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, May 09, 2016

Trump haters seem to have in common their love for Human Rights violating islam and the Saudi dictator family that steers worldwide sharia via OIC in UN

O.I.C. Saudi Sharia

Klevius double advice: Consider a 1) that the only truly islamic allure is the original one: Slaughtering the Jews in Medina, and taking booty and slaves, while locking in women in sex apartheid for the purpose of being legally (sharia) forced to reproduce physically and/or culturally new muslims, and 2) that Saudi based and steered OIC and its sharia declaration via UN is the ultimate proof that islam even today is incompatible with the most basic of Human Rights, e.g. the one that gives women the same rights as men (inscribed in the Universal 1948 Human Rights Declaration that was agreed on for the very purpose of hindering such fascist ideologies as e.g. sharia islam.

Jews were, according to muslims, responsible for being slaughtered by Muhammad and the muslims in Medina.

What about muslims view on Jews today? Not to mention muslims views on women and other "infidels".

BBC interview with Ibrahim Mogra: Do you support the view that muslim women shoudn't be alloved to travel alone over a certain distance (as stipulated by British muslims)?

Ibrahim Mogra, of the Muslim Council of Britain: Women need protection from "islamophobia" so they will benefit from having muslim male guardians.

BBC: !

Klevius: "Islamophobic attacks" on muslim women are proportionally extremely rare compared to muslim attacks on "infidel women" and usually no more than verbal - if anything (i.e. often false "racism" accusations or deliberately made up "attacks"). Wonder how far a "moderate sharia muslim" like Sadiq Khan would allow women to travel? Or drink? Or marry non-muslims? Or not following sharia? Or...?

It seems that "islamophobia" "accusation" has become the main shield on today's islamofascist agenda.

Klevius: What do Republican Trump haters most often have in common? Connections to the islamofascist Saudi dictator family, of course!

Just check for the name Alwaleed bin Talal and you'll find Saudi islamofascism in the end of a financial thread! It was Bush's connections with the Saudi dictator family that hindered a better future for Mideast.

Chris Cillizza, The Washington Post (i.e. a Trump hater himself) - The 10 Republicans who hate Donald Trump the most:
10. The entire early 2015 Republican Party: The fact that Trump is the GOP nominee is all the more surprising because even GOPers hated him just a little more than a year ago. HATED him. As of February 2015, an early poll of potential Iowa GOP caucus-goers found 68 percent disliked Trump. Again, this was Republicans. Similarly, 69 percent of potential New Hampshire GOP primary voters disliked him, according to another poll. This is the kind of thing that made us and others declare that Trump could never win the GOP nomination. We were wrong, but we had our reasons.

9. Tim Miller: Miller was the communications director for Bush's presidential campaign. When that ended, he took on a similar role for Our Principles PAC, the leading anti-Trump super PAC. Through it all, Miller took it as his mission to needle Trump -- on social media and in real life. This exchange -- in the spin room following a March debate -- was particularly awkward.

    .@Timodc and @realDonaldTrump meet again

    — Zeke Miller (@ZekeJMiller) March 11, 2016

Miller is still at it despite it all. Here's what he said when Trump blasted Graham on Friday.

    I hope @LindseyGrahamSC frames this on his wall as a badge of honor. @ScottFarmerSC

    — Tim Miller (@Timodc) May 6, 2016

8. David Brooks: The cerebral New York Times conservative columnist spews less vitriol than many on this list, but he has been one of the longest and most steadfast of the Trump critics within the intellectual wing of the party. Here's Brooks from a mid-March column headlined "No, Not Trump, Not Ever":

    Donald Trump is epically unprepared to be president. He has no realistic policies, no advisers, no capacity to learn. His vast narcissism makes him a closed fortress. He doesn’t know what he doesn’t know and he’s uninterested in finding out. He insults the office Abraham Lincoln once occupied by running for it with less preparation than most of us would undertake to buy a sofa.

That's pretty stinging.

7. Rick Wilson: The ever-quotable GOP media strategist was calling for the party to fight back against Donald Trump long ago -- when everyone was still playing nice and hoping eventually just he'd go away. We'll let Wilson's September Politico magazine piece speak for him: "With the scenery-chewing, oxygen-sucking political black hole that is Donald Trump, I have one question for the 'don’t attack' camp; how’s that working out for you?" And: "You could be living on a diet of lead paint, cheap vodka and Real Housewives and still know more than Trump does about, well, everything."

6. Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.): Amash has been a prominent Ted Cruz supporter, but his criticisms of Trump have gone further than most anyone. In early March, he said, "Trump is not a noninterventionist in foreign affairs; he's a national populist who will adopt any position that advances his political ends." He also said Trump might pose a "bigger threat" to limited government than either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. He was one of the first to label Trump "dangerous."

5. The Bush family: It's not just that Trump destroyed Jeb's chances of being president by labeling him as "low energy." It's that everything Trump represents -- brashness, ego, a disregard for the rules -- runs counter to the famous Bush gentility.  The day before the news broke that Jeb wouldn't vote for Trump, his father and brother made clear they wouldn't be endorsing the real estate mogul. Barbara Bush, the family matriarch, admitted she was "sick" of Trump in February, adding: "He's said terrible things about women, terrible things about the military. I don't understand why people are for him, for that reason."

4. Bill Kristol: The Weekly Standard editor and prominent GOP thinker has wavered a bit on Trump, but seems to have landed in a very anti-Trump space. He has often mused about running a third option, even recently floating Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), who we'll get to below. “I just don't think he has the character to be president of the United States,” Kristol said Wednesday. “It's beyond any particular issue I disagree with him on, or who he picks as VP or something.” Kristol added that Trump “likes rapists” – a reference to Mike Tyson’s endorsement.

3. Mitt Romney: The 2012 GOP presidential nominee accepted Trump’s endorsement four years ago, but he’s got no time for him this time around. Romney delivered a lengthy rebuke of Trumpism after Super Tuesday two months ago, saying “Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud. His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University. He's playing the American public for suckers: He gets a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat.” (But how do you really feel?) Romney now says he won’t attend the GOP convention this year.

2. Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.): Sasse is second on this list only because he’s used less severe language than No. 1. But he’s been no less strident. In fact, he’s the only senator who has long said he will never vote for Trump. And on Wednesday night, he launched a lengthy tweetstorm reinforcing his call for a third option. Sasse is a rising star who has led the #NeverTrump movement from the start. And he's not backing down.

    At this point, I'd happily support a moderate. Would be more conservative than either of the two dishonest liberals now leading the Rs & Ds.

    — Ben Sasse (@BenSasse) May 5, 2016

1. Lindsey Graham: Picking a first among equals when it comes to hating on Trump is no easy task, but the South Carolina senator stands out for two main reasons: His willingness to speak out publicly and how he does so with such flair. "You'll never convince me that Donald Trump is the answer to the problem we have with Hispanics," Graham said in March. "It will tear the party apart, it will divide conservatism, and we're gonna lose to Hillary Clinton and have the third term of Barack Obama." Back in January  Graham said that “if you nominate Trump and Cruz, I think you get the same outcome,” he told reporters. “Whether it’s death by being shot or poisoning doesn’t really matter. I don’t think the outcome will be substantially different.” (He eventually endorsed Cruz.) On the day Trump won the Indiana primary effectively sealed the GOP nomination, Graham tweeted this:

    If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed.......and we will deserve it.

    — Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) May 3, 2016

Klevius comment:  And these kind of guys talk about "charged rhetorics, "sharia scare mongering", "building bridges", "islamophobia" etc.!


No comments: