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.

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".

Klevius to Mueller (who opposed investigation of Saudi 9/11): Check Saudi connections/influence!

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?

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?

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)

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.

Sunday, June 30, 2013

Hitler çalled it national socialism, Ihsanoglu calls it islamlc caliphate - but they're both the same, fascists!


Both these men gave/gives a damn to the suffering their fascist ideologies caused/causes.





Why is it that the worst and most dangerous fascism of today is completely absent from the news channels?

OIC, the world's most powerful organization (it more or less already rules the UN) is led by Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, today's equivalent of Hitler (or worse if possible). He wants worldwide Sharia and silencing of any criticism of islam or Sharia! Got it? And when did you learn about this in your daily news channels?!



However, when it comes to images Klevius seems to have been for years the best informer on the web about the real core of islamofascism and its disgusting Sharia Fuhrer of the world Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu.





Since 1999, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has sought rejection of the First Amendment of the US Constitution through a so-called “Global Blasphemy Law.” With help from the Obama Administration, UN Resolution 16/18 passed in the United Nations in 2011.


There's a growing crowd awakening from the widespread ignorance about islam. One of them, Patrick Condell, puts it eloquently in just a couple of minutes:



However, when it comes to knowledge in depth about sex segregation (sex apartheid) and its central role in the origin of islam as well as now, Klevius is your bedrock.



How the state assists fascism



Bob Taylor (in Washington Times): Incredible as it may sound, after the brazen daylight beheading of a British soldier in the streets of London by Islamic jihadists who proudly bragged on camera about their deed, The Daily Mail reports that British citizens were actually arrested for posting negative comments about Islam on social medias, Facebook and Twitter.

According to the Daily Mail online:


“A 22-year-old man has been charged on suspicion of making malicious comments on Facebook following the murder of British soldier Lee Rigby.

Benjamin Flatters, from Lincoln, was arrested last night after complaints were made to Lincolnshire Police about comments made on Facebook, which were allegedly of a racist or anti-religious nature.

He was charged with an offence of malicious communications this afternoon in relation to the comments, a Lincolnshire Police spokesman said.”

Reports are that two other men were arrested for Tweets, but released on bail.

What happened to common sense? Reason? What about Freedom of Speech and Religion? When did the ideals of our country become so distorted?

Muslims have the freedom to practice their beliefs as they please in this country. As long as they are peaceful and follow the laws of the land, nobody bothers them. Does it not seem logical that if they blow themselves or innocent people up that they are punished? Would that not be true for a Christian or a Jew or a Buddhist or an Atheist?

If the First Amendment guarantees free speech, where do Muslims derive the authority in this country to limit criticism of Islamic ideology, politics, religion and beliefs just because they do not like dissenting points of view?

In case you are not paying attention, denying First Amendment rights is an act tantamount to observing Sharia law which states that “anything concerning a (Muslim) person that he would dislike” is regarded as slander including criticism about his religion.

Fine. Let them believe what they want. The United States allows that. What it does not, or should not, allow is special modifications to the laws of our land purely because a religion disagrees with those of the host country.

There are other places in the world that adhere to Sharia law. Places where those practices are already in place. There is no need to change our beliefs when it is possible for those who follow Sharia to return to countries where their own ideologies are accepted.

From the outset, Islam has been an anger based religion. It has not changed in 14 centuries. The depth and breadth of that anger is unlimited.

Seemingly there is no end to Muslim rage that comes from following a puritanical doctrine.

Even now, according to Claire Lopez, the United Nations Human Council has Resolution 16/18 which will “bend U.S. law more closely to conformity with this Sharia definition of “slander: than anything currently on the books in American criminal law.”

Much has been written about the Muslim Brotherhood in recent months.

Sayyed Qutb, one of the major forces behind that organization during its formative years, wrote, “The chasm between Islam and Jahiliyyah (the non-Islamic world) is great, and a bridge is not built across it so that the people on the two sides may mix with each other, but only so that the people of Jahiliyyah may come over to Islam.”

Chances are Mr. Killian’s seminar will slip beneath the national media radar. However, it is still important to recognize that it is very much indicative of a chilling trend taking place in our country today.

If we are going to preserve America as we know it, we must be vigilant. We must be aware.




The individual vs theocratic power politics aided by BBC's fanatic bowing for islam, the worst ideological crime ever against humanity



WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden, and US Army Pfc Bradley Manning are all individuals chased by the US state, not for some criminal acts, but for fighting freedom of information.

Here about an other freedom fighter:

Paul Weston: Lance Bombardier Richard Field served in the Royal Canadian Artillery Regiment and fought for his country and the West as a young man in Europe in WWII wrote the following:

“As a Canadian who went to England during WWII as a 19 year old soldier and went into combat in North West Europe to defend our freedoms. The bile rises in my throat at the pitiful behavior of David Cameron and the policies of Britain in regard to anyone from anywhere in the Free Western world being told they cannot come and tell the truth about Islam and the end of our civilization if the political theocracy of that evil is allowed to prevail. I have heard Pamela Geller speak. She not only describes Islam’s theocratic plans to dominate all counties on earth but teaches us how to fight the battle peacefully. Cameron and the British government are cowards, frightened that the Islamists will react violently.

Were the matter not so serious, the following exchange between imam Dadwallah and Robert Spencer would be comedy gold in its exposure of the pig-ignorant and evasive imam and the thoroughly biased BBC, which sought desperately to expose Spencer as a bigoted “Islamophobe.” The BBC interviewer allowed Robert to quote a small number of Koranic verses which smear Jews and Christians as unclean, along with a couple of fairly typical jihadist kill-all-the-non-Muslims sort of stuff:

“How would you counter these quotes?” asked the BBC man, whereupon the imam instantly refused to argue against the unarguable and instead said the following:

“The Home Secretary needs to decide whether she should allow Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer to come to this country, especially on armed forces day. Is it going to be respectful, is it going to be distasteful for these individuals to come and honour the memory of Drummer Lee Rigby?”

Memo to imam Dadwallah: Respectful to attend a memorial for a murdered British soldier? Emphatically yes. Distasteful? No! Do you have any idea what you said? This terrible statement should have been picked up by the BBC interviewer, but alas went clean over his head, presumably because the prevailing opinion at the BBC is not too dissimilar to that of the cuddly imam.

After a tad more typical taqiyyah, the real comedy gold started when the interviewer finally lost patience with the discombobulating Dadwallah:

“But imam, imam, with all due respect, I’m sorry, but so often on this show we are asked by our Muslim listeners why haven’t we got an imam on to counter some of the things put out there…you cannot evade that…he (Robert Spencer) put the quotes out there, please explain the context!”

Imam Dadwallah had been caught out with his admission that Jews and Christians were “spiritually unclean” which he then tried to backtrack on. The interviewer then asked him if he could identify a single verse in the Koran which states that they (Jews and Christians) are equal to Muslims. The imam replies:

Imam:
   

“Not off the top of my head, I wasn’t asked to be prepared for…”

BBC:
   

“But you’re an imam!”

Imam:
   

“I understand that, but Robert Spencer…”

BBC:
   

“But he isn’t an imam!”

Imam:
   

“But this is his field…”

BBC:
   

“But Islam is your field surely?!”



If anyone thinks the interviewer was against the imam, they would be very much mistaken. The interviewer was just frustrated that he was unable to use his pet imam to debunk Robert and expose him as an “Islamophobe.” The interviewer went on to say:

The reason that I wanted you on the show was to counter the kind of accusations [actually, just quotes from the Koran — Ed.] that we hear from Tommy Robinson and Robert Spencer.”

And so the penny dropped. The BBC was out to discredit Spencer, but failed utterly to do so. The Communist Lowles failed utterly, and the imam failed utterly. Robert Spencer’s supposed “Islamophobia” consisted only of quoting the Koran. The inability to counter these quotes simply confirms that the Koran is a Hate Book, driven by supremacism, bigotry and anti-anything not Islamic. Robert Spencer was not banned because he twists the Koran; he was banned for exposing the hatred within the Koran. In Britain… by a Conservative government…

So when these thoroughly dreadful Conservative politicians are not banning truthful civil rights activists, what sort of delightful coves do they let into the country? Well, there are countless examples of war-mongering jihadists allowed into Britain; in fact we even have our own resident Bangladeshi war criminal who has been indicted for genocide back home in the East. But here is the most recent example of Cameronian culpability: one Mohammed al-Arefe, who bimbled over from Saudi just last week to partake of tea and a chat with his followers in Britain. One of his historical chats went like this:

“Devotion to jihad for the sake of Allah, and the desire to shed blood, to smash skulls, and to sever limbs for the sake of Allah and in defense of His religion, is, undoubtedly, an honor for the believer. Allah said that if a man fights the infidels, the infidels will be unable to prepare to fight.”

We do have actual laws that prohibit genuine hate preachers, such as the amiable imams above, from coming here. But those laws are ignored when the haters emanate from petro-dollar rich Saudi and Kuwait. Those hundreds-of-billions sure have some clout, hey, Dave?

But why let in skull-smashing Saudis whilst banning peaceful civil rights activists? As far as Theresa May is concerned, the mere presence of Geller and Spencer “would not be conducive to the public good” which is a pretty Orwellian and far-ranging totalitarian statement, assuming it is even legal.

What Ms May really means is that Muslim and far-left extremist groups will cause trouble if people advocating free speech are allowed entry to Britain in order to politely explain to baffled imams what their holy book really means when it commands them to slay the infidels. In order to appease the Muslim “community” Cameron and his government would rather betray their country, and the reason for this is based purely on the fact that the British parliament (within those hallowed halls where once strode Winston Churchill) is just downright frightened — nay, terrified — of Islam.

And this terror of Islam is because Islam uses terror. And quite clearly uses it very well. After the Muslim sex-slavery, rape and torture cases came before the public eye, there was a public tut-tutting, but little else. There is an ongoing scandal and a third enquiry into the awful murder of black teenager Stephen Lawrence and the subsequent police bungling of the operation, but there is no call for an enquiry into the fact that thousands of vulnerable native British girls were abused by hundreds of Pakistani “British” Muslims in full view of David Cameron, the police, the media and the social services, all of whom knew what was going on, but chose to do nothing about it. The blood of those children is on their hands, and I include David Cameron in that.

“Let’s just pretend it never happened” seems to be the official response. Racially motivated? Religiously motivated? Good Lord, no! If we admitted that, then we would have to use the hate laws to prosecute the perpetrators, and they are all the wrong colour and the wrong religion! Surely everybody is aware these laws were introduced to prosecute white Christians only! Anything else would be discriminatory!

So here we are then. A Prime Minister who thinks we have a lot to learn from Islam. A Prime Minister who is a founding signatory of Unite Against Fascism, which is a Communist thug organisation with a Muslim fascist, Azad Ali, sitting as its vice-chair. A Prime Minister who said nary a word about Muslim gang rapists, and the only words used by him about the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby served to absolve Islam of any blame.

Britain is a country which allowed Muslim girls to attack white girls whilst screaming “kill the white bitch”, who were then absolved of a race crime. Britain promotes policemen to top positions who then publicly state on television that the 7/7 London transport bombings had nothing to do with Islam. Britain is a country that allowed any number of Muslim imams filmed by undercover C4 journalists to just carry on their hatred, even after their rants were aired on prime time TV. Let’s not prosecute them our Crown Prosecution Service said — they are the wrong colour and the wrong religion. Old boy.

Britain is a country that allowed its principal broadcasting outlet, the BBC, to disproportionately fill its studios with Muslims after 9/11 and to then blame America to loud applause from the audience, even as the U.S. Ambassador was reduced to tears by the sheer hatred and lack of human decency exhibited by the hating left and the hating Muslims.

Britain is a country that has clearly placed the interests of the followers of a savage, backward, violent, misogynistic, anti-Semitic and anti-Christian ideology both political and religious, stratospherically above the interests of its own native citizens. Britain is a country where Ignorance is Strength, Freedom is Slavery, Islam is Peace and Resistance to Islam is Evil.

Britain is lost.

Britain is a country that does prosecute you if you dare to mention that Islam indulges in a spot of gang-rape, and tells us it wants to blow us up. Britain is a country that threatens to prosecute T-Shirt vendors for inciting racial hatred if they wish to sell clothing bearing a logo saying “Respect our Culture, Respect our Laws or Get out of our Country”. Britain is a country that refuses to prosecute Muslims for hate crimes when they desecrate our war memorials, and Britain is a country that allows Jew-hating politicians like Keith Vaz to help decide just who should or should not be allowed entry to Britain.

And finally, Britain is a country that bans scholarly civil rights activists from entry, despite the fact they have never called for violence, cannot be exposed as being “Islamophobic” by Communists such as Nick Lowles and cannot be refuted by idiotic imams after directly quoting the Koran. Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer have been denied entry to Britain for two reasons. The first is that they speak the truth. The second is that they have sufficient knowledge to make sure the truth cannot be twisted.

The British patriot and philosopher Roger Scruton once said that if words no longer had the desired effect, then words would be replaced by deeds. By denying free speech, by denying words from Geller and Spencer, David Cameron is helping to ensure that deeds will be forced to replace words, because our own government no longer allows us to use words.

The deeds will be violent. No race or culture submits quietly to their disinheritance, but for traitors like Cameron these deeds will not affect him personally. Islam is growing nine times faster than any other demographic and young Muslim males are becoming increasingly radicalised at Saudi-funded mosques. This can only lead to future civil war, and Cameron has shunted this war onto the shoulders of his own children, and the shoulders of every innocent child in Britain who has no power to influence the future. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Cameron who does have the power to actually do something about it, but only uses it to clamp down on people he thinks are on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of morality and the wrong side of good.

But it is you, Mr Cameron, who is on the wrong side. One day I very much hope you will explain to a court of law just why, given the choice of backing good or evil, you chose evil. Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller are clearly good, but you barred them. The skull-crushing jihadi enthusiast Mohammed al-Arefe is clearly evil, yet here he is Britain. This is not Pakistan, yet you seem intent on enforcing sharia-compliant blasphemy laws as though your office were in Islamabad, not London.

I said earlier that no words can describe the sheer revulsion good and moral people feel about your recent action Mr Cameron. The civilised world is now talking about it in horrified tones. You have publicly shamed Britain on the international stage

Your abject cowardice in the face of potential Islamic aggression makes you a traitor to your country.



Klevius comment: Sayeeda Warsi is PM Cameron's right hand when it comes to support fascism!





Klevius question: Has there ever been a more misleading ad than this? I mean this is the dictatorship that continuously murders, rapes and tortures while its islamofascist oil/gas financed media gun Al-Jazeera misleads/distracts you.










No comments: