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").

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).

"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.

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.

Monday, November 30, 2015

Popish ranting misses religion's role in backwardness and violence


Klevius: The Pope ought not to have a "dialogue" with muslims before he has vetted them for Human Rights violating sharia islam!

Pope: God must never be used to justify hatred and violence.”

Then he immediately contradicted himself by warning the religious leaders that “young people are being radicalized in the name of religion to sow discord and fear, and to tear at the very fabric of our societies.”

Klevius: This is the very difference between secularism (Atheism) and religion. Human Rights vs kind of human rights. Religious purity is defined by its distance to Universal Human Rights equality.

Pope: “How important it is that we be seen as prophets of peace, peacemakers who invite others to live in peace, harmony and mutual respect”.

Klevius: In religious segregation it's always the most evil that benefits the most from such "mutual respect”. Here's an example:

According to the Vatican, the Paris attacks have heightened the pope’s sense of urgency about the need for interreligious dialogue.

Klevius: "Interreligious dialogue" may strengthen each religion - and thereby by necessity also true islam, the so called "radical islam". 

Pope: "Those living in such (poor) communities are victims of new forms of colonialism by rich co untries. These are the wounds inflicted by minorities who cling to power and wealth, who selfishly squander while a growing majority is forced to flee to abandoned, filthy and rundown peripheries.”

Klevius (still the world's foremost expert on sex segregation/apartheid - sad isn't it - and therefore also on islam and other "monotheisms"*):

* You don't have to go philosophically deep to realize the weirdness of such a concept as "monotheism". Only racist "god logic" makes any sense - leaving those who defend Human Rights equality (i.e. Atheists) outside this creepy outdated illogic. The definition of a "moderate" religion is how close it has managed to reform itself towards Human Rights equality.

The new black upper-class are those coming from Western universities and Western culture! Just think about how they would have been looked upon with whiter skin color! Or just read stupid sociology etc works about "white/Western colonialism".

Europe is the most secularized Human Rights bastion after socialist* fascism caused WW2. Industrialization was born in Europe after having got rid of Catholicism. In the rest of the world it's Atheist countries such as Japan and China who have been the most technologically progressive.Then comes the backward continents Catholic Latin/South America and last the continent destroyed by islam, i.e. Africa.

* Fascism and Nazism grew out of "moderate" socialist parties - much like state Communism grew out of social-democracy before the 1917 revolution.

When should the Pope visit Mecca and the Saudi dictator family who is behind most of islam's atrocities today?

Klevius: Isn't it puzzling that both the Pope and the die hard (and presumably non-religious) socialist Jeremy Corbyn both avoid Saudi Arabia, the "guardian of islam", while still talking about "dialogue" with islam and "islamophobia"!?

Klevius wrote 10 years ago:

Sunday, August 21, 2005

Pope Ratzinger: Cooperate against extremism! Klevius translation: Castrate Islam!

Ratzinger: Islam features "a very marked subordination of woman to man" He also says: "the quest for certainty and simplicity becomes dangerous when it leads to fanaticism and narrow-mindedness". Compare this with Klevius Definition of religion and uncertainty!
Also see July 26 posting: True roots of "true" Islam!

Klevius wrote a year ago:

Monday, December 01, 2014

Pope asks muslim leaders to speak up against islamic state. Why?

What could muslims possibly have in common with the Islamic State if it has nothing to do with islam

The religion of piece(s)

                                          John Cleese on muslim stupidity

 So called "moderate muslims" (i.e. non-practicing "muslims") are disgusting racist cowards who hide themselves from muslim terrorism by saying they are muslims while non-muslims are targeted. On top of this they (together with true muslims) also benefit from Western "diversity" policy under which they can socially bully and terrorize non-muslims by using the handy "islamophobia" and "hate" sword. 

"British muslims" have greater 'faith in the police' than the rest of the population. So what about muslim jihad victims?

Six out of ten "British"* muslims rate the police as either good or excellent according to the British Journal of Criminology.

* You can't be a muslim without sharia, and you can't have a sharia ruled Britain - or?!

Klevius (who, btw, also happens to have a Master's Degree in criminology): Perfectly sharia compliant police after years of "education" by the same imams who support those who kill and despise British soldiers in the name of islamic ideology. However, a more telling report would be who have the least faith in the police. Klevius qualified guess is that it would be the victims of muslim jihadists.

                          Samantha Lewthwaite, Mishal Husain and Michael Adebolajo

It would help a lot of girls/women if BBC's sharia presenter Mishail Husain would commit apostasy by dismissing sharia. But she never will because she isn't as brave as Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Or does she propose Human Rights violating sharia for Britain? Why isn't she even asked about it? There seems reportedly to be lot of time while she is laughing at (ignorant?) British license fee payers together with other BBC presenters during news islamic propaganda hours.

Klevius wrote:

Monday, July 29, 2013

Pope Francis: Gays are ok - women are not!

Klevius intellectual translation: Whereas (male) gays are seen as fully humans although sexually dysfunctional, women are seen as a different species. Therefore the Pope & Co can accept gay priests but not female priests.

Pope Francis: The Catholic door is closed for women priests and the decision is definitive!

As a background you may read Klevius' Sex and Gender Tutorial

The female patriarchy that keeps the Pope & Co and islam ticking

Klevius (sadly still the web's by far foremost expert on sex segregation/apartheid): While reading the Catholic horror from Brazil below please keep islam in mind! And, in an extension, think about general sex segregation, and you will start understanding what Klevius is ranting about...

Catholic nuns (O’Connor & Drury 1998) reporting from Brazil and the US:

"It's our culture and we can't change it,"

Clearly, the inhibiting environment of patriarchy and machismo is primar­ily to blame for the depressed condition of Brazilian women. But, from what the interviewees have shared, it is also clear that other factors play a significant part in women's oppression. The fatalistic attitude of many was startling. While complaining about their subjugation, women shrugged off their responsibility to do something about it. Many said, "it's our culture and we can't change it," or "the price is too high." Could the underlying reason for this reluctance to change be a fear of losing touch with the "self' that women know and with whom they have become comfortable? Their attitudes make it difficult for those who have the courage to confront their oppressors, be they clergy, macho men, or other women, to effect even a minimal change.

Fear of ridicule, change, and loss of security

A major reason women choose to maintain the status quo in the church, and want other women to do so, is their fear of ridicule, change, and loss of security. The clamor in the United States for a married clergy and women priests threatens "good women's" comfortable place in the church. These women appear to be more interested in retaining their image than in challeng­ing the injustices that face them daily.
Most Brazilian women are paralyzed by their machistic society and face total ostracism if they so much as address the topic of sexism in society or in the church. Frightened women from both countries, who have found their identity within the patriarchal church, become angry at women who promote equality because they fear losing their status, inferior as it is. In different yet similar ways, they indicate they benefit from the oppressive structure and often persecute other women who try to change the system.

An inherent need to put other women down

Among some women in both countries there seems to be an inherent need to put other women down. Women frequently do not help one another. They criticize each other, thereby working against solidarity. They tend to replicate the patriarchal model by using what little power they have to force other women into submission. By criticizing women who speak for equality and by reporting such "heretics" to the clergy or hierarchy, they marginalize those who have the courage to stand against the tide of clerical oppression.

Women act as tormentors both from the top down and from the bottom up. This was evidenced by an Episcopal woman priest in the United States who admitted she oppressed women because that was the only model she had ever seen in the church. Another example is, the sister in the diocesan office who, behind the scenes, forced the bishop's secretary to resign by overtly oppressing her. Similarly, the women in a Brazilian parish boycotted their Methodist min­ister simply because of her gender. In another Catholic parish the women
jeered and taunted a woman catechist because she gave a good homily and dis­tributed Communion, roles they felt belonged to men only.

Western liberation

Those communities who have European or North American members are likely to be in the forefront in liberating themselves from the burdens their patriarchal formation has placed upon them.
Certain women in each country can be found who, in their efforts to achieve change, burn with anger against the injustices they are experiencing both in society and in the church and who search for ways to confront these sins. 

Fear and jealousy

A group of women from a base community discussed the various aspects of fear in their dealings with one another.
We're afraid of leaving our own comfortable space. We give our rights to some­body else because we don't want to assume responsibility. We could be partic­ipating together and deciding together, but we don't. We bring something to be discussed but we don't say anything. Sometimes we're afraid of being criticized. Fear is the reason why women who want their space and when there is an opportunity to get it, don't use it. [Older Women in Favela, Sao Paulo]

Fear has a lot to do with it. Women don't have as much experience being active and speaking out, assuming responsibility in a wider reality. They assume responsibility in their own house, but when you ask them to do some­thing in the community they refuse. Fear is the problem with women. [Middle‑aged Woman in CEB, Petropolis]

Women are afraid that other women will talk about them if they are different, if they do things against the social customs. [Young Married Woman, Brasilia]
Acting behind another's back is a lot more common than open conflict. Sometimes if we say something, we're afraid we'll be given more work. We withdraw to protect ourselves, not to solve problems. [Middle‑aged Woman in CEB, ParanA]

For the most part, the women who were not afraid to challenge the status quo were sisters or economically independent women. A wealthy woman in the north noted:

Although fear is clearly a major contributor to the oppression of women by other women, another problem for women in the church is jealousy. "Everyone is looking for her place in the sun.,'3
Among the things that are destroying the work among women is jealousy It seems one wants to see the other fall. Women seem to thrive on seeing others make mistakes. They don't even give credit where credit is due. They can't even give a compliment, but criticize each other. They don't motivate or help each other to get better. They never praise work well done. This kills the work and the motivation. It drives competent women out of church ministry.

Patriarchy functions only with the cooperation of women

Women in both countries must take heed of Gerda Lerners warning that patriarchy functions only with the cooperation of women, through their con­tinued acceptance and embrace of a system we now know to be oppressive to all, women and men alike. Women must stop thinking of themselves only as "victims" and start examining their role as "perpetrators" of patriarchy (O’Connor Drury
Women in both countries must take heed of Gerda Lerners warning that patriarchy functions only with the cooperation of women, through their con­tinued acceptance and embrace of a system we now know to be oppressive to all, women and men alike. Women must stop thinking of themselves only as "victims" and start examining their role as "perpetrators" of patriarchy.

With naive consciousness they continue to promote what their mothers and grandmothers told them

In many groups the pros and cons of the type of education given to women were debated. The focus was on how education has been used as a weapon against women: teaching them that they have no worth, depriving some of ever discovering what it means to be a woman, exposing them to fragmented ideas so that with naive consciousness they continue to promote what their mothers and grandmothers told them; instructing them to he submissive and therefore incapable of independent thought or actions.

"It's not just culture we inherit in life. Women must face up to their histori­cal programming," noted Irma Passom, former religious and political activist. "Our grandmothers and mothers had a certain guilt, which they passed on.

Women are formed to hang their heads. I saw this in my own home. The

mother passes these ideas on in the family. There is no point in trying to
change this. Since our mothers inculcated this idea in us, so in religious life
when we encounter domination we allow ourselves to be dominated. It is a
vicious circle. The big responsibility is the mothers. If she isn't aware of what
she is doing then the children will carry it on. [Sister, Bahia]
A second sister offered a slightly different view "I also think that religious
life can wake women up to their own value." She explained that religious life
was neither the cause of women's oppression nor their awareness.
It comes from what they have been educated or raised to believe, The essen­
tial point is the family, the way you were raised. Formation either helps you
get more repressed or frees you more. It either reinforces what you had at
home or opens places for new ideas.
She seemed to answer her own question of why it is that the same formation
provides growth for some while crippling others.
Klevius: Add to this what Klevius has written about sex segregation, e.g. Sex or Gender and What is Sex Segregation. I rest my case.


No comments: