Negative Human Rights for a Positive Human Future

Definition of Negative Human Rights - i.e. the very foundation of the freedom part of the anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948.

Most people today are A(mono)theists, i.e. not "believing" in an impossible "one god"*. Such a "collective god" would mean equally many personal "gods" as there are believers/interpretors. "Monotheisms" are for racist/sexist movements - not for individuals. Human Rights are for individuals living among individuals with same rights.

Religion always means a total or partial reduction of some people's (e.g. women''s) Human Rights equality.

Being against A(mono)theism must be categorized as contempt of basic Human Rights equality because "monotheists" have doctrines which can't comply with basic Human Rights equality.
Klevius moral formula is a bedrock you can't beat:

1 There's no absolute and fixed moral in a dynamic society.

2 Therefor we have to repeatedly agree on a minimum moral and equality for all.

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

* Though some people keep calling their own racist/sexist "interpretation" as "god's/allah's will").

While EU closes internal borders it opens external ones.

While EU closes internal borders it opens external ones.

"Brits" who are racist against EU citizens but dare not criticize muslims - here's your passport.

"Brits" who are racist against EU citizens but dare not criticize muslims - here's your passport.

Welcoming UK's main security threat - and committing treason against the will of the people

Welcoming UK's main security threat - and committing treason against the will of the people

The ultimate treason against people in England, Ireland and Scotland

The ultimate treason against people in England, Ireland and Scotland

True Brits for the islamofascist Saudi dictator family and against Human Rights

Klevius: Face it, Wikipedia, BBC etc. fake media - Finland was first in the world with full suffrag

The network that reignited evil Human Rightsphobic sharia islam via al-Saud

Human Rightsphobe Jacob Rees-Mogg and BBC News crack jokes about Germans lacking humour

UK PM candidate Rees-Mogg: Germans needed Human Rights - we don't. Klevius: I really think you do.

Klevius "islamophobia" CV

Some basic facts to consider about Klevius* (except that he is both "extremely normal" and extremely intelligent - which fact, of course, would not put you off if you're really interested in these questions):

* Mentored by G. H. von Wright, Wittgenstein's successor at Cambridge.

1 Klevius' analysis of consciousness is the only one that fits what we know - after having eliminated our "pride" bias of being humans (which non-human would we impress, anyway?). Its starting point is described and exemplified in a commentary to Jurgen Habermas in Klevius book Demand for Resources (1992:30-33, ISBN 9173288411, based on an article by Klevius from 1981), and is further explained in a commentary to Francis Crick's book The Astonishing Hypothesis under the title The Even More Astonishing Hypothesis (EMAH), which can be found in Stalk's archive and which has been on line since 2003 for anyone to access/assess.

2 Klevius out of island/mainland fluctuating Southeast Asia Denisovans up to big skulled Siberians as the birth of much more intelligent modern humans who then spread all over the world, is the only analysis that fits both genetic reality as well as tool and art sophistication seen in e.g. the Denisova cave (no dude, Blombos etc. don’t come even close).

3 Klevius criticism of Human Rights violating sharia islamofascism (e.g. OIC) which is called "islamophobia" by islamofascists and their supporters who don't care about the most basic of Human Rights (e.g. re. women). Klevius' "islamophobia" has two roots: 1) UN's 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration, which, contrary to any form of muslim sharia, doesn't, for example, allow sex to be an excuse for robbing females of their full Human Rights equality, and 2) the history of the origin of islam ( e.g. Hugh Kennedy, Robert G. Hoyland, K. S. Lal etc.) which reveals a murderous, pillaging, robbing, enslaving and raping racist/sexist supremacist ideology that exactly follows precisely those basic islamic tenets which are now called "unislamic" but still survive today (as sharia approved sex slavery, sharia approved "liberation” jihad, academic jihad etc.) behind the sharia cover which is made even more impenetrable via the spread of islamic finance, mainly steered from the islamofascist Saudi dictator family.

4 Klevius analysis of sex segregation/apartheid (now deceptively called “gender segregation”) and heterosexual attraction - see e.g. Demand for Resources (1981/1992), Daughters of the Social State (1993), Angels of Antichrist (1996), Pathological Symbiosis (2003), or Klevius PhD research on heterosexual attraction/sex segregation and opposition to female footballers (published in book form soon).

Klevius 1979: Human Rights for girls/women rather than religion

Klevius 1979: Human Rights for girls/women rather than religion

BBC (imp)lies that 84% of the world is "monotheist" although most people are A(mono)theists

BBC (imp)lies that 84% of the world is "monotheist" although most people are A(mono)theists

Klevius can no longer distinguish between the techniques of BBC and Nazi propaganda - can you!

By squeezing in Atheist ideologies/philosophies as well as polytheisms under the super set BBC calls "religion", and by narrowing 'Atheism' to what it's not (Atheism is what it says on the tin - no god) they produced the extremely faked proposition that 84% of the world's population is "religious". Moreover, BBC also proudly claimed that the 84% figure is rising even more. Well, that's only by relying on those poor women in Pakistan, Bangladesh, English muslim ghettos (where most so called "British" women don't even speak English) etc., who still produce many more children than the average in the world. But Klevius doesn't think this abuse of girls/women is anything to cheer.

Racist Theresa May is robbing EU citizens of their Human Rights

Is Mrs Theresa May digging a miserable "British" sharia "empire" under the Brexit cliff?

Mrs May plays sharia with the islamofascist Saudi dictator family - skipping Human Rights. Right

This (via Saudi sharia finance) is the main threat to your Human Rights

This (via Saudi sharia finance) is the main threat to your Human Rights

Saudi muslim war criminal and Human-rightsophobe is loved by BBC

BBC, the world's biggest fake/selective news site - with an evil agenda

BBC, the world's biggest fake/selective news site  - with an evil agenda

BBC's compulsory fee funded propaganda for Saudi sharia islam

Support Klevius' Atheist anti-fascism against islamofascism

This is what BBC's muslim sharia presenter Mishal Husain "forgot" to report. Mishal grew up in the very same theocratic medieval dictatorship which now harbors and rules all muslims world organization OIC and its Human Rights violating sharia. While also spreading islamic hatred over the world through a variety of channels.

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".

Is the islamofascist Saudi dictator "prince" Mohammad bin Salman the world's most dangerous man?

Is the islamofascist Saudi dictator "prince" Mohammad bin Salman the world's most dangerous man?
Is the islamofascist Saudi dictator "prince" Mohammad bin Salman the world's most dangerous man?

Saudi islamofascism attacks Buddhists - again and again - backed by Mrs May.

When will the world finally turn on the hateful Saudi dictator family - rather than on its victims?

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses while FEEding Lnd

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses while FEEding Lnd
The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses over you

How an organization of islamic crimes (OIC) violates Human Rights

The Viking phenomenon started with bilingual Finns raiding/trading sex slaves to Abbasid (ca 750)

What is "islamophobia"?

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")!

Ask yourself, why can't racist islam (OIC) accept Human Rights? The answer reveals the difference between totalitarianism and freedom. And even if everyone converted to islam we'd still have Sharia sexism.
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.

We're all born unequal - that's why we need Human Rights, not islam!

Audi then built by Jewish slaves - today dangerous quality problems

Myth vs Truth

Japan's Hayabusa landed and returned to Earth many years before Europe's Rosetta failed to do so.

Thursday, November 01, 2012

US votes for Sharia - but how many Americans know it for a fact?

The sitting "president" (you can't be a US President if you are a Sharia following muslim or if you "respect" islam's disrespect for the US Constitution and Human Rights) welcomes Sharia but is silent about it (as is media) while the challenger (picked by Sharia supporting media) is - well, also silent.

In Klevius assessment it's just a minor concern about his extremely low and hypocritical moral that this Mr X "president" Barry Barakeh Hussain Obama Soetoro Dunham (or whatever) for some 20 years regularly visited a black religious supremacist movement and that he applauded its disgusting racist leader Jeremy Wright. What is much more serious is his connections throughout his life with some of the world's worst islamofascists and his relentless open (since at least his Cairo speech) pursuit for Sharia.

The spring of Sharia and fall of US

Islam is Sharia and Sharia is a legal system that covers all aspects of life and makes criticism of itself a crime - meaning Human Rights not accepted by islam may be criminalized as "denigrating" islam or being "blasphemic"! 


 Muslim born (apostate?!) Mr X "president" supports Sharia but was truly confused when his Saudi master supported Mubarak

According to the Saudi state press agency Saudi "king" Abdullah supported Mubarak. Muslim born Mr X "president's" big idol and master reportedly said: "No Arab or muslim can bear that some people, in the name of freedom of expression, have infiltrated Egypt to destabilize its security. Saudi Arabia stands resolutely with the government and brotherly people of Egypt." Sheikh Khaled Al Khalifa (Bahrain) also agrees with Mubarak: “Egypt will settle and genuinely move forward. What will happen in the next few days will prove that everyone is serious about the stability of Egypt."

 Some two years ago Klevius wrote:

The worst "president" ever. Good at selling himself, a disaster for USA and the free world.

Klevius comment: The main reason Muslim Brotherhood wants Mubarak to go is neither his for African leaders so typical corruption etc., nor his age, but rather the only good thing Mubarak stands for, namely not to let islam into politics. And the Saudi hate mongering Abdullah, the "guardian of islam", really shows off his sleezyness bigotry and hypocrisy, doesn't he! The last thing he wants to happen to Egypt is its takeover by pious muslim brothers. Getting too close to home, does it! Surrounded by muslim revolutionaries, who's next. And Mr X "president's" $60 Billion worth of weaponry hasn't been delivered as yet.  Has the good old wahhabi caliph got smitten by some islamophobia! An echo of the origin of islam...

Religious persecution in Austria - and a really nutty judge

Auster: In October 2010 Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolf of Austria was indicted for making the most generic sorts of criticisms of Islam that any Islam critic might make. In February 2011 she was convicted of “denigration” of Islam for having said that the Muhammad “had a thing for little girls.” Now her conviction has been upheld. On one hand, as I’ve argued before, it is silly for Islam critics to call Muhammad a “pedophile,” or say that he had a “thing” for little girls, because the context of his marriage to Aisha was entirely different from what those terms suggest to modern ears (Klevius comment: Quite the contrary! Historical facts combined with islamic teachings clearly shows that this type of sex-slavery laid at the base of islam for the same ultimate purpose as now, namely to satisfy muslim men and, through Sharia sex-apartheid, to spread islam faster than other systems). On the other hand, it is simply inevitable that modern people will object to the fact that this man—whose behavior is the model for all Muslims—married a nine year old girl, and it is inevitable that they will express their objections. And this normal expression of a normal opinion is now against the law in Europe.

As Diana West explains, Wolf has not been convicted for stating the fact (which is uncontested by the court ) that Muhammad had sexual relations with a girl; she has been convicted for disapproving of Muhammad for having such relations. The court found that it is wrong “to look down on sex with children if the alleged perp, centuries ago, was the Islamic prophet.” West continues: As Henrik Rader Clausen put it, live-blogging the proceedings for the blog Gates of Vienna, Elisabeth, in the court’s eyes, expressed “an excess of opinion that can not be tolerated. It is a ridiculing that cannot be justified.” Cannot be tolerated, cannot be justified by whom, by what? The answer is by Islamic law. It is literally against Islamic law to criticize or expose Islam or its prophet (Muhammad) in any adverse way. This prohibition against freedom of conscience is now part of Austrian law as well. That the verdict upheld against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff actually imperils the most innocent and vulnerable among us—little girls whose molestation the courts have implicitly excused as a religious rite—only underscores the depravity of the Vienna high court….

Judge Leo Levnaic-Iwanski upheld the verdict of the lower court, which convicted Elisabeth on the charge of “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion” (Klevius comment: Why didn't her defense make a case of the fact that islam isn't a religion in any conventional meaning - at least not the islam that she criticized?!) The lower court matter was instigated by a reporter from leftist Austrian Magazine, NEWS, concerning Wolff’s remarks at a public lecture about Mohammed’s pedophilia, “having a thing about young girls." That was a reference to  the Sunnah’s account of  Mohammed’s consummation of a marriage with Aisha at age nine, one of his nine wives.  When the trial resumed on February 15, 2011, Sabaditsch-Wolff was exonerated of the first charge of "incitement" because the court found that here statements were not made in a "provocative" manner. But Sabaditsch-Wolff was convicted of the second charge against her, namely "denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion," according to Section 188 of the Austrian Criminal Code. The judge ruled that Sabaditsch-Wolff committed a crime by stating in her seminars about Islam that the Islamic prophet Mohammed was a pedophile (Sabaditsch-Wolff's actual words were "Mohammed had a thing for little girls.")

Talking about sexist hypocrisy boosted by Western oil money via evil racist and sexist backward islam

The judge rationalized that Mohammed's sexual contact with nine-year-old Aisha could not be considered pedophilia because Mohammed continued his marriage to Aisha until his death. According to this line of thinking, Mohammed had no exclusive desire for underage girls; he was also attracted to older females because Aisha was 18 years old when Mohammed died.

Klevius comment: This is why Klevius describes one of BBC's top sex groomers, Sir Jimmy Savile, 'pedophile/sex offender'!


Vienna (the city of lunatic Freud - see Klevius psychosocial Freud timeline) in Austria is now Europe's center for Saudi Wahhabi islamofascism against Human Rights Nevertheless, the Saudi Abdullah center will be financed by the Saudi Arabian government.

Rabbi David Rosen: Yes, the institute’s building belongs to the Saudis and the center has been named after King Abdullah. However, that is something we are all in favor of, also the Christian representatives and myself, simply because it is definitely a positive development for Saudi Arabia to stand up for religious tolerance and dialogue (no, it's definitely not according to Sharia!). Saudi Arabia is the bedrock state of Islam, so to speak. So if that state shows commitment to the process of religious freedom, we would be stupid not to encourage that development. For the Jewish community it is of crucial importance to reduce biases and prejudices. We are the eternal minority and will always be a minority. Therefore, interreligious understanding is absolutely vital for our wellbeing. Will women’s rights be one of the topics you will address?

Rabbi David Rosen: I very much hope so. We have discussed this and I haven’t seen any negative reactions. At least one woman will be on the board – the representative of the Buddhist community. Of course there are striking differences in opinion on this. But I think you could not be a credible institution of interreligious dialogue if you ignored women’s rights in particular and human rights in general.

Klevius clarification to this ignorant (?!) misinformation: In islam women are robbed of Human Rights and hence not equal to muslim men.This is because THERE ARE NO HUMAN RIGHTS IN ISLAM, only Sharia! This undeniable fact isn't altered by the cosmetic "human rights in islam" which actually means the opposite, i.e. Sharia.

The FPÖ (Austrian Freedom Party) and the Greens voted against it. They argued that there’s no religious freedom in Saudi Arabia. The former justice minister Bandion-Ortner is supposed to be the deputy general secretary. The “King Abdullah Center” for interreligious and intercultural dialogue” is welcomed in Austria. The national assembly reached an agreement on Friday afternoon against the negative votes of the FPÖ and the Greens to provide this center with the status of legal personality, which is to be established in Vienna. This is controversial mainly because it is financed by Saudi Arabia. The FPÖ wants among others the renaming of the center, which is to be named after the saudi king, for the nature of the regime in Saudi Arabia is not compatible with an institution for religious dialogue. The FPÖ also considers that this institution is financilly not sustainable on the long term. However. they spoke in favor of the centrum while being in the committee. The Greens had been always against it, with their representative Alev Korun saying that it would be to put the fox in charge of the henhouse, if one sees how human rights and freedom of religion are trodded upon The SPÖ and the ÖVP defend the decision The ÖVP (Austrian People’s Party) defended (the plan for) the centrum and rebuked these arguments saying that dialogue is indispensable, and Vienna should remain a city of dialogue. Representative Reinhold Lopatka said that the wahhabis (the leading group in Saudi Arabia) should also not be excluded. The SPÖ (Austrian Socialist Party) representative Hannes Weninger understood concerns that the center could be used as a cover for the regime in Riyad, but the general declaration of human rights and freedom of religion in the preamble of the institute’s declaration is also to be taken into consideration.

Klevius clarification: Would you believe you really red this utter nonsense. Again, Saudi based OIC's Cairo declaration (Sharia) clearly states that no Human Right that conflicts Sharia is acceptable. This means that the Austrian based Saudi islamofascist dictator "king's" Vienna center is nothing else than an other tool for protecting islam's growth in Europe until it can practice its Sharia openly and in full.

 . .

No comments: