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.

Saturday, May 30, 2015

Klevius diagnosis of feminism: Bipolar self goal

 .
 In 1921 England had the world's best female football team. However, due to feminist resistance against females playing football FA banned them from its grounds. The decision was based on a female feminist physician's expert statement that "...the game of football is quite unsuitable for females and ought not to be encouraged."

In Sweden, from the late 1960's for about about a decade feminists (the communist Grupp 8 - Sweden's main feminist movement) very actively opposed female football. Later on Swedish feminists still oppose female football although more under cover and in the form of spitting at penis equipped football experts dealing with female football as "patriarchal domination" when in reality it's been the lack of female ones that has been the problem. And this lack is of course to a large extent to be connected to the active female dismissal of female football. Which fact doesn't exclude the "religious" renaissance for sexist men, not the least via islam. As Klevius has always pointed out: Chauvinism and feminism are married!


Women's World Cup starts next Saturday - how many girls know about it, can follow it, and are made interested in the world's most challenging and popular sport? 


It was extremely close that we could have ended up with a sharia muslim ("prince Ali) leading FIFA. A sharia muslim whose main work for women's football so far has been to open up for a veil demand on female muslim players around the world by lifting the ban on the veil (presented as something positive by BBC). 

Klevius is no fan of Blatter's suggestion about improving the interest in women's football by introducing "hot-pants"* on the pitch, but thinks it would be even less helpful for girls/women to have a sharia muslim at the top.

* No offense to "hot-pants" - but they would just cover up the real problem of sex segregation/apartheid. Football isn't beach volley.

 
Acknowledgement to Americans from the US: In the following the word 'football' really means FOOTBALL - not any form of rugby! In football a player isn't allowed to touch the ball with her/his hands inside the pitch - in American "football" players use only their hands during normal play.

In Cannes women are forced to wear high heels - in London they aren't allowed to drive! Sanctioned by feminism and religion.


Chasidic Jews in Stamford Hill, London, ban women drivers due to "modesty" and "dignity".


Rabbi Yissachar Dov Rokeach, has advised them to introduce a policy of not allowing pupils to come to their schools if their mothers drive. From August 2015 children would be barred from their schools if their mothers drove them there.

In an interview with a woman who had been a member of the Belz community for ten years until she divorced her husband, said that she didn't see the religious rules as problematic because she was "normalized" into them.

Klevius comment: Like muslim women. Those rules are based on Talmud, a 73 volume early medieval haystack full of cherries ready to pick for almost whatever reason. Talmud is a Jewish "effort" to discuss and guess what "God" could possibly have meant with cryptic paragraphs inscribed by early "prophets" in the pre-medieval Torah.

Feminism and religion

 Klevius, the world's foremost expert on sex segregation (no competition there - sad isn't it), has for more than three decades fought practically (personal life, educator, coach, etc) and theoretically (books, articles, academic thesis, TV, radio, media production, web sites and blogs, etc) for girls'/women's rights. However, although there are many stunning girls/women out there, they have almost no power against that power patriarchy that most women have let themselves lured into defending.


The original meaning of 'feminism' was to keep women segregated from men via their 'femininity'. That's why early feminists even opposed the vote.


The first definition of 'feminism' you get when googling it is:

the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.
synonyms:  the women's movement, the feminist movement, women's liberation, female emancipation, women's rights; informal women's lib
"a longtime advocate of feminism"


In other words exactly what Kleviushas worked for - except for the word 'feminis-m/t'. How could Klevius possibly call himself a 'feminist' if sharia (OIC) supporting muslims call themselves the same?!



Japan is the reigning world champion in women's football. They also took silver in the last Olympics. How come? Football is a tiny sport in Japan which was left contaminated not only by the horror and radioactivity from two US atom bombs but also by the US form of rugby (aka "American football") and base ball. The answer is that Japan didn't become contaminated with Western religions which are all based on sex segregation/apartheid*. In Judaic religions Eve was made out of a bone (a rib) that Adam could live without. She was made to entertain Adam (heterosexual attraction) and considered inferior to him so that he could be her guardian (sex segregation/apartheid).

* When Klevius compared Western and Japanese women's movements of the late 19th century he made an interesting observation. Whereas Western sources mostly discussed "women's sexual liberation" the Japanese sources were more interested in the opposite, namely how to protect themselves from unwanted sexual impositions. This could then be connected to Murasaki Shikibu's thousand years old novel (the world's first) Genji Monogatari which describes a woman trying to make sense of her experience of the heterosexual attraction (read Klevius more than decade old unchanged website if you don't know what it is - you'll have a hard time find it anywhere else on the Google web) that her body causes in male brains and how she should deal with it while not loosing herself in it. It's possibly the best book ever written (analyzed in Klevius 1992). 

However, today when we have 1) Human Rights, and 2) six decades of seeing revealed female forms everywhere, we (most of us) have learned: 1) Women are fully humans and should therefore have the same Human Rights as men, and
2) we (most of us) feel no urge whatsoever to sexually assault or rape a woman no matter how sexy we might think her body looks like. Even the very thought makes us (most of us) uncomfortable*. Biological heterosexual attraction is a one way affair but hetero erotics needs not only the woman's body but also her full will to participate or show up. Even pornography needs to convince the viewer that the woman wants to be sexy. Rapography and other erotics without some form of consent is simply necrophilia.

* Could this be the reason why some rapetivist cultures need to sexually dehumanize girls/women.




Here two responses to the article above that really shows the polarized world of women today: 


Tigger 9 days ago   

High heels are the western equivalent of 19th century Chinese foot-binding. I've never understood why women should wish this torture on themselves - even paying astronomical sums for the dubious 'privilege'.
flag / like / reply

    sszorin 9 days ago   

    @Tigger The fight against high heels is a waste of time and effort because most women prefer them. The answer is - design and make comfortable high heel shoes, physical pain should not accompany elegance. This said, 6in minimum is over the top. 3in is high enough for official engagements.
    flag / like / reply
    sszorin 9 days ago    


Klevius comment:  "Because most women prefer high heels"!? One might truly question the solidity of this latter statement. It's like saying "most women in Saudi Arabia prefer to wear a black burqa in 40 degree Celsius". However, more importantly, by saying so you impose the rule of "most" on those who might disagree. Just like sharia women want to impose restrictions on other girls/women.



Klevius wrote:

Saturday, July 09, 2011

Japan women beat Germany in the world's hardest* sport

* The combination of no hands allowed, extreme individual freedom, 1.5-2 hours play on a 100 m long and 50 m wide pitch. This is also why the rest of the world can't stop laughing when Americans call their rugby "football"! Moreover, there's no difference in rules and gears (except for sport bras of course) whatsoever between women and men (although islam wants to change that of course). You can be a good football player no matter of your size or constitution. The world's best male player, Lionel Messi, is 170 cm (no 2 Christiano Ronaldo is 186 cm)  and the world's best female player, Marta da Silva, is 163 cm (no 2 Birgit Prinz is 179 cm)!

Karima Maruyama's World Cup goal was a real classic when it comes to football technique. Running at high speed towards the side of the goal and then, at the right microsecond,directing a kick just outside the opposite goalpost makes the forward inertia in the ball curving it enough to be out of reach for the goalkeeper while still making its way to the inside of the post.

Klevius question: Is this the real reason why football is by far the most controversial of sports when it comes to female participation? Check out: Did feminists kill the World's best female football team in 1921?


Sexist BBC

While some of the most exciting matches are played in Women's World Cup BBC decides to neglect it all together and instead offers EIGHT HOURS OF F1 RACING added by some golf etc!!! No wonder British girls/women in general don't have a clue about football and are among the most sex segregated in the world. This is then reflected in British men's due attitude towards women. According to many of my Finnish and Swedish female friends who have experienced Britain British men are the most sexist they have ever encountered in the West!

Of all sports a girl can use (many girls don't use any sport at all) to sculpture her future physicsfootball is by far the best.



Klevius wrote:

Monday, November 17, 2014

A woman scored the goal of the year - but will it be dismissed because of sex segregation?


Some heroic Saudi women challenging (?) islamic sharia* and

 Stephanie Roche who scored the goal of the year



Stephanie Roche began playing football with the boys on the streets of her native Shankill (compare Pia Sundhage in Klevius PhD thesis). After a brief spell with Valeview FC was curtailed by rules against mixed–sex football she started playing only with girls/women.

See some other beautiful female goals further down.

Btw, this website is already banned by FIFA!


Wonder why. Is it because it, contrary to sharia, defends ALL people's Human Rights or is it because it supports female football - or both?

* Some stupid brainwashed (or deliberately evil) people might try to argue that there are many islams (just like feminists used to say there are 'many feminisms' before Klevius intellectually made it an illogical joke back in the 1990s). However, it all works like this. Saudi initiated, Saudi based and Saudi steered OIC has (via UN) declared not only that sharia should apply to all muslims but also that every muslim country can decide by itself what their particular sharia version means. Moreover, OIC's own global "reference sharia" (the so called Cairo declaration on "human rights in islam") openly declares that sharia always tops Human Rights - hence making the latter a criminal offence against sharia.  


Islam is a dictatorship - even in sports

The extreme stupidity of normative* islam

* Saudi Arabia is not only the Guardian of islam but also the most powerful force behind all the world's muslims world organization OIC which is not only initiated by Saudi Arabia but also based in Saudi Arabia/Jeddah and led by an islamofascist from the Saudi dictator family.
What is the difference between muslim Ottoman harems and the organized and widespread child sex abuse among muslims in the West (compare the Rochdale case and many other similar cases in UK etc). The vulnerable girls were already taken as Ottoman slaves or as the target for insensitive and basically purely commercial state interventions not in the best interest of the child (see the most important sociological paper from the last century, Angels of Antichrist - kinship vs social state) before they were abused. However, just as in the islamic muslim sex slave harems, the abused Rochdale girls themselves often denied being abused because of some futile favors they first seemed to get.

So next time you see a wealthy Saudi woman "defending" islam/sharia, please consider the extremely simple fact that under Human Rights women can do what they like with their bodies, but under sharia there is always impositions and limitations! So why choose sharia when it means imposing your life choice on others, including vulnerable girls?!


There seems to be an almost total lack of sociologist challenging sex segregation. A possible exception is Pierre Bourdieu's cautious and defensive Masculine Domination which, by the way, may well be his thinnest book. Already the title seems to try avoiding a closer look on feminine domination (of females).

According to Bourdieu. the effects of social position may in some cases reinforce the effects of gender, or in other cases attenuate them, without, it seems, ever eliminating them. By contrast, intensive practice of a sport leads to a profound transformation of the subjective and objective experience of the  body. It no longer exists only for others or, it is no longer merely a thing that is made to be looked at or which one has to look at in order to prepare it to be looked at.
Instead of being a body for others it becomes a body for oneself; the passive body becomes an active and acting body. In the eyes of men, however, those women who break the tacit relation of availability and in a sense re-appropriate their body image, and with it their body, appear as 'unfeminine', even lesbian (Bourdieu 2001:67-68).

In this respect Bourdieu seems to echo Tertullian who, in the early years of Christianity, labeled women's wish to free themselves from the male gaze (heterosexual attraction) as a 'sport of Nature'. Bourdieu continues:

If the old structures of the sexual division seem still to deter-
mine the very direction and form of these changes, this is
because as well as being objectified in disciplines, careers and
jobs that are more or less strongly characterized sexually, they
act through three practical principles which women, and also
their social circles, apply in their choices. The first is that the
functions appropriate to women are an extension of their
domestic functions - education, care and service. The second
is that a woman cannot have authority over men, and, other
things being equal, therefore has every likelihood of being
passed over in favour of a man for a position of authority and
of being confined to subordinate and ancillary functions. The
third principle gives men the monopoly of the handling of tech-
nical objects and machines (Bourdieu 2001).

However, sex segregation is much deeper and multi faceted. Heterosexual attraction need not be a problem neither for women nor men - this has been showed by the West since the 1960s (yes, many men used the time for abuse but most didn't) - but it can easily be used in a confusing/self-confusing manner which opens up for totalitarian sex segregation.

Sex segregation - could also be defined as unnecessary limitations connected to physical differences that has nothing to do with these limitations. However, what is needed in sex segregation studies is the most natural follow up questions. Who questions 'femininity' and 'sexual orientation' and why?

When you pull up that net Klevius wouldn't be surprised to see some (most?) women as well.



What klevius said/showed

Sunday, December 27, 2009

Islamic OIC is an evil dead end of sex segregation whereas football is freedom

Do you see the evil cloud on the map? It's sex segregation: OIC consists of 57 racist/sexist islamic nations which have agreed to violate the negative human rights, i.e. the basis for freedom & democracy!
WHAT A MEDIA HYPOCRISY WHEN THE MUSLIM NIGERIAN TERRORIST IS DESCRIBED AS "EXTREMIST" WHILE HIS TALIBAN LIKE SHARIA ISLAMIC HOME TOWN (stonings, mutilations, corrupt "Sharia banking" etc) IS DESCRIBED AS "MODERATE"! North Nigeria is a disgusting reminder of islamic slavery & islam's devastating effects on Africa through 1400 yrs! AND CONSIDER THAT KLEVIUS HAS FOR LONG BEEN YOUR ONLY TRUE, INTELLIGENT & WELL INFORMED NEUTRAL (yes!) VOICE AGAINST EVILSEX SEGREGATION ON THE NET (the link is abt women's football as well)!




 





Did Germany's Birgit Prinz, score the best ever goal (incl. those of men) in 2009?


The video is here

Klevius motivation:

1 The attack (from an in-throw) was as clean as it gets. Check out the video & consider how Simone Laudehr's extremely well placed pass (into an open but crucial area) is taken by Inka Grings who was initially further from the ball than Prinz, who runs in the opposite direction.

2 Inka Grings then does just the opposite to what one would have expected. Instead of running with the ball into the empty space from where she could have tried a cross to Birgit Prinz, she turns against & between two defenders and quickly squares the ball across the penalty area just before Birgit Prinz encounters the defenders.

3 Birgit Prinz accelerates strongly & manages not only to reach the ball before a defender crashes into her, but also to cheat the goalkeeper (see how the keeper moves to the wrong direction) while then perfectly turning her foot in the last fraction of a second to give the ball ultimate precision, before she is smashed to the ground by the flying defender.

Who said women's football is boring?


Size doesn't matter in football
However, although Birgit Prinz is a six footer (179 cm), in footbal you can be any size & still world class. Lionel Messi, the world's best male player 2009 is 169 cm/67 kg, while the next best (Xavi) is 170 cm/69 kg! Third place Ronaldo is 185 cm. Among women Marta da Silva (162 cm/57 kg) is the world's best player for the fourth year in a row, with Birgit Prinz right behind!

Football is the most emancipating sport in the world

This goal hasn’t even been mentioned among the best, perhaps because women’s football is hardly mentioned at all in the media. And the reason for this is the same as with evil islam, namely that so many women participate in directing girls into the sex segregation trap of their own *starting physically with Indonesian muslim women who mutilate every female child, to Western glamour feminists who push their daughters into the time consuming trap of empty & pointless artificial "feminization".

As Otto Weininger put it a century ago: "The main obstacle for women's emancipation is the Woman".
Klevius doesn't in any sense want to point out how women should behave, quite the contrary. He couldn't call himself intelligent if he would, could he! However, what Klevius does want to do is to help minimizing the number of girls who limit themselves or commit self rape becaudse of cultural sexism. In this Klevius stands in the deapest oppositition to islam, while Mr X US "president" says he "respect" islam (and no wonder, look at his islamofascist pals)!

Origin of islam & its evil parasitic booty/sex/slavery/reproduction formula
Btw, a professor friend (sociology) thinks I “uber-emphasize” sex segregation. My question then to him & to all of you is: How can one ever “uber-emphasize” something that affects negatively & directly HALF of the world population, & indirectly the WHOLE of the world population, & which is upheld on no logical grounds at all?! And which constitutes the cornerstone for the evil interface between islam & the rest of the world! And which constitutes the main difference in OIC's Cairo Declaration which (initiated by Saudi islamic theocracy) aims for the destruction of UN's 1948 Human Rights Declaration, combined with a global effort (via UN) to criminalize criticism of islam! Read more from Klevius (e.g. From Freud to bin Laden or What is sex segregation?) to understand why islam & feminism share so much & why the first feminists didn't support votes for women! And why feminists can't agree if Mary Wollstonecraft was a feminist or an anti-feminist!

Or perhaps Klevius Marriage, kinship & friendship

Or even better, the most important sociological paper from the last century: Angels of Antichrist - kinship vs social state






















.

No comments: