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 Atheists (i.e. not "believing" in a "god"*). That fact paves the way for Human Rights equality. Religion always means a total or partial reduction of some people's (e.g. women) Human Rights equality.

* Though some people keep calling their own racist/sexist "interpretation" as "god's/allah's will").

Saudi muslim war criminal and Human-rightsophobe is loved by BBC

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?

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.

Friday, June 30, 2017

Klevius considers sharia* muslim women like e.g. Sayeeda Warsi and Mishal Husain as having serious issues with their morality. So here's Klevius' moral tutorial for them.


* If Mishal Husain doesn't support Human Rights violating sharia, but only a "Westernized islam", she'd be better telling the rest of muslims about it. But she keeps silent while hiding behind the world's biggest microphone called BBC from behind which she can spit at Human Rights defending "islamophobes" and accuse the suffering in islamic countries not on islam but on the very same West her family preferred instead of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Why is it that it's only Klevius who wants to vomit when encountering this bigoted hypocrisy - or is it? 



Bigoted and deeply hypocritical (or just racist and Human Righsphobic) muslim sharia women enjoy the West's Human Rights freedom while islam ravages their muslim homelands as it has always done for some 1,400 years. How does it feel for suffering women in islamic countries hearing Mishal Husain bragging about not fasting during Ramadan but instead drinking some alcohol while giving the finger to any suggestion of islamic "dress code" etc., and boasting about how she can lead her life in the West (thanks to Human Rights - not sharia) without thinking about consequences familiar to her muslim sisters in muslim/islamic countries.

Moral and justice - and the mirror reflection called a "monotheist" "God".


As the world is and always has been in an unstoppable motion, every effort to try to stop it isn't only in vain but usually also dangerous. A car has a steering wheel so to follow the world - not vise versa. However, this function also facilitates an individual goal of the trip.

Moral is temporarily and locally fluid, yet always possessing a (moving) center point of gravity. It's against this background one has to understand "the old Greeks" and their analysis of the individual (the social atom), the state, and justice.

Justice is, according to Thrasymachus, established by the strong in order that the weak will serve her/his interests. The strong are therefore better off disregarding justice and serving their own interests.

However,

Would Klevius rape women he considers sexy if given the power to do so without consequences?

or

Would Klevius rob or otherwise hurt people if given the power to do so without consequences?

Klevius doesn't think so. Why? Because Klevius is afraid of being alone in whatever activity. This "cowardice" constitutes the very essence of Klevius being a human among other humans. If you don't understand this as yet please check out the reasoning behind the 'negative Human Rights', i.e. the difference between racist/sexist impositions and the freedom of the individual among other individuals. After that you won't no longer be able to defend islamic sharia or to hide its real essence by talking about "consensual contract" etc. when in reality sharia is part of the whole islam. This latter point is what Theresa May should have addressed in her sharia "investigation" if she really cared about those girls and women who suffer under this deception.

So what about the objection that one could  do unjustice together with others? Impossible, because Klevius would still feel alone, because he would be forced to assume that the others either are ignorant or suffering the same loneliness as Klevius would suffer in a similar context. In this respect there's no difference between islam and a gang.

So what about believing that something non human justifies unjustice? No problem, Klevius is a non-socialist Atheist, not because he has chosen to be so but because there's no alternative to negative Human Rights. Religion is always a lesser good in comparison - in fact, that's the very definition of a "monotheist" religion. And now someone less bright or just evil person might try to dismiss this by talking about "what we don't know about", i.e. what they think is "God" (and which is called the 'unreachable' in Klevius 1992 book Demand for Resources) but which in fact is they themselves (see chapter Existencecentrism in Klevius 1992 book).

The meaning of life is its own definition i.e. uncertainty (Klevius 1981) just like the meaning of football (no dude, I'm not talking about American handball) is its maximization of uncertainty by being the only sport where no tools or hands are allowed when the ball is in play inside the pitch.

Klevius moral formula is a bedrock you can't beat - so why not follow it:

1 There's no absolute and fixed moral.

2 Therefor we have to repeatedly agree on a minimum moral.

3 In doing so we are logically forced to approve of negative Human Rights, i.e. not to impose restricrions other than neccessary in a democracy based on as much freedom as possible for all - no matter of sex, race etc. And, for the truly dumb ones, do note that this definition excludes the freedom to restrict freedom.

No comments: