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.
Monday, November 30, 2009
As the corner stone of the islamic "faith" hence is a legalized sex segregation it is also in stark opposition to the 1948 Human Rights Declaration & the European Convention, which both defend girls'/women's right not to have their freedom limited because of their sex. The OIC's Cairo (Sharia) declaration clearly states (via Sharia) that females are exempted from certain rights because of their sex related "duties" & "responsibilities" (btw, most of the Sharia law concerns restrictions put on girls/women).
While Millions of muslims throw stones on the infidel "Satan" (you, the Westerner - incl Westernized "muslims") on their "pilgrimage"* to the most intolerant nation in the world, Saudi Arabia, Klevius again offers a history lesson for those deeply misled & ignorant abt islam:
* The islamic hate mongering "pilgrimage" tradition was originally a slave trade journey to the Meccan slave market. Compare Africa's mualim "hero" Mansa Musa who, on a single pilgrimage, brought tens of thousands of African slaves to Mecca.
Minarets have had two main functions throughout history, neither of them which is the calling to "prayer" (islam is essentially abt jihad politics & submission, not abt a personal faith - personal faiths are seldom totalitarian, are they):
1) As a watch tower (this they got from the Romans). Koran doesn't stipulate neither minarets nor mosques, hence lacking any directives for such constructions. There's reason to believe that the first minaret ever was used in Basra (more than 30 yrs after the alleged death of Mohammed - no one knows anything for sure abt this Mohammed who isn't even officially referred to at this time) as a watch tower over Zanj plantation slaves imported from East Africa. In fact, Koran was compiled as a moral defense for a Sharia finance based on slavery parasitism.
2) As a tool for the warning, humiliation & intimidation of infidels, i.e. not a phobia but a very real threat (i.e. islam's most central tenets: infidel racism-Sharia sexism-apostasy ban). Because minarets were used to indicate the presence of islam they initially existed only in predominantly non-Muslim cities. There were no minarets at the alleged "mosque" of Mohammed in Medina nor at the original mosque in Mecca.
Muslims & islam supporters behaving exactly like nazis & nazi collaborators in 1938!
Stephen H. Norwood, professor of history at the University of Oklahoma, is author of "The Third Reich in the Ivory Tower: Complicity and Conflict on American Campuses":
Last week's last-minute cancellation at Princeton and Columbia Universities of a lecture by Arab feminist Nonie Darwish - an author who has strongly denounced Islamic intolerance and jihadism - brings to mind American universities' unwillingness to protect campus free speech rights for opponents of Nazism during the 1930s. Princeton's reason for shutting down the scheduled presentation by Darwish strikingly resembles those given by Queens College's president in April 1938 when he withdrew an invitation to anti-Nazi German Jewish exile Ernst Toller to speak on campus. The parallels between Darwish and Toller are powerful. Both were made pariahs in their homelands and came to the United States seeking freedom. Darwish, who grew up in Gaza and in Egypt, became a staunch critic of radical Islam. She wrote a book titled "Now They Call Me Infidel." Toller called his autobiography, published in the United States in 1934, "I Was a German." The Nazis burned his books and confiscated almost all of his property.
In both cases, these challenges to authority made the speakers too "controversial" to appear on some campuses here. In Darwish's case, after the Princeton invitation was issued and accepted, a campus Muslim student group protested - and the sponsoring student organizations then withdrew their invitation. This was met with the university administration's approval - or at least its silence. The university apparently would rather not have the headache of having to worry about bad headlines. Toller's case followed a similar pattern. In April 1938, after Germany's Jews had suffered years of savage street beatings, expulsion from the professions and university faculties, Toller was to speak at Queens College. The college's president, Paul Klapper, suddenly cancelled the renowned playwright's lecture, citing opposition from faculty members and students. Klapper claimed that Toller was an "ardent propagandist." Translation: His opposition to Nazism was too pronounced.
Klevius comment: Just like Geert Wilders, right!
Avoid desiformation & cure your bottomless & truly frightening ignorance abt islam! Read abt the perverse Origin of islam