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.

Tuesday, August 04, 2015

You Brit! If you support Saudi Arabia's Human Rights violating sharia (OIC) then you you are no longer a true Brit but a "radical" because it's the opposite to "British values"! Or?!


At least 234,000 UK muslims have a "very favorable" or "somewhat favorable" view on the Islamic State!


Today (2015) approximately 78,000* UK muslims have a "very favorable" view on the Islamic State while some 156,000 have a "somewhat favorable" view. 

* Cautiously estimated on 2.6 million adult UK muslims (2011 census). 


Is British military action in Syria risking British soldiers and the public for the sake of islamofascist Saudi Arabia?


Is the UK government making "statements that may foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence"? I.e. exactly what made the UK government deny Pamela Geller (a Jew) and Robert Spencer (expert on islam) entry to UK.



Question to PM Cameron: Is Human Rights violating muslim sharia supremacism (e.g. Saudi based and steered OIC) really "conducive to the public good"?

Possible answer (paraphrasing US Congressman Keith Ellison): No, but the UK has greater economic interests that outweigh its interest in Saudi Arabia's Human Rights violations. The reality is that no matter what anyone might say, UK foreign policy is always going to be a blend of our values measured against economic and political security necessity. That's unsatisfactory but it's not for the idealists. We should make our values clear of what we believe and know what they believe. But yet, these situations have to be dealt with significant care because there are economic, political and security considerations that cannot simply be ignored.

Klevius comment: Please, do note that the Human Rights violating atrocities of  Saudi Arabia's dictatorship isn't just about their internal affairs because they have exported the most evil parts of islam. In general one might state that when muslims settle in the West they become  less muslim. To counter this trend - and thereby also "justifying" its own atrocities - Saudi Arabia has deliberately tried to "de-secularize" muslims in the West via its poisonous oil money channels to influential people in the West as well as creating milieus for anti-Western (read anti-Human Rights) preachings.

At a time when only islamofascism benefits from more religious "education" it seems counter productive to further incite religious racism and sexism. The simple truth is as Klevius has repeatedly stated: Every "monothist" religion is always a more or less aberration of Human Rights, i.e. religion has always to "reform" towards Human Rights without ever fully reaching it.

There are at least five times more Atheists in UK than muslims. Yet we hear nothing about it compared to muslims. Not even the secularists seem to bother. Is it time for a neutral non-religious force based on Human Rights in UK politics?


Anne-Marie Waters: Leftist “secularists” will allow you to talk about Islamism (or even Islam if they’re feeling particularly generous), but as soon as you mention immigration, or the impact Islamic immigration is having on Western nations (most significantly, secularism in Western nations) you are to be permanently shunned. The left wants to keep its naïve borderless utopian fantasy alive at all costs, and it will sink to any depths to do so.

Over the past year or so the NSS has revealed left-wing bias on a few notable occasions. One example was the so-called “secularism” conference organised by the communist Maryam Namazie last October. Billed as a “Conference of a lifetime on the Religious-Right, Secularism and Civil Rights”, it had the financial support of the NSS, and its President Terry Sanderson was a guest-speaker.

This was the same conference to which Charlie Klendjian, Secretary of the Lawyers’ Secular Society, and I had previously been invited as speakers, but were immediately disinvited when I joined UKIP and Charlie spoke alongside me at an event. It’s also worth noting Namazie’s preoccupation with the religious “right”, whereas I’ve yet to hear her express any secularism-related concerns about the religious left. The event itself was an echo-chamber of left-wing self-congratulation, with a speakers’ list of open communists and left-wing activists exclusively. Not a single freedom or democracy campaigner was included.

Furthermore, when Namazie ridiculously wrote that the rise of groups like ISIS was “a direct consequence of neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism”, the NSS signed up to that as well.

Klevius comment: The Nazi party program (see below) is very socialist due to the Nazis being an out-group of the Social democratic party. The left is therefore doing its utmost to push the Nazis to the opposite side of the political spectrum as a weapon against the right. The main element in this strategy is to change focus from economics to racism and labeling the latter "right wing" in an effort to free itself from such labeling while continuing to support the most racist and sexist ideology the planet has ever encountered.


 Klevius wrote:

Friday, July 31, 2015


Islam compared to National Socialist German Workers' Party (aka "Nazism"). Turns out islam is worse. Much worse. Judge for yourself! Moreover, islam has never been able to create technology by its own,

 .
What's the difference between Nazism and islam? Islam is worse - both in ideology (see below) and in the amount of its victims!

Is it the islamization of Germany that has caused the (relative) quality drop of Nazi cars such as VW and Audi since the 1930s?


 Compared to islam's parasitism ideology, it seems the National Socialist German Workers' Party (aka "Nazi") was way more industrially effective. 

 This shouldn't surprise anyone with the most superficial understanding of the origin of islam as a parasitic separatist movement which after colonizing land isolated themselves in lazy "garrisons" with their slaves from where they enjoyed the fruits (incl. girls/young women, artists, scientists etc) of the working and producing people they had subdued. If you don't understand the parasitic nature of the islamic ideology then you will never understand the Koran or islam. Nor will you understand why Malik much later created Muhammad as a mythological figure whose behavior span such a wide range (pedophile, caravan robber, warlord, rapist, preacher, etc) that everyone (except the "infidel") could find something suitable for himself.
 
Only now has a small scale car production started in Saudi Arabia. By Arab muslims? No, by Japanese Isuzu which will be followed by Korean Daewoo and some other non-Arab car makers. The muslims have NEVER had a technology of their own simply because islam is based on parasitism and due backwardness. This fact isn't changed by oil-money (from non-muslim countries) buying texhnology into islamic countries.



Ihsanoglu's ultimate stated aim (in an interview) was to make OIC the muslim Caliphate led by a Caliph.

Every true muslim is a racist/sexist supremacist Human Rights violator because of islam's incompatibility with Human Rights - as beyond any doubt proven by OIC's sharia declaration in UN.





Iyad Madani, the Saudi Fuhrer of Saudi based OIC, the worst Human Rights violator. Via UN OIC sanctionsislamofascist sharia around the world.
 

Islamic State is Ansar al Islam tuned to Saudi Wahhabism which, in turn, is tuned to the origin of islam - NOT TO ANY "WESTERN INTERVENTION"!


The only "Western intervention" is islam's incompatibility with Human Rights - the very same incompatibility that made OIC officially to abandon Human Rights and to replace them with Sharia via its 57 more or less scumbag representatives in UN (OIC was created via mostly muslim foreign ministers). I.e. in the very world institution that was  created to defend Human Rights. In practice it means that the most basic of Human Rights are criminalized - just as in the world's most intolerant country, Saudi Arabia. It also means that every true muslim, due to whatever form of Sharia, is a Human Rights violator. S/he may not be aware of it as yet though because of politicians' and BBC's etc. misrepresentation of the facts (in the case of BBC the Brits have not been misinformed about OIC - they haven't been informed at all).


The Iraq-"invasion"-caused-it myth


 In Iraq Mullah  Krekar founded in 1999 Ansar al Islam organization with Abu Musab al Zarqawi, with whom he had contact since 1994 through the cell of Abu Musab al Zarqawi in Amman Jordan. Their so called Jordanian millennium attack was scheduled to the 2000 new years eve. Ansar al Islam then developed to a copy of the original Caliphate including the Levant, i.e. what we now know as the Islamic State, mostly funded by Saudi Arabia (through both official and unofficial channels) and almost entirely based on Saudi Arabia's official version of islam - except that the Saudi Caliph calls himself "king".

Dear reader, Klevius has trouble finding any "extreme right-wing" politics in this program. Anti-Jewish, yes (just like islam) - Right-wing, no. What about you?


Of course it doesn't come even close to Human Rights standard - but islam is way worse as you cab see for youself!

 The 25 Points of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (aka "Nazi") programme here compared to islam:


        1. We demand the union of all Germans (muslims) in a Great Germany (Ummah) on the basis of the principle of self-determination of all peoples (muslims).

        2. We demand that the German people (muslims) have rights equal to those of other nations; and that the Peace Treaties of Versailles and St. Germain shall be abrogated (Palestine/Zionism).

        3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the maintenance of our people and the settlement of our surplus population.

        4. Only those who are our fellow countrymen (muslims) can become citizens. Only those who have German blood (are muslims), regardless of creed, can be our countrymen. Hence no Jew (or "infidel") can be a countryman.

        5. Those who are not citizens must live in Germany (Ummah) as foreigners (dhimmis) and must be subject to the law of aliens (sharia).

        6. The right to choose the government and determine the laws of the State shall belong only to citizens (to the caliph). We therefore demand that no public office, of whatever nature, whether in the central government, the province, or the municipality, shall be held by anyone who is not a citizen (muslim).

        We wage war (jihad) against the corrupt parliamentary administration whereby men are appointed to posts by favor of the party without regard to character and fitness.

        7. We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen (muslim) shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole population, then aliens ("infidels") must be expelled.

        8. Any further immigration of non-Germans ("infidels", Jews, "wrong-muslims" Christians, Atheists etc)) must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans (infidels) who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave (compare Saudi Arabia's laws against "infidels", Human Rights etc).

        9. All citizens must possess equal rights and duties.

        10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically (this may not apply to an ideology based on parasitism). No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all.

        Therefore we demand:

        11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished (this may not apply to an ideology based on parasitism).

        12. Since every war (jihad) imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

        13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.

        14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.

        15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.

        16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

        17. We demand an agrarian (well, the origin of islam was as far from agrarian you can get) reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land (this seems to be as far from "right-wing" you can get).

        18. We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.

        19. We demand that Roman law, which serves a materialist ordering of the world, be replaced by German common law (sharia).

        20. In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German (muslim) to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural (religious) system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life (sharia). The conception of the State Idea (Ummah) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.

        21. The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.

        22. We demand the abolition of the regular army and the creation of a national (jihad) folk army.

        23. We demand that there be a legal campaign against those ("islamophobes") who propagate deliberate political (religious) lies and disseminate them through the press (blasphemy). In order to make possible the creation of a German (muslim) press, we demand:

        (a) All editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German (Arabic) language shall be German citizens (Sunni muslims).

        (b) Non-German (infidel) newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State (Caliph or his representatives). They must not be published in the German (Arabic) language.

        (c) All financial interests in or in any way affecting German (Sunni muslim) newspapers shall be forbidden to non-Germans (infidels) by law, and we demand that the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper and the expulsion of the non-Germans (infidel).

        Newspapers transgressing against the common welfare (of the Ummah) shall be suppressed. We demand legal action against those tendencies in art and literature (Muhammad caricatures, caricatures of the Saudi dictator family etc) that have a disruptive influence upon the life of our folk (muslims), and that any organizations that offend against the foregoing demands shall be dissolved.

        24. We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state (doubtful if this applies to islam in Saudi Arabia - the "custodian of islam"), insofar as they do not endanger its existence or offend the moral and ethical sense of the Germanic race (Sunni muslims).

        The party (OIC) as such represents the point of view of a positive Christianity (islam) without binding itself to any one particular confession (doesn't apply in islamic monotheism). It fights against the Jewish materialist spirit within and without, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our folk can only come about from within on the pinciple:

        COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD

        25. In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State (Caliphate), the unconditional authority (submission) by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.

        The formation of professional committees and of committees representing the several estates of the realm, to ensure that the laws (sharia) promulgated by the central authority shall be carried out by the federal states.

        The leaders of the party (OIC) undertake to promote the execution of the foregoing points at all costs, if necessary at the sacrifice of their own lives (may not apply to OIC).



But BBC won't tell you though!


However,

Klevius vs ? billion muslims. He knows it's not fair - of course Klevius' Human Rights logic is irresistible compared to dividing hateful muslim sharia racism/sexism! If you just listen to it. But that could of course turn out to be difficult when Klevius message is drowning in islam propaganda. However, some of Klevius relatively few readers seem to be quite sharp when diagnosed with web tools. So let's hope they can do their part better than unsupported Klevius.

Human Rights

  Klevius: On his blogs and sites 'Klevius' is interchangeable with 'Human Rights' because all they do is defending (the most basic) Human Rights. Unfortunately for muslims, islam makes itself the biggest target precisely because of its violation of Human Rights. Nowhere on Klevius' sites/blogs can you find ANYTHING not in line with this Human Rights defense!

 Muslims: There doesn't exist a true muslim without her/him (via her/his support of sharia islam) violating the most basic equality principles of Human Rights. If all of these muslims were really aware of this Klevius qualified guess would be that a considerable part of them would commit open apostasy - i.e. being braver than Obama!

Sexism

Klevius: There is no defense for sex segregation/apartheid. Not even heterosexual attraction (of which Klevius has written the most essential analysis in the world of today - admittedly, the competition hasn't been very hard). The only reason for islam to keep up sex apartheid is keep girls/women in a dependency situation based on the supremacist ideology that women are inferior to men and therefore need their "protection".

 Muslims: Women are inferior to men and women's heterosexual attraction makes it necessary in islam to sharia hide/jail/restrict them physically and/or culturally (the means vary depending on muslim community/sub-settings etc).

Racism

 Klevius:  Human Rights make racism ideologically impossible.

 Muslims: Islam is built on supremacist "infidel" racism. It was the key for the early muslim "conquest": Get slaughtered, enslaved, taxed and humiliated, or become a (lesser) muslim. "Infidels" also constituted the slave reservoir for muslims. Allah's will, you know.

Politics

Klevius: For secularism based on Human Rights.

Muslims: For an islamic nation state (Ummah) based on sharia.

Beliefs

Klevius: Atheist, i.e. lacking a "god" he otherwise could blame. Instead Klevius protects his moral attitude by hanging it on the most powerful of all moral codes namely the negative Human Rights - the last refuge for Universally shared individual freedom. This could be a tricky one for simple minded brainwashed people to understand, so please, follow the link and read slowly. Any question still bothering you, please comment and Klevius will enlighten you!

 Muslims: Whatever a muslim does it's "Allah's will". And because "Allah's" will is not known  then we have no tool whatsoever to know the inscrutable will of the muslim - other than the self evident Atheist conclusion that it's no more or less than the egoistic will of the individual muslim, and not of "Allah". And because of this "Allah" it doesn't bother itself with how this will may turn against Human Rights.









According to one of BBC's extremely few and misleading reports about OIC, its aims are to 'safeguard islamic holy places' (Klevius comment: Those places are already carefully destroyed by the Sauds ... read more on Klevius beats BBC) but nothing about OIC steering 57 countries away from Human Rights.

In Britain, the number of muslim converts recently passed the 100,000 mark, according to a survey conducted by an inter-faith group called Faith Matters. The survey revealed that nearly two thirds of the converts were women, more than 70% were white and the average age at conversion was just 27.

Klevius explanation: Non-muslim women who marry muslims have to choose between a lower status as a non-muslim in the muslim family setting or convert (to a lesser muslim).

The muslim system is extremely racist and sexist in this regard because everything is one-way directed towards the muslim man and islam and away from Human Rights. A non-muslim man isn't even allowed to marry a muslim woman without converting.

So instead of boasting about the high numbers they should be seen as utterly shamful (and shameful) in a civilized country.

So what should muslims do to avoid Klevius' criticism?

Nothing could be easier. Just openly and honestly refute Human Rights violating sharia and you don't hear anything from Klevius. Do as Ayaan Hiris Ali did!


From anti-islamic Magna Carta in 1215 to anti-fascist Human Rights in 1948 - and the islamofascism of today


Magna Carta Libertatum is the first rudimentary effort in a long struggle towards the final 1948 Human Rights declaration which PM David Cameron now again seems to betray by giving in for Human Rights violating sharia.



Back in 1215 Magna Carta (the first predecessor to Human Rights) was produced to stifle traitor King John's effort to islamize Britian. Compare this to the  British PM Cameron's attacks on Human Rights while seemingly proposing Britain as the center of islamofascism outside Mideast (beginning with London sharia finance).



King John the Traitor, PM David Cameron and the islamofascist "king" Abdullah who pretended to be "reformist" while steering the country in an even more intolerant direction by new sharia inspired laws by early 2014 (e.g. equalizing Human Rights, Secularism and Atheism with "terrorism" and due penalties - compare Raif Badawi and others).

King John in the early 13th century sent envoys to Mohammed al-Nâsir asking for his help. In return King John offered to convert to Islam and turn England into a muslim state. The muslim jihadist Mohammed al-Nâsir's view on King John: "I never read or heard that any king possessing such a prosperous kingdom subject and obedient to him, would voluntarily ... make tributary a country that is free, by giving to a stranger that which is his own ... conquered, as it were, without a wound. I have rather read and heard from many that they would procure liberty for themselves at the expense of streams of blood, which is a praiseworthy action; but now I hear that your wretched lord, a sloth and a coward, who is even worse than nothing, wishes from a free man to become a slave, who is the most miserable of all human beings." Mohammed al-Nâsir concluded by wondering aloud why the English allowed such a man to lord over them — they must, he said, be very servile and soft.





.

No comments: