Negative Human Rights for a Positive Human Future
Support Klevius' Atheist anti-fascism against islamofascism
Klevius to dumb (or just evil) alt-left "antifa" people who support the worst of Human Rights violating evil:
True anti-fascism in its purest form is laid down in the Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948. Islam (OIC) has in UN decided to abandon the most basic of these rights (the so called negative Human Rights).
Fascism is, according to Google's top hit, "a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation*, and forcible suppression of opposition." 23 Aug 2017
So let's face islam with this definition.
A political philosophy, movement, or regime (islam) that exalts nation (Umma) and often race (muslims) above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government (Koran text/Mohammad's example) headed by a dictatorial leader (the caliph - e.g. the Saudi based OIC's Saudi leader), severe economic and social regimentation* (sharia), and forcible suppression of opposition (apostasy ban against muslims wanting to leave islam, and demonizing defenders of Human Rights by calling them "islamophobes").
And islamofascism gets away with it by calling itself a religion and thereby being protected by those very Human Rights it opposes.
* According to Cambridge dictionary, "extreme organization and control of people".
Human Rights is diversity - sharia is the opposite
The evil of Sharia islam is what makes it incompatible with Negative Human Rights (i.e. why islamic OIC violates Human Rights by replacing them with Sharia, hence excluding women and non-muslims from equality). The evil of islam and its origin may be easier to grasp with historical examples, e.g. the Origin of Vikings.
It's racism and sexism even if proposed by a "god"! Klevius altruistic virtual volunteering for the world community in defense of Universal Human Rights . Yes, I know, it's unfair. Klevius vs islam, i.e. Universal Human Rights vs Sharia (OIC) racism/sexism! Of course Klevius will win. The question is just how long we should allow the dying beast to make people suffer. (Negative) Human Rights is not a ”Western” invention! It’s where you end up when you abandon racism and sexism, idiot! After you have abandoned islam! Your confused islamophilia and ignorance about Human Rights make YOU an accomplice to islam's crimes! Whereas Human Rights work as egalitarian and universal traffic rules (no matter who you are or what you drive you have the same rights as everyone else) islam/Sharia differs between muslim men and the rest (women and "infidels")!
Have you noticed that when the history of slavery is (PC) debated islam is always excluded/excused? Atlantic slave trade and Roman slaves are eagerly mentioned while the world's by far worst, longest and most extensive one is blinked, as is the fact that islam not only sanctions slavery but is itself built on slavery and sex slavery (rapetivism)! The core idea of islam is the most thoroughly elaborated parasitism ever, i.e. what in 1400 yrs has made it the by far worst crime ever. But thanks to islamic teachings muslims are kept extremely ignorant about the evil origin of islam (institutionalized parasitism based on slave finance, rapetivism and pillage). Ohlig: The first two "islamic" centuries lie in the shadows of history. Klevius: There was no islam or islamic Mohammad (that's why the Saudis have levelled Mohammad's "grave" etc), only the evil murdering, pillaging and raping Aramaic-Arabic Jewish("Christian") led illiterate Arab thugs chasing for booty and sex. The "success" of this formula became later institutionalized and codified as a one way (Koran/Sharia) moral excuse (Allah) for further racist/sexist genocides. The bedrock and currency of this system was racist slavery. However, with Enlightenment the new idea of individual (negative) Human Rights emerged (incl. abolishing of slavery) and were, much later (1948), written down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights according to which everyone is equal no matter of sex, beliefs etc. Just like in traffic! But unlike traffic rules no one really seems to care about guarding our most precious asset as human beings. Instead racist sexist islamofascism (OIC and the Cairo Sharia declaration) is protected by Human Rights while they strive to undermine and eventually destroy these Human Rights! And most people don't seem to get it. Always remember, there is no islam without Human Rights violating racist/sexist Sharia. So a "vote" for Sharia-islam is AGAINST democracy and the freedom part of Human Rights!
Sayeeda Warsi (UK's non-elected OIC/Sharia politician) in essence doesn't differ from those muslim Saudi women who approve of sex slavery etc, other than that she is either ignorant or a traitor (against democracy and Human Rights) of the worst kind.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
The truth abt muslim born & unconstitutional Barry Barack Hussein Dunham Obama/Osama Soetoro (or whatever)* Wikipized from the ignorant mob
* Mr "president" X, changed his first name from American Barry to Arabic Barack after visiting Pakistan at age 20. Mr X was born a muslim Hussein Obama (a Swahili** form of Osama), & "adopted"/"married" to a muslim Soetoro stepfather,
** Swahili was created through Arab-islam's extensive & persisting slave trading of slave girls, eunuchs & plantation slaves in East Africa for more than thousand years.
What is Wikipization?
Klevius answer: Wikipization means the process of creating false/biased information by filtering a mass of public opinions/references (compare Klevius chapter Science & references in Demand for Resources - on the right to be poor, 1992).
Aaron Klein: A WND article reporting yesterday that Wikipedia had been scrubbing President Obama's biography of criticism has resulted in an "edit war" on the website in which a large number of users were barred from posting on key issues, including any mention of challenges to Obama's eligibility.
Ultimately, administrators at Wikipedia, the online "free encyclopedia" mega-site written and edited by its users, entirely locked Obama's page so that only top editors could make changes to the entry – and only if a change is supported by a consensus of editors.
A perusal through Obama's Wikipedia entry yesterday found a heavily guarded, mostly glowing biography about the U.S. president. Some of Obama's most controversial past affiliations, including with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and former Weathermen terrorist Bill Ayers, were not once mentioned, even though the associations received significant media attention and became themes during the presidential elections last year.
Also completely lacking is any mention of the concerns surrounding Obama's eligibility to serve as commander-in-chief.
Following WND's report on Obama's Wikipedia page, the news outlet monitored the page as scores of users attempted to add entries about eligibility concerns, and the president's past associations with Ayers and Wright. All attempts to post on Ayers or Obama's birth certificate were removed within minutes by the site's volunteer administrators.
One mention of Wright was finally allowed. Obama's page currently states, "Obama resigned from Trinity [United Church of Christ] during the Presidential campaign after controversial statements made by Rev. Jeremiah Wright became public."
The Wikipedia entry does not currently outline some of Wright's remarks, such as exclaiming "God damn America," claiming the 9-11 attacks signified "America's chickens" were "coming home to roost" or telling congregants the U.S. government invented the HIV virus as a means of "genocide" against black people.
Following a large volume of attempted postings on controversial issues, administrators yesterday placed a "protection" lock on Obama's page, informing non-administrators that new postings would not be allowed until "disputes have been resolved."
Meanwhile, WND was inundated with e-mails from Wikipedia users yesterday stating their recent attempts to edit Obama's page were blocked. Some said they believed the site to be "biased" in favor of Obama. A sampling of e-mails included:
* "As soon as Wikipedia found out I was conservative leaning and on the national lists of the righties, they banned me," wrote author Mark Paul Seber
* "Thought you might be interested to know that Wikipedia's 'Family of Barack Obama' page contains inaccuracies about his paternal family relations and that when I tried to add the correct info it, too, was removed/changed," wrote an anonymous WND reader.
* "Before the election I was banned from Wikipedia multiple times for trying to post a picture of Obama and Odinga in Kenya on Odinga's Wikipedia site," commented WND reader "Don."
* "Back in January, I posted to Obama's 'talk page' – not the main entry, just the talk page. My post pointed out that FactCheck is lying about the 10/31 statement from the Hawaii Dep't of Health. I didn't go into speculation. As a result, my username was permanently blocked, what I posted was deleted, and a "conflict of interest" notice was placed on my old user page," wrote another anonymous reader.
* "What you are looking at regarding the Barrack (sic) Obama article on Wikipedia is a 'liberalization' of not just that, but the entire website," wrote Brian Macdonald of Murfreesboro, Tennessee. "The people who control and edit in Wikipedia will present what they think should be the article on Obama; they will not post anything about his socialism, his Bill Ayers connections, former Marxist "New Party" which he was involved in, or anything else that would portray him in a negative light, despite the official Wikipedia policy that everything is to be neutral."
While Wright finally made it onto Obama's Wikipedia page – if only in one sentence – multiple times the past month, Wikipedia users who wrote about the eligibility issues had their entries deleted almost immediately and were banned from re-posting any material on the website for three days.
In one example, one Wikipedia user added the following to Obama's page:
"There have been some doubts about whether Obama was born in the U.S. after the politician refused to release to the public a carbon copy of his birth certificate and amid claims from his relatives he may have been born in Kenya. Numerous lawsuits have been filed petitioning Obama to release his birth certificate, but most suits have been thrown out by the courts."
As is required on the online encyclopedia, the entry was backed up by third-party media articles, citing the Chicago Tribune and WorldNetDaily.com
The entry was posted Feb. 24, at 6:16 p.m. Eastern Time. Just three minutes later, the entry was removed by a Wikipedia administrator, claiming the posting violated the website's rules against "fringe" material.
According to Wikipedia rules, however, a "fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory."
The Obama eligibility issue has indeed been reported extensively by multiple news media outlets. WorldNetDaily has led the coverage. Other news outlets, such as Britain's Daily Mail and the Chicago Tribune have published articles critical of claims Obama may not be eligible. The Los Angeles Times quoted statements by former presidential candidate Alan Keys doubting Obama is eligible to serve as president. Just last week, the Internet giant America Online featured a top news article about the eligibility subject, referencing WND's coverage.
When the user tried to repost the entry about Obama's eligibility a second time, another administrator removed the material within two minutes and then banned the Wikipedia user from posting anything on the website for three days.
Wikipedia administrators have the ability to kick off users if the administrator believes the user violated the website's rules.
Over the last month, WND has monitored several other attempts to add eligibility issues to Obama's Wikipedia page. In every attempt monitored, the information was deleted within minutes and the user who posted the material was barred from the website for three days.
The Wikipedia entry about former President George W. Bush, by contrast, is highly critical. One typical entry reads, "Prior to his marriage, Bush had multiple accounts of alcohol abuse. ... After his re-election, Bush received increasingly heated criticism. In 2005, the Bush administration dealt with widespread criticism over its handling of Hurricane Katrina. In December 2007, the United States entered the second-longest post-World War II recession."
The entry on Bush also cites claims that he was "favorably treated due to his father's political standing" during his National Guard service. It says Bush served on the board of directors for Harken and that questions of possible insider trading involving Harken arose even though a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation concluded the information Bush had at the time of his stock sale was not sufficient to constitute insider trading.
Angela Beesley Starling, a spokeswoman for Wikipedia, explained to WND that all the website's encyclopedia content is monitored by users. She said the administrators who deleted the entries are volunteers.
"Administrators," Starling said, "are simply people who are trusted by the other community members to have access to some extra tools that allow them to delete pages and perform other tasks that help the encyclopedia."
According to Alexa.com, Wikipedia is the seventh most trafficked website on the Internet. A Google search for the words "Barack Obama" brings up the president's Wikipedia page in the top four choices, following two links to Obama's official websites