Klevius' democracy tutorial for dummies: A vote for islam/shara/OIC/Muslim Brotherhood etc is not democracy!

The recent statement below seems as a direct copy of what Klevius has repeated like a village fool (sometimes the village fool is also right, isn't he - and the village people the real fools) since 2004

Zuhdi Jasser (President of US Islamic Forum for Democracy): “The desire of every individual before the law, before one law, and before government, is not a monopoly of the West. It’s a humanitarian principle that was embodied in the UN Declaration on Human Rights, the very UN declaration that the Cairo declaration – the Organization of the Islamic Conference countries – refused to endorse because they know that Sharia is not compatible with those ideas. -  I think it’s almost racist to believe Muslims or Arabs have to be relegated to a collectivist, populist Islamist society because that’s what they are. Democracy means more than elections; it means protection of the individual."

Here's Klevius original text from 2004 analyzing the essence of the freedom (negative) part of the 1948 Human Rights Declaration. Enjoy the irresistable logic of Universal Individual Freedom regardless of sex - and don't hesitate to educate yourself about sex segregation, Klevius is probably your most trustworthy tutor:

Human rights are axiomatic rights ascribed to defined human rights possessors. This conceptualization does not recognize sub-human rights such as e.g. children’s rights (implying state interventionism) or women’s rights (implying sex segregation) because that would alter the very foundation of the concept human rights possessor (also see Klevius definition of feminism). Human rights stay in opposition (or as a complement if you like) to democracy. In fact, negative human rights are to be seen as the last resort for the very individual that was created by democracy. The basic negative (and positive) right of democracy is the right to vote. Without that right no democracy. So what makes democracy possible is something (the individual created by his/her right to vote) out of reach for democracy itself. You, not the democratic system, decide how/if to vote. But although democracy is just happy with this single concession that created the individual voting unit, you are not. You, the individual created by democracy, need more space of freedom. You are an invention that has to be protected, not only against your inventor, but also against every potential intruder with totalitarian aims. Negative human rights hence constitute what should not be accessible for democracy, but also what might be accessible for anti-democratic/totalitarian ideologies. The invention of “positive” human rights (so called "Stalin rights", sometimes even deliberately confused with obligations) is, in fact, pure abuse of negative human rights, i.e. a political (or perhaps political/religious) intrusion into the realm of “negative” basic human rights. The state, seen as a democratic representation, or whatever system of ruling, hence should be excluded from dealing with negative human rights issues other than administratively and as protector of (Angels of Antichrist, P. KLevius 1996). The minimum need of conformism for a society to work constitutes the maximum level of Negative Human Rights, i.e. its very definition, and hence also definies fascism as the progressive intrusion above the minimum need of conformism.

However, Zuhdi Jasser, like many with him, misses the most important part, namely that islam has to be abandoned alltogether. Why? Because there is no other islam than the evil parsitic racist/sexist one, i.e. what constituted the original islam, and what made it "successful" in the first place. You don't want to bow in spiritual contemplation towards the worst crime ever against humanity, do you really. And your only problem is that you can't comprehend the enourmity of this evilness simply because it's part of the Judaic tradition that you have been taught and made believe was an essentialy good one (why not ask the Caananites).

Ever wondered about Klevius' bragging that the fight between him and islam "is deeply unfair but at least jslam has many supporters on its rapid road to complete extinction"? The answer resides in the origin (yes, in singular) of islam, i.e. parasitism (robbing, slavery and rapetivism sealed by apostasy ban).

Today even islamists have figured out that islam (in any form) isn't compatible with democracy and Human Rights, simply because islam's very heart and bloodflow is rapetivism, i.e. the ideological and fysiological abuse of girls/women. And these muslim women often internalize this abuse as female patriarchy, much like surviving sex slave women settled in the slave harems of muslim dictators and other slave masters. That's why OIC was created by the Saudi "guardians of islam", together with sharia wrapped in the treatcherous title Islamic "human rights", and legalized via a sleeping UN.