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.

Sunday, February 05, 2017

BBC (ab)uses muslim children for faking islam's history for the Brits.

US Constitution does not protect a religion that is against the US Constitution

The disgusting face of Human Rights violating sharia islam - and the embarrassing faces of the sheep submitting to its lies.

Acknowledgement: Klevius opposes many of President Trump's views (e.g. about women "dressing like women" or his religiosity). However, when it comes to women's rights he easily outperforms sharia supporting Hillary Clinton and the leader of "women's march" Linda Sarsour. The very fact that President Trump doesn't approve of sharia is what made him President in the first place.

These US women are still waiting for any result from their march half a century ago for The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA).

US women still have a long way to walk towards full equality - and Klevius suggests islamic sharia may not be the best road to choose.

 Two 13 year old muslim girls told British compulsory fee paying listeners that "they get so angry when people don't understand how peaceful and just islam is". 

This happened just minutes before the main news hour, so to reach as many Brits as possibly.

Klevius thinks this is an appalling example of a fake angling of the free world's (based on Human Rights equality) problem with medieval sharia islam in the world of today.

And how come that these girls didn't reveal a trace of islam education? Klevius suggests that they should read the BBC story below from 2009.

Mona Sadiqi (BBC's house sharia muslim whom Theresa May appointed to check sharia courts in UK): Islam's "prophet" was keen on keeping peace".

Klevius: What an ignorant (?!) statement - and completely at odds at everything we know (compare e.g. Hugh Kennedy, Robert G. Hoyland, etc. British scholars about early islam which was all about attacking, looting, enslaving and humiliating non-Arabs/non-muslims (reminds of recent exhibitions of the muslim faith, doesn't it).

Criminalizing criticism against islam under the oxymoron "islamophobia" is the best encouragement for muslim islamofascists.

Trump's measures appear "aggressive" simply because of the enormous divisive gap caused by the Obama administration and many Democrats.

And when it comes to women, how can anyone in her/his sound mind not understand that Human Rights equality is better for them than Human Rights violaing islamic sharia which imposes restrictions on the baisis of sex - the female sex that is.

An ethnic group or ethnicity is a category of people who identify with each other based on similarities, such as common ancestral, language, social, cultural or national experiences.

However, where is the tick box for Finland-Swedish non-socialist Atheist Klevius (leaving male sex - i.e. not the stupid "gender" -, skin color, age, physical fitness, beauty level, fashion etc. aside)?

To even consider criticism of islam being "racist" or a "crime" is in itself a pseudo fascist (or pure ignorance/political opportunism) crime against the most basic of the Human Rights!

And if you want to talk about an islam completely separated from its origin and its violent leader(s) then do it clearly instead of letting evil muslims occupy the same space as "muslims" who support civilized modern Human Rights equality.

Everyone also needs to correct the fake history about islam - especially (apart from its bloodthirsty origin with its slavery, genocides, mass murderes, institutionalized rape campaigns etc.) the disgustingly wrong picture of the myth of the Andalucian "golden age".

Peter Klevius "islamophobic" comments embedded in BBC's 2009 "islamophobic" text:

Do remember that Hugh Kennedy is the guy who agreed with Robert G. Hoyland: "Before Abd al-Malik (caliph 685-705) Muhammad (allegedly dead 632 but see Pourshariati) is never mentioned on any official document whatsoever...".

Klevius explanation: This statement approved by two of UK's foremost experts on early islam, means that the "prophet" Mohammad as understood by muslims, didn't officially exist when islam is supposed to have originated.

Also consider that the hiding place for islam's evil today is in Human Rights violating sharia. And therefore all talk about "islamophobia" in fact only contributes to more islamic evil.

And finally, OIC's sharia declaration is called "islamic human rights" for the sole purpose of further blurring the line and making Human Rights violations "human rights".

British Broadcasting Corporation BBC
Early rise of Islam (632-700)
Last updated 2009-09-03

The Muslim community spread through the Middle East through conquest, and the resulting growth of the Muslim state provided the ground in which the recently revealed faith could take root and flourish.

The military conquest was inspired by religion, but it was also motivated by greed and politics.

    Men fought for their religion, the prospect of booty and because their friends and fellow tribesmen were also doing it.
    Hugh Kennedy, The Armies of the Caliphs: Military and Society in the Early Islamic State, 2001

Peter Klevius: There's absolutely nothing supporting "religious belief" as a main factor - but overwhelming support for enslavement, murder, rape, genocide, colonialism etc. "justified" with religion.

But this mixture of motives combined to form a process that forged Islamic and Arab ideals and communities into a fast-growing religious and political identity.

Peter Klevius: No, it was just the pillaging and greed together with rapid institutionalized growth due to sharia confinement of girls/women, and a "missionary" tactics under the jihad sword - meaning enslavement or slaughter of those who didn't submit (or who weren't even allowed to be anything else than slaves) or couldn't pay the dhimmitude tax. Moreover, early muslims kept themselves isolated in garrisons from the "infidels" they sponged on.

The history problem

There are many accounts from the period about the early Muslim conquests, but much of the material is unreliable and written to present things in a way that glorified the victors and their God...

    As explanations for the great events of the seventh century these are at best partial. This is not to say that the Muslims were not brave and that the conviction that they were doing Allah's will was not significant: it clearly was. But their opponents also had firm ideological commitments and there is no reason to assume that individuals were likely to be any less brave. Despite the great mass of words, the full explanation for Muslim victory still eludes us.
    Hugh Kennedy, The Armies of the Caliphs: Military and Society in the Early Islamic State, 2001

Peter Klevius: Ok Hugh, let Klevius give you "the full explanation" that "eludes" you. Think about it like this: If you rob caravans, oasises etc. and tell the young boys/men there to join in more of the same booty and sex hunting or get murdered, the answer is simple. However, to reach this point of reasoning you need to let go of the "eluding" idea of a "peaceful religion" that only seeks "Allah's justice".

Conversion by conquest?

The early advance of Islam went hand in hand with military expansion - whether it was the motivation for it is difficult to tell, although one recent book suggests that Islam certainly facilitated the growth of Muslim power.

    ...only one possible explanation remains for the Arab success-and that was the spirit of Islam... The generous terms that the invading armies usually offered made their faith accessible to the conquered populations. And if it was a new and upstart faith, its administration by simple and honest men was preferable to the corruption and persecution that were the norm in more civilized empires...
    George F. Nafziger, Mark W. Walton, Islam at War: A History, 2003

Peter Klevius: Not even Hillary Clinton would have called these guys "the deplorables". They were nothing more than ordinary robbers carelessly wrapped in a populist version of deliberately twisted Judaic/Christian texts.

And Islam benefited greatly from the astonishing military success of the armies of Arabia...

    the real victor in the conquests was not the Arab warlords, but Islam itself... Simply put, Islam may have sped the conquests, but it also showed much greater staying power. It is useful to realize that the power of Islam was separate from much and more permanent than that of the armies with which it rode.
    George F. Nafziger, Mark W. Walton, Islam at War: A History, 2003

But the Arab military adventures do not seem to have been intended as a religious war of conversion.

    In the wake of the Ridda wars, and of the Arabs' sudden conquest of most of the Near East, the new religion became identified more sharply as a monotheism for the Arab people.
    As is well known, the Arabs made no attempt to impose their faith on their new subjects, and at first in fact discouraged conversions on the part of non-Arabs.
    Jonathan P. Berkey, The Formation of Islam: Religion and Society in the Near East, 600-1800, 2003

The justification of conquest

Whether or not Islam provided the motivation for early Muslim imperialism, it could be used to provide justification for it - in the same way that it had previously been used to support Muhammad's own actions against his opponents.

The Qur'an has a number of passages that support military action against non-Muslims, for example:

    But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)...
    from Qur'an 9:5

    Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book...
    from Qur'an 9:29

Other passages confirmed the rightness of the ancient military tradition of looting from the defeated, and specified how the booty should be divided.

This is not surprising, as the armies of those days were not like modern armies - but more like a federation of tribal mercenary groups who were not paid and whose only material reward came from the spoils of war.

Peter Klevius: Why this strange remark about "those days"? "Those days" are here again, dude! Thanks to those of today preaching muslims to "follow Mohammad's example". This is the very curse of islam, i.e. that it's tied to its medieval past via its own "prophet" and the Koran.

After Muhammad's death
Islam as a political force

The political status of Islam, and the role Muhammad had given it as a political as well as a religious force, was reinforced in the military conquests.

    A caliph such as Umar seems to have regarded himself, first and foremost, as the leader of the Arabs, and their monotheistic creed as the religious component of their new political identity.
    Jonathan P. Berkey, The Formation of Islam: Religion and Society in the Near East, 600-1800, 2003

The conquest of Arabia

After the death of Muhammad in 632 CE, the young Muslim federation came under strain. Some of the tribes decided that as their loyalty to Islam had been primarily to Muhammad himself, his death allowed them to end their allegiance to Mecca and to Islam.

To make things more difficult, the Prophet had not left clear instructions as to who should lead the community after his death.

Fortunately the community immediately chose the Prophet's close companion and father-in-Law Abu Bakr, as his successor. Abu Bakr was known as the first caliph (from khalifa, the Arabic for successor).

Peter Klevius: Why "fortunately"?! Has BBC asked the opinion of Shia muslims? How does BBC know that pan-Arabist islam has been a less bloody path?

Abu Bakr took swift military action against the communities that wanted to break away. These campaigns, known as the apostasy or ridda wars, effectively consolidated Arabia into a single country under Muslim control within two years.

Expansion in the Middle East

Abu Bakr died in 634 and was succeeded by Umar ibn al-Khattab, the second caliph, who ruled until 644. Umar found himself the ruler of a large unified state, with an organised army, and he used this as a tool to spread Islam further in the Middle East.

Umar's early campaigns were against the Byzantine Empire. Following the decisive Battle of Yarmouk in 636, the former Byzantine states of Syria, Palestine, and Lebanon were conquered by the Muslim armies.

Shortly afterwards the Muslim army attacked the Sassanid Empire in Iraq, gaining a massive victory in 637 at the Battle of Qadasiya, and gradually conquering more and more of Iraq over the next dozen years.

Peter Klevius: Do note BBC's manipulative wordings on how "muslim armies" suddenly turned into a "muslim army" when it faced civilization.

This conquest was made much easier by the weakness of the Sassanid Empire, which was wounded by internal conflicts and a lengthy war with the Byzantine Empire.

Within a few years the Muslims had also conquered parts of Egypt to the South and Anatolia and Armenia to the North.

Peter Klevius: And now has even the "muslim army" disappeared. Only the muslims continue the militant "conquest". 

No comments: