of their basic rights while calling it "a fair deal". However, the only fair deal is that the government takes full responsibility for Brexit consequences - not rolling it over innocent EU residents who moved to England in accordance with a law that gave them full rights. And if England continuous to give Commonwealth resident the vote, then the same should be given EU residents in England who no longer can democratically vote about England via EU.

Sharia loving Theresa May with her "best ally", Mohammad bin Salman, "the world's most dangerous man", the new leader of the iskamofascist Saudi dictator family who has managed to murder and starve thousands of innocent children and adults in his Mohammedanian campaign for power.

At which point of her life did Theresa May become a racist/sexist supporter of Saudi islamofascism and Human Rightsphobia? Was it her vicker dad who made her prefer religious fundamentalism (sharia etc) instead of Universal Human Rights equality and democratic values? Her "me" campaign and sharia support makes her democracy soul (if she ever had one) heavily tainted.

So how many of the non refugee muslims? BBC won't tell you.

 Is this woman an "islamophobe"? Klevius thinks not. But she's certainly a hateful muslim if she tried to burn an other muslim sect's mosque or if she tried to make it look "islamophobic". Theresa May, Hillary Clinton etc. politicians have certainly given her every reason to do the latter.
.

Why were tall men from the south dumber than tall men from the north?

Why has the tallest region  in Europe (parts of Balkan) also been the poorest when the next tallest region (Northern Europe) has been the most affluent?

Answer: It's got absolutely nothing to do with tallness - and everything to do with brainpower. Oops, did Klevius say something "blasphemic"? Ok, here's Klevius' defense.

 Väinö Myllyrinne, Finland, 251 cm (8 ft 3 in), had the world's biggest hands - and a quite ordinary life, except for some circus trips to earn some bucks on his stature.

So what if Väinö Myllyrinne had been born into a warrior family some 5,000 ybp and equipped with a brain like, say Klevius (but way more aggressive)? Oops, Klevius did it again.

Height is genetically determined. Stunting because of malnutrition is only between 1-2 cm in a study of the Chinese famine 1959-1961. What has previously been assigned to malnutrition is in fact selection. Growth hormone irregularities are relatively rare.

There's a distinct genetic growth stop at around age 14 for a huge (?) part of the world's population, while others continue growing until the age of 16-18. Mixing of these genes give results that no one so far has studied in more detail. This is the basic reason for height variation among today's humans. Klevius strongly suggests that someone starts a research project based on this Klevius' problem formulation.

However, some continue growing also after their growth spurt. One such an example was the world's tallest healthy man (most exceptionally tall people are sick and die young) the Finnish Väinö Myllyrinta.

Väinö Myllyrinne (born 27 February 1909 in Helsinki – 13 April 1963 in Helsinki, Finland) was an acromegalic (continued growth after the growth plates have closed) giant who was at one time (1961–1963) the world's tallest living person and is the tallest non-American person of all time whose height is not disputed (do note that all Americans were physically handicapped). He stood 224 cm (7 ft 4 in) and weighed 141 kg (311 pounds) at the age of 21, but experienced a second phase of growth in his late thirties, attaining a height of 251 cm (8 ft 3 in) and weighing 376 pounds. Myllyrinne is considered the tallest soldier ever, having served in the Finnish Defence Forces. He underwent his conscript training in 1929 in the Viipuri Heavy Artillery Regiment, and was 220 cm (7 ft 3 in) tall and really strong. In the 1930s he travelled around Europe. He returned to Finland in 1939 to serve in the Finnish Army during the Winter War. In 1946, he moved to Järvenpää and ran a chicken farm. He died in 1963 after a hip surgery caused inflammation. In 1962, just a year before his death, he was measured by doctors at 2.47 m (8 ft 1.2 in). This confirms with normal shrinking over more than a decade. He had a 340 mm (13.2 in) size hand, the largest known.

Väinö Myllyrinne

Väinö Myllyrinne with two upper average size women.

Peter Klevius' (who isn't tall) analysis: Because the northerners had access to short and intelligent women to the north of themselves among the hunter-gatherer population, they also  got closer to the genetic background of modern humans. So some kids became short, others average, and some tall - and some even blond. Likewise, some got average IQ while a few got the genius gene. And a few became highly intelligent giant warriors at a time when size mattered - especially in sparsely populated areas where hit and run attacks were easy and where they could gather more of the same while going southward. One may assume that these phenomena happened more frequently during bad farming times - which occurred quite often in the vulnerable climatic borderland of farming, and dwelling in dark woodlands in the extreme north added blondness and fair skin.

The tallest people seem to have followed part of haplogroup I-M170. And when it comes to aDNA there are hints that point to the same direction, e.g. some tall ancient human remains in the southern Gravettian ice-age refuges (e.g. Italy).

However, it's mainly tall people from Fennoscandia/Russia (Indoeuropeans and Uralics) who - together with shorter people - constituted the stock from which the technological expansion of the West emanated. This has also led to many misconceptions, i.e. that being tall would somehow be connected to intelligence - no matter how many short geniuses (Einstein etc.) there are. Looking back in prehistory it seems more likely that the opposite is true. However, luckily today we've already messed everything up globally to an extent that it's impossible to tell anything for certain based on physical appearance. So why not just follow James Mallory's Bhuddist advise in the context of Tocharians: Don't believe what you see!

The Indoeuropean language border just south of the Uralic one is approximately the same as the border of farming which is pushed to the dark north when affected by the Gulf-stream.

The Vikings, Goths, the Seima-Turbino, phenomenon, Kurgan people etc. are all example of movements of mainly tall male warriors in the first stages. And all of them were closely connected to Uralic speaking cultures.

This map from Chernyc's Nomadic Cultures in the Mega-Structure of the Eurasian World (2017) emphasizes the hot spot area of metal working in the 5th millennium. However, do note the upper reaches of the darker area which points towards the most often cited Urheimat of proto-Uralic. This strange tail seems to be quite unexplainable if you don't take this into account.

The unfortunate belittling of first the steppe people and then the Uralic speakers has blindfolded many theories - and maps. Here the Corded Ware culture well overlaps later Uralic areas. Klevius assumes the people there must have spoken relaed languages at the time of Corded Ware.

According to Klevius, Corded ware horizon is a mix of Indoeuropean and Uralic with bilingual border zones. Although Iceland was populated from Fennoscandia some two millennium later, Icelandic has many characteristics in common with Finnish. This makes sense when considering the Vikings started as "Finland-Swedish" (see Origin of Vikings) explorers/raiders capable of making themselves understood from Finnish Karelia to Old Nordic Scandinavia and beyond, e.g. Shetland, Scotland, England, Ireland etc. And do note that 'land' is an old pre-Viking age Gothic word.

Haplogroup U descends from a woman in the haplogroup R mtDNA branch of the phylogenetic tree, who is estimated to have lived around 55,000 years ago. An Upper Palaeolithic human who lived in Western Siberia c. 45,000 years ago has been shown to belong to the U* mitochondrial haplogroup. Haplogroup U has also been found among ancient Egyptian mummies excavated at the Abusir el-Meleq archaeological site in Middle Egypt, which date from the Pre-Ptolemaic/late New Kingdom, Ptolemaic, and Roman periods.

Red hair distribution from a northern heartland. The Uralic speaking Udmurts have been described as the "most red-headed" people in the world and having "deep blue eyes".



Blond hair distribution was connected to southern Fennoscandia being the northernmost place were small scale farming was possible due to the Gulf stream. However, this part of the farming world was also the darkest, hence putting immense pressure on vitamin D uptake - resulting in survival advantage for fair skinned people in the farming/hunting communities. The northern hunter-gatherers, like Inuits, Sami etc., got their vitamin D from other sources.

Read about Kvenland and Finnland - the oldest 'land' in the world.


If, as Klevius working theory suggests, the boost in intelligence, that created the unique paleolithic Eurasian art etc. track from Mal'ta Buret to the Pyrenees, was the result of a Homo floresiensis like tropical island dwarfed brain genetically flowing up in the form of Denisovan to big skulled northern homos, then we would expect a concentration of intelligence genes in the sparsely populated north (because those going back south were diluted by the mass of people already there). Most of these moderṇ (<50 and="" are="" br="" central="" compared="" e.g.="" europeans="" fair="" haired.="" half-northern="" iberians="" most="" nbsp="" nor="" north="" northerners="" not="" of="" relatively="" short="" skinned="" stature="" still="" to="" very="" were="" ybp="">

The tallest people used to live in Australia - already some 40-60,000 ybp. 

There are two main unsolved mysteries about height:

1  Where did the tall genes originate?

2   Which genes determine earlier and later growth stop?

Lake Mungo man (Australia) who lived more than 40,000 ybp is estimated to 196 cm (just a couple of centimeter shorter than Klevius childhood friend).

Mungo Man's "wife" was found 400 m away from him.

These guys from the Burrup peninsula (Western Australia), photographed in the 1920s, were 200.6 cm and 195.5 cm.

These guys photographed in the 1920s in North West Australia, were reportedly both over two meter.

However, most Aborigines are of relatively short stature, and the tall guys above were reportedly even less intelligent than other tribes the Western "conquesters" - to use a word commonly used about muslim colonizers - had met with.

Southern farmers were short and not particularly intelligent

It's a myth that - as Klevius still thought 1992 - that farming caused civilizations. It was only when the gains of farming was utilized by non-farmers that the so called "civilizations" emerged in Mideast. Long before this time there had already been advanced civilizations from Ural to Ukraine.

Klevius theory on IQ and human evolution and its relation to stature - the first truly intelligent humans weren't tall.

As you dear reader already know, until proven wrong Klevius analysis of the evolution of modern humans is in its shortest form as follows:

1 The early IQ track visible through the Aurignacian art/technology track from Baikal/Siberia to the Pyrenees means something extraordinary happened in the Altai region more than 50,000 ybp when the first sewing needles were already in use.

An extremely sophisticated stone bracelet was produced in Siberia/Altai more than 40,000 ybp. Both the needle above and the stone bracelet were found in the Denisova cave.

2 DNA analysis from the Denisova cave has revealed both hybridization between so called Neanderthals, Homo sapiens sapiens, and a third party, the so called Denisovan who in turn is also linked to Australia, Papua New Guinea and Melanesia.

3  Homo floresiensis proves that a bigger skull can shrink in a tropical jungle/island environment without loosing IQ. So if a similar but opposite (i.e. expanding skull while keeping up the per cm3 IQ) process was at stake among the so called Denisovans when they managed to re-enter mainland Asia during lower sea level, they would sooner or later meet with their big skulled northern relatives in the Altai area. As a resukt some of their kids would get both a big skull as well as high IQ. How many of them is up to guesswork so far but there must have been quite a few (proportionally - considering small population) of them to cause such a rapid spread of what we might call the truly modern human over the world.

However, this spread was far from even. Climatic as well as geographical factors played an important role - compare e.g. Mammoth fluctuation, migration and extinction.

When farming emerged population rapidly increased while stature and intelligence decreased (e.g. compared to the early geniuses in Altai). So when the tall Kurgan people from the Russian steppe met the southern farmers the difference in height could be up to half a meter - and some of the Kurgans also possessed superior intelligence due to their mating connections to the north. So whereas mating with average farmer girls didn't produce many geniuses, the opposite was true when it comes to girls/women from the north.

Klevius will teach you more about this scenario later on but in the meantime he suggests you read the Finnish/Karelian epic Kalevala where

Louhi is a "wicked queen" with magical power of the land known as Pohjola (the North). Louhi promises her eldest and most magnificent maiden daughter to the smith Ilmarinen if he forges a Sampo (or Sammas) which was a magical artifact constructed by Ilmarinen that brought riches and good fortune to its holder.

Klevius wrote:

Friday, March 25, 2016

Klevius' Finland-Swedish Hobbit story

The Dragon of Evil, Tolkien, and Moomin Mum

 The Dragon of Evil in the Tolkien calendar by Tove Jansson

Everyone (except islamist muslims) seem to agree that islamism is evil. However, many, especially politicians and muslims, claim that islam is "a great and peaceful religion". From this we may conclude that islamism contains both islam and evil in an inseparable connection which poses the question how islam could possibly be without evil. Even more so when considering that the original spread of islam during more than hundred years (before it settled as sultanates simply sponging on slave business - the so called "golden age") was completely based on evil religiously "justified" robbery, slaughtering, raping and enslavement of the "infidels". Islam's problem is it foundation in evil medieval parasitism that it has now brought to the modern society.

The twisted logic that evil islam should be blinked as "islamism" has led to a variety of incomprehensible stand points. For example and ironically, because of muslim terrorists muslims now ask for extra protection against "anti-muslim sentiments" - on top of the general protection already in place. Why? Does this mean that non-muslim right-wing politicians also should get extra protection because of right-wing extremists? However, the worst twist of all is by far the Saudi based and steered (by the Saudi dictator family) all muslim's world organization OIC and its sharia declaration via UN.

 Klevius has no knowledge about J R Tolkien's view on islam. However, Klevius is convinced that J R Tolkien would have shared Klevius definition of evil based on Human Rights equality.

J R Tolkien's main hero since he was a boy and throughout his entire life was Kullervo in the Finnish epic Kalevala. Many characteristics of Kullervo can also easily be traced in Beowulf and Hamlet both of whom were Scandinavians from a time when Fennoscandia was known as Kvenland (see further down). This period is called Vendel time after a small village near Uppsala in eastern Sweden which at that time was populated by Finns and some old Nordic speaking bi-lingual "Finland-Swedes" (see more about this further down).

Klevius is convinced that Tove Jansson would have full heartedly approved of Tolkien's choice of such an ambiguous hero as Kullervo.

The official Tolkien calendar of 2016 (left) is illustrated by Finland-Swedish Tove Jansson (aka Moomin Mum).

Tove Jansson has also illustrated Swedish and Finnish books by Tolkien (right). However, she is most famous for her Moomin books and illustrations.

Klevius wrote:

Sunday, August 10, 2014

Finland-Swedish Moomin Mum Tove Jansson 100 years

Back then Hitler (the Germans) cried for more cake - today islam (the muslims) do the same!

A brave caricature, 'more cake' was made by Tove Jansson in Finland during a time when Hitler (the Germans) were considered friend of Finland in its war against Stalin's communist Soviet-union.

Here Tove Jansson with her longtime partner Tuulikki Pietilä


Tove Marika Jansson (9 August 1914 – 27 June 2001) was a Swedish-speaking novelist, painter, illustrator and comic strip author from Finland. For her contribution as a children's writer she received the Hans Christian Andersen Medal in 1966.

Tove Jansson is best known as the author of the Moomin books for children and the astonishing The True Deceiver for adults. The first Moomin book, The Moomins and the Great Flood, appeared in 1945, i.e. the same year Astrid Lindgren, an other world famous Swedish speaking author, published her first book about the Tomboyish Pippi Longstocking.

Like Klevius, Tove Jansson belongs to the tiny bilingual Finland-Swedish minority. In fact, access to her summer house on the pic passes a nearby place where Klevius used to live, neighboring a carpenter who used to build Moomin furnitures for Moominland.

However, unlike Klevius, Tove Jansson never had kids. It's even alleged that she felt slightly uncomfortable with kids. So where Klevius has been a family man in practice, Tove Jansson created her family environment as a fiction.

For more on this topic do visit Klevius' Love Letter to Edith Södergran (an other world famous Finland-Swede).

The little bright Hobbit girl and the giant blonde warrior

 There seems to be no way of avoiding the fact that the first truly intelligent modern humans arose in northern Eurasia. The art and genetic tracks (see below) are more than convincing albeit not yet visibly presented as such other than on Klevius book, blogs and sites so far (though the field is slowly but inevitably moving towards Klevius). 


 The people who got the new brain set up were short in stature as most Siberian people were until recently. However, when Seima-Turbino like phenomenons started (possibly even long before Seima-Turbino) big guys who had become blond in the north hunted for cute mongolic looking girls (compare Kalevala). Some of those girls possessed still a great chunk of the original super brain (compare the Denisova cave etc) so some of the kids produced with the blond giants turned up really smart. Their smartness together with a strong physical constitution in a sparsely populated river way landscape with small villages/camps constituted an ideal environment for nomadic robbery. And after some time some of these guys had collected enough financial and man power to go further south. Klevius will in detail explain this development later. Suffice to say that this is also the explanationary basis for why the Goths from the north managed to conquer the whole of Europe.



Klevius wrote:

Saturday, June 20, 2015

Klevius Midsummer quiz: How come that Klevius can read Beowulf but modern Brits can not?!

Klevius question to BBC: Why so much focus on Muhammad and so little on Beowulf?

The epic poem Beowulf, the masterpiece of Anglo-Saxon literature, was composed in pre-Viking time by an anonymous poet. It tells the story of a Scandinavian hero whose feats include battles with the fearsome monster Grendel and a fire-breathing dragon. It survives in a single manuscript dating from around 1000 AD. In form (e.g. alliteration) and content it follows much of  the Finnish Kalevala (pictured below). Not the least as how it's influenced by later Christian material.

The simple answer is that as a Finland-Swede Klevius happens to master not only Swedish and Finnish but also old Finland-Swedish dialects - and in an extension most old wordings based on Old Nordic (aka Old Norse) over an area covering all the Nordic countries (incl. Gotland) plus Netherlands, England, Scotland plus most of the north Atlantic islands east of Iceland.

In the 1990s when Klevius studied English at Stockholm University they offered a video recording of a play based on thousand year old English texts. To Klevius astonishment he immediately recognized  many familiarities with the  East-Nyland dialects Klevius had grown up with. So when two Norwegian linguists a couple of years ago stated that English is a Scandinavian language Klevius applauded them.

So what does this have to do with Midsummer? Well, it's not just linguistics but a load of other familiarities as well, not to mention the fire feasts which may even be traced back to the Celts. And remember that much/most pre-Christian cultural influences are shared within all the Nordic countries.

For a background take a look at Kvenland:

English voters were denied any chance to vote against islamofascism - because that would be "islamophobic" and clash with sharia islam.

UKIP leader Paul Nutball Nuttall "distanced" himself from his party's islam critics. As a consequence England was (unlike the rest of EU) left without any islam critical party to vote for - and Paul Nutball Nuttall is now ousted by the voters.

May is openly a sharia supporter and against Human Rights defenders (so called "islamophobes") and Corbyn openly befriends  islamofascists while calling for criminalization of Human Rights defenders (so called "islamophobes").

Where May and Corbyn differ is in their choice of islamofascist "allies". Whereas May supports the way more dangerous islamofascist Saudi dictator* family, Corbyn is more centered around Hamas and similar muslim terrorist organizations.

* Curiously BBC keeps calling the islamofascist Saudi dictator family 'an
absolute monarchy'. Klevius education for BBC: "Absolute monarchies" don't exist anymore in a modern world. The term is a remnant from the past and can today only be described as dictatorship. 



Klevius wrote:

Monday, May 01, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

England is steered by an anti Human Rights sharia supporter and London by a sharia muslim. What could possibly go wrong.

Is Theresa May's pro sharia policy and deceptive anti Human Rights rhetoric any good for the security and wellbeing of people in England? 

Klevius question: Is it only me, or can you see the connection between BBC's bigoted hypocricy and the blood on the streets of London?

By stopping calling Human Rights defenders "islamophobes" we could let the "islamophobic" muslims out from the closet.

More muslim officers isn't the solution because they have the same problem as other muslims to not challenge evil core islam, i.e. being accused of apostasy and not following the example of Mohammad. However, more muslim officers certainly increases the risk of more jihadi officers among them.
Theresa May accuses and perverts Human Rights while supporting anti-Human Rights sharia islam. However, being against Human Rights is exactly what Saudi inspired Wahhabi/Salafist muslims want.

Theresa May also perverts islam: “Islamist extremism is an ideology that preaches hatred, sows division and promotes sectarianism. It is an ideology that claims our Western values of freedom, democracy, and human rights are incompatible with the religion of Islam. It's a perversion of Islam and a perversion of the truth.”

Klevius: Human Rights has never approved of Human Rights violating sharia. Even European Court of Human Rights has decided that islamic sharia isn't compatible with Human Rights. Why hasn't Theresa May been informed? Or is she deliberately exchanging Human Rights equality for Saudi sharia? 'Freedom of religion' doesn't mean freedom to destroy Human Rights, does it Theresa!

Mohammad is the corner stone of islam - and a bloody one. Just ask any historian, Theresa, e.g. Hugh Kennedy.
Ron Jager: The current wave of Islamic terror seen in Manchester and London, only reinforces the general feeling that the excessive  political correctness of recent years by the Obama Presidency, by the British Labor party, and the European media has fostered and festered productive breeding grounds for Islamic terrorists in the heart of England. London’s current Mayor Sadiq Khan, a practicing Muslim, could have a significant impact on the minds and hearts of many of England’s young Muslims should he decide to express what should have been said years ago to Muslims living in England and throughout the Western World.

Khan could have reinforced the idea that practicing Muslims such as himself are modern citizens who happen to worship Allah, yet do not bring any kind of belief in the preeminence of Sharia Law. Islamic terror is the logical extension of the belief that Sharia must be imposed.  Mayor Khan could state that the former would not pose a threat to England or the Western lifestyle while the latter belief would be a “mortal threat.”  The danger facing Britain and other Western nations from the Islamic wave sweeping the Middle East and beyond arises not from the fact that people practicing the Islamic religion are Muslim, but rather from the degree to which they adhere to the totalitarian, supremacist Islamic doctrine of Sharia.

However, you don’t have to go back very far in Mayor Sadiq Khan’s past to find links with some pretty questionable characters. Some of these associations date back to his time as a human rights lawyer trying to get England to lift its ban on the American Nation of Islam leader, Louis Farrakhan, who has described Jews as ‘blood-suckers’ and called Hitler ‘a very great man.’ Khan didn’t mind speaking at the same conference as Sajeel Abu Ibrahim, a member of the now proscribed Islamist organization that trained the 7/7 bomber Mohammad Sidique Khan.  In 2004, Sadiq Khan appeared on a platform with five Islamic extremists at a conference in London organized by Al-Aqsa, a group that has published works by the notorious Holocaust denier Paul Eisen.

In the same year, Khan was the chair of the Muslim Council of Britain’s legal affairs committee, and was involved in defending the Muslim scholar Dr Yusuf Al-Qaradawi. Among other things, he’s the author of a book called The Lawful and Prohibited in Islam, in which he justifies wife beating and discusses whether homosexuals should be killed. Most notoriously, he condones ‘martyrdom operations’, i.e. suicide bombings, against Israeli civilians, which he describes as ‘God’s justice’: ‘Allah Almighty is just; through his infinite wisdom he has given the weak a weapon the strong do not have and that is their ability to turn their bodies into bombs as Palestinians do.’

In spite of holding these views, Qaradawi was not an ‘extremist’ in Sadiq Khan’s eyes.  In 2006, by which time Khan had been elected to Parliament, Khan was one of the signatories of a letter to the Guardian that blamed terrorist incidents, such as 7/7, on British foreign policy, particularly Britain’s support for Israel. ‘It is our view that current British government policy risks putting civilians at increased risk both in the UK and abroad,’

Should Mayor Khan decide to, he can render a real public service by not shying away from the issue of what it means to be a practicing Muslim in a Western nation.  He can align himself with the call for tougher counterterrorism measures suggested by the British PM and be the first to demand that the UK must not pretend that things can remain the same. Khan can abandon the politically correct rhetoric about Islam and the legitimacy of terror to advance political goals, whether it be ISIS or the Palestinians who have been using terror for the latter part of the past 100 years, at first against Jews and later against the State of Israel. Khan could share his new understanding that what was perceived in the past as threat on Israel is now beginning to be understood as a problem for Britain and the Western world as a whole. This is the meaning of the Islamic Domino Effect.


Andrew C. McCarthy June 5, 2017: “Islamist extremism” is an ideology that preaches hatred, sows division and promotes sectarianism. It is an ideology that claims our Western values of freedom, democracy, and human rights are incompatible with the religion of Islam. And what right-thinking Western politico’s post-mass-murder speech would be complete without May’s insistence that this ideology is — all together now! — “a perversion of Islam and a perversion of the truth.” Sigh. What does Theresa May know about Islam such that she can decide what is a perversion of it? Precious little, I’d wager. Otherwise, she’d not babble on about “Islamist extremism,” a term right out of the Department of Redundancy Department. If you are an Islamist in the West, you are, by definition, an extremist. An Islamist is a Muslim who believes Islam requires the imposition of sharia, Islam’s ancient, totalitarian societal system and legal code. “Islamist” is a term we in the West use in the hope that, because there are Muslims who are tolerant, pro-Western people, it must not be inevitable that Islam itself — or at least some interpretations of Islam — will breed the fundamentalist, literalist, supremacist construction of Islam. It may be a grave error to adopt this hope, especially since it has been elevated into seemingly incorrigible policy. Does the incontestable existence of moderate Muslim individuals necessarily translate into a coherent, viable doctrine of moderate Islam? Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, to take just one very influential Muslim leader, says no: The West’s invocation of “moderate Islam” is “ugly,” he counters, because “Islam is Islam, and that’s it.” Erdogan is a close ally of the Muslim Brotherhood, the world’s most influential Islamist organization. If he’s right that there’s just one true Islam, rest assured that it’s not friendly to the West. Erdogan describes the Western call for Muslim migrants to assimilate in their new European societies as “a crime against humanity.” Meanwhile, many students of Islam observe that its aggressiveness, intolerance of non-Muslims, and subjugation of women are indisputably rooted in Islamic scripture. Wherever there is Islam, they maintain, there will inevitably be Islamists; and when those Islamists reach a critical mass of population (which can be considerably less than 50 percent), there will inevitably be sharia activism. They may be right. I don’t want them to be . . . but hope is not a national-security strategy — even if it has been the West’s national-security strategy for a quarter-century. Obviously, there are gradations of extremism. Some Islamists are violent jihadists. Some support violent jihadists but eschew violence themselves. Some may reject violence (or at least say they do) and claim to seek sharia imposition only by peaceful persuasion. Some may lie about their intentions, pretending to oppose both violence and the imposition of sharia, or pretending that sharia is really moderate, peaceful, and perfectly compatible with Western notions of freedom, democracy, and human rights. But they all want sharia. If you are a Muslim who wants British law supplanted by Islamic law, that is not a moderate position, even if you’re not prepared to drive a van into a crowd of infidels over it. If that’s where you’re coming from, you are a Muslim extremist — an Islamist. Jihadist terrorists do not kill wantonly. They kill for a purpose: namely, to impose sharia. To speak of “Islamist extremists” is either gibberish or a form of political correctness designed to conceal a position one knows makes no sense but feels compelled to take anyway. Since I believe Prime Minister May is no dolt, I am betting on the latter: She is using “Islamist extremist” as code for “terrorist,” even though she knows, deep down, that this makes no sense — i.e., it is inconsistent with her correct insistence that the violence that aggrieves Britain is ideologically motivated. Jihadist terrorists do not kill wantonly. They kill for a purpose: namely, to impose sharia. The ideology that motivates them does not endorse violence for its own sake. It reflects what Islam takes as the divine imperative that life be lived under the strictures of sharia. That is the ideology. The problem that Mrs. May has is that it is an ideology shared by many Muslims who are not terrorists. Britain, like many in America, wants to embrace these Muslims as “moderates,” notwithstanding their hostility to Western society and law. May would prefer not to connect the dots that tell us these Muslims, even if not jihadists themselves, are pillars of the ideological support system in which jihadism thrives — they are, as some have aptly put it, the sea in which the jihadist sharks swim, and without which the sharks could not survive. It is not merely al-Qaeda or the Islamic State that says Islam is incompatible with the Western understanding of human rights. In 1990, the 57 member-governments of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (now renamed the Organization of Islamic Cooperation) issued the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. These representatives of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims took this action precisely because Islam could not be content with the so-called Universal Declaration of Human Rights promulgated in 1948 by the United Nations General Assembly. The latter is incompatible with the two key provisions of the Cairo Declaration: Articles 24, which states: “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah”; and Article 25, which adds: “The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.” The Western understanding of freedom and democracy holds that people have a right to govern themselves. We draw a line between the secular and the sacred, rejecting the establishment of a state religion. To the contrary, as explained by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, perhaps the world’s most influential Sunni sharia scholar, “secularism can never enjoy a general acceptance in an Islamic society,” because “the acceptance of secularism means abandonment of Shari’ah, a denial of the divine guidance and a rejection of Allah’s injunctions.” Qaradawi elaborated (in his book, How the Imported Solutions Disastrously Affected Our Ummah), “Islam is a comprehensive system of workship (Ibadah) and legislation (Shari’ah).” Thus: “The call for secularism among Muslims is atheism and a rejection of Islam. Its acceptance as a basis for rule in place of Shari’ah is downright apostasy.” Lest we forget, apostasy from Islam is a capital offense in Islamic law. It is punished as such not just by terrorist organizations but by governments in Muslim-majority countries. In the Middle East, at least, sharia is not extremist Islam. It is Islam. Pace Prime Minister May, it is not “Islamist extremism” that “claims our Western values of freedom, democracy and human rights are incompatible with the religion of Islam.” This is a conceit of leading Islamic scholars and governments. One need not agree with them or concede that theirs is the only interpretation of Islam. But one should grant that their interpretation is no perversion — and that they just might know a lot more about the subject than non-Muslim politicians in the West. Mrs. May is half right. We are confronted by an ideology. But it is sharia supremacism, the belief that Islamic law must be imposed on society. To limit our attention to violent jihadists is to remain willfully blind to what inspires the jihadists. That is what has to be confronted, if we have the stomach for it.

Klevius recipe against muslim terror (sharia soft and sharia hard): Support "islamophobes"* and stop supporting islamofascists.

* I.e. defenders of the most basic of Human Rights.

Will more sharia muslims and sharia islam benefit the English people? And are "islamophobes" the religious "bitcoins" paid for "friendship" with Saudi islamofascists?

and will recruiting more armed  sharia muslim police under the "diversity" label make England safer?

The Archbishop admits the obvious: Islamic terror has to do with islam. However, Klevius points out that there is no terror at all inscribed in the Universal Human Rights Declaration. No "interpretation" needed.

Peter Klevius to Archbishop of Canterbury Justyn Welby:  The 1948 Univrsal Human Rights Declaration doesn't contain any links at all to hate, racism, sexism and violence. Except for one little loophole called "freedom of religion". However, for this "loophole" to work it also needs the appalling mantra that makes a monolith of 'muslims' and 'islam' - hence paving the way via sharia islam to the evil of original islam. And that's not a Human Right.

BBC's policy has for long belittled the Saudi influence on muslim terror and sharia. And in doing so BBC has been an eager accomplice to islamofascism.

Some BBC reporters now seem to have become more aware of the danger of islam when it 's getting closer to home and the street they walk every day. This has become apparent lately, and today showed up in the tone  of BBC R4 Today News when an almost shivering BBC reporter asked guests about how to tackle muslim terrorism and its connections to the islamofascist Saudi dictator family.

Klevius comment: It's easy - and truly disgusting - to utilize religious hate for one's own agenda, just like the islamofascist Saudi dictator family does, as long as it keeps away from one's own front garden, isn't it. However, does BBC see any problem with Saudi based and steered OIC's so called "soft sharia", when their own muslim presenter Mishal Husain ticks very few (if any) boxes when it comes to sharia islam.

BBC's muslim sharia presenter doesn't fast during Ramadan but can instead drink some alcohol. She doesn't use muslim attire either. However, how bigoted and hypocritical isn't her "Cambridge/BBC-style "muslimhood" in the eyes of e.g. Afgan, Syrian etc. girls/women living under sharia islam?

From the media: For eight agonizing minutes, the orders came from all directions, frantic and contradictory. Crowds scattered, sometimes directly into the path of the men trying to kill them. Police cars screamed past the attackers toward the van they had abandoned. Chairs, bottles and even a basket flew through the air as terrified onlookers tried to hold off the three men and make sense out of the senseless. Gerard Vowls was across the street from a Barclays bank branch when he heard someone moan, “I’ve been stabbed.” He thought it was a joke. But as the man leaned weakly against a wall, the blood was all too real. Moments later, as one bystander helped the wounded man, Vowls saw the three attackers fall upon a nearby woman with their knives.

“The three guys, yes, they were just stabbing this woman constantly, non-stop the three of them. Just stabbing her from every direction, the three of them around her. Lunging at her,” he said. “I heard them say one thing: ‘This is for Allah.’”


Klevius question: Freedom fighters?!

Karen Bradley on BBC answering the question about Saudi funding islamic terror: The (hate spreading and war crimes committing islamofascist) Saudi dictator family is our friend and ally.

Peter Klevius: Islam originated, as every historian knows (just read Hugh Kennedy etc. scholars), as a militant attacking ideology with terror as its basic means. So when it is now constantly described as a peaceful religion and when the islamofascist Saudi dictator family, who is the "custodians of islam" and which has been the most aggressive spreader of islamic hate propaganda, is described as a friend and important ally - what could possibly go wrong. It's the most senseless of corners to paint oneself in to blink the true nature of islam and its allure to the most evil of human instincts. And this fact is precisely the very reason that so many muslims feel an extra urge to "patch" this "religion of peace" with the very opposite of islam's very soul. And these peaceful muslims constitute the hangers for a naive interpretation of islam that not only leaves out the fact that 'humans' in original islam are muslims, i.e. that non-muslims aren't fully humans, but also twists this evil tenet to include all humans and therefore "justifying" a view that "islam is a great and peaceful religion".


Yes, Klevius is well aware of how high this threshold is if you, like the Saudi custodians, use 'muslims' and 'islam' as monoliths for particular usage. However, as Klevius has said publicly since 9/11, surgery is necessary. And yes, the surgery will kill the patient while the mourners are called "cultural muslims" - until they have to drop even this when facing logically inevitable (negative) Human Rights equality. So what's left? Traditions and individual experience. However, if you ask Klevius he will recommend that you face your nostalgia with the reality of today instead.

Karen Bradley on BBC News today: This attack was cheap and didn't need a lot of funding.

Peter Klevius: Vans and knives don't move without a motive. And almost everyone knows that the islamofascist Saudi dictator family has possessed most of the (oil)money used to spread the hate that is called "radical islam" (i.e. original islam).

It's precisely this schizophrenic "friendship" that convinces muslim terrorists (and sharia muslims) that they are right in their "cause". If Saudi Wahhabism/Salafism dictaorship is considered both the "guardian of islam" as well as "our friend and ally" then this is the ultimate sign of the tenets of the original islam being ok-ed.

So why is islam defended but not Human Rights? The islamofascist Saudi dictator family is a "friend" while Human Rights defenders are called evil "islamophobes".

The London mayor and his sharia is just one small part of the overall problem.

Klevius wrote:

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

Klevius: What's so great about Allahu when the hotline was shut down 1400 years ago - leaving 1.6 Billion muslims on their own?

BBC together with its muslim guests today criticized the use of "ALLAHU AKBAR" shouts when training against muslim terrorist attacks

This could allegedly "offend" other muslims. This, no doubt, worries considerate BBC a lot.

However, Klevius wonders at which meeting point Mishal Husain (not fasting Ramadan, drinking alcohol, etc), Sadiq Khan (sharia supporting practising muslim) and Ibrahim Mogra (UK's second highest sharia muslim) could possibly shout "ALLAHU AKBAR" together?

German Officials: Germany Stabbing Suspect Mentally Unstable

Klevius: Show me a muslim who stabs people while shouting ALLAHU AKBAR who isn't "mentally unstable"!

A woman reported hearing the words "infidel, you must die" as the attack began, and the suspect himself admitted yelling "Allahu akbar," Arabic for "God is great," senior police official Guenther Gietl said.

Senior police official Lothar Koehler said it was "difficult to get coherent, plausible and comprehensible information" during questioning of the suspect.

Investigators said there were no indications that the man had any accomplices or an extremist background.

There are "no indications from intelligence services so far that this person had any links in any form to Islamist or Salafist groups, people or organizations," Senior police official Lothar Koehler said. "We also have no indications that there was any radicalization or perhaps trigger for this act as a result of the consumption of (extremist) videos."

Klevius: Sadly, they missed Muhammad, the Koran and a long line of hadiths etc.

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family is the world's worst polluter of environment - and minds.

China has similar per capita CO2 emissions as UK - yet produces more and has a more progressive environmental policy.

Theresa May really seems to choose the wrong guys to play with - while avoiding and smearing (and even threatening) what would be much better for England.

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family has Pakistan with its nukes completely in its hands - and these two unreliable and hate producing countries are Theresa May's two most "important allies".

Is the difficult woman also the most dangerous one? And not only because of Theresa May’s willingness to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike that could kill hundreds of thousands innocent people.

So she fits well together with what is used to be named the world's most dangerous man, "prince" (and factual leader) Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud.

How many from England have suffered from attacks induced by the islamofascist Saudi dictator family? No one keeps track on it, presumably because they are more interested in defedning the Saudis and instead smearing and threatening Human Rights defenders, so called "islamophobes". And what is Theresa May's guilt in it?

China's per capita CO2 pollution is average EU standard (but less than e.g. Germany). Hence it's quite polemical and biased to point to China being "the biggest polluter" just because it being the world's most populous country. However, U.S. pollutes more than double that of China and lies not far from the worst polluters Saudi Arabia and other sharia muslim Gulf states which don't produce almost anything except Sunni islamic sharia hate.

When Klevius back in 1979 got enough of the confused debate about environment, resources and pollution, he wrote a philosophical analysis called Demand for Resources which Georg Henrik von Wright approved on and which was first published in May 1981 as a paid for debate article (and in book form 1992). Read it - beginning from this posting.