Are you or your representative(s) for or against basic Human Rights equality?
Peter Klevius global morality can only be challenged by violating the most basic of Human Rights.
Everything Peter Klevius writes (or has written) is guided by the anti-sexist. anti-racist, and anti-fascist Universal* Human Rights declaration of 1948. In other words, what is declared immoral and evil is so done as measured against the most basic of Human Rights (the so called "negative" rights - i.e. the rights of the individual not to be unnecessarily targeted with restrictions and impositions). Unlike the 1948 Universal Human Rights (UHR) declaration, islam denies Human Rights equality to women and non-muslims. And violation of such basic Human Rights can't be tolerated just by referring to "freedom of religion".
* This means accepting everyone - without exception due to e.g. sex, religion, lack of religion, "security" etc. - as equal in Human Rights. The individual is protected by negative Human Rights, but of course not against substantiated legal accusations - as long as these are not produced as a means that violates the basic Human Rights (compare "not necessary in a free, democratic country"). The legislator may not produce laws that seek to undermine some individuals rights. This also includes e.g. "freedom of religion", i.e. that this freedom doesn't give the right to unfree others, or cause others to be in an inferior rights position. If by islam you mean something that fully adheres to basic Human Rights equality, then you aren't targeted by Peter Klevius islam criticism. However, if you mean islam accepts violations of the most basic of Human Rights, then you may also call Peter Klevius an "islamophobe" - and he will be proud of it. And when it comes to "security" it can't mean "offending" opponents to basic Human Rights.
This is why any effort to twist or accuse the writings of Peter Klevius as "islamophobia" etc. can only be made from a standpoint against these basic Human Rights. As a consequence, no body of authority can therefore accuse, hinder etc. Peter Klevius without simultaneously revealing its own disrespect for these Human Rights. Conversely, Peter Klevius can not accuse anyone who agrees on these rights - i.e. this leaves e.g. "islamophobia" etc. accusations against Peter Klevius without merit.
Every effort against these basic Human Rights is treason against a country calling itself free and democratic.
Some basic facts to consider about Klevius* (except that he is super intelligent - which fact, of course, would not put you off if you're really interested in these questions):
* The son of one of Sweden's best chess-players and an even more intelligent Finnish mother. He was mentored by G. H. von Wright, Wittgensteins's successor at Cambridge. However, G H v Wright sadly didn't fully realize back then (1991) the true power of the last chapter, Khoi, San and Bantu, in Klevius book. Today, if still alive, he would surely see it.
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).
Theresa May robs EU citizens of their Human Rights
Support Klevius' Atheist anti-fascism against islamofascism
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".
Sunday, March 21, 2010
The freedom part of the 1948 Human Rights Declaration which is lacking in Sharia/islamic "human rights"
The individual is the basis for democracy. However, democracy is collective. Therefore the rights of the individual is the "constitution" on which democracy is based. This constitution is called (negative) Human Rights, i.e. the negative obligation to abstain from interfering with
If you still have trouble understanding this, then compare it with traffic rules which are all about the individual, and with no reference to "community",
"collective", "group", "religion" etc. And the reason is self-evident, i.e. that every individual should have the same right to proceed within the limitations
the flow of traffic itself may actuate. And there are no "obligations", "duties" or restrictions dependent on sex.
There are no Human Rights if you designate different humans with different "rights"
Remember to read Definition of Religion and Origin of Vikings (with an important reference to Great Zimbabwe) after having read this! Only then, when you have realized that that the unspeakable but undeniable historical & ideological connection between islam & enslavement (islamic Sharia finance during more than a Millennia) has to be spoken, you can throw away the Koran - or continue to be a racist/sexist bigot hypocrite.
The Negative Human Rights constitute what makes islam impossible in an Enlightened world where women are theoretically equal to men. Islamic theory is the very opposite, namely that women ought to be different & sex segregated. As you might understand, although theory doesn't practise, theory does invite practice. Moreover, a theory based on segregation will never let you drop segregation unless you drop the theory!
Negative Human Rights Definition
Note that negative human rights apply regardless of race, sex, age, strength, wealth, health etc!
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 (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.
Intellectual copyright for everything above belongs to Klevius. If you like it you like Klevius, if you hate it you either cheat yourself or simply grasp your pencil & make an even more intelligent comment/objection to it. However, due to Klevius probably much better understanding of the relevant theoretical background of sex segregation, feminism, psychoanalysis* etc, start by reading From Klevius without love & due relevant links!
Origin of Vikings
* Psychoanalysis is West's "islam" - see e.g. From Freud to bin Laden, & Klevius psychosocial Freud timeline!