Klevius supports no border on Ireland. Follow the will of the people, i.e. let England leave and let Scotland and Northern Ireland stay. UK is an unconstitutional mess which now wants to leave EU without controlling its border to EU. A proper constitution would have demanded qualified majority in two consecutive elections/votes about such a crucial matter as Brexit - and being aware what the vote is about. The root of the problem is England's mad man Henry 8's colonialization of Ireland and lack of constitution. The preposterous "British" Brexit parody is then spiced with the government's and BBC's use of religious hate mongering etc. In summary UK is an anomaly of countries trying to be a state in a world of federal states united as countries.

Calling criticism of islam "islamophobia" is pure racism and also supports islamic racism and sexism

Klevius "islamophobic" heroine Nawal El Saadawi from Egypt

Klevius "islamophobic" heroine Nawal El Saadawi from Egypt
BBC isn't much interested in anti-semitism, homophobia etc. but uses them as an excuse for its Saudi/OIC supported "islamophobia" smear campaign against Human Rights.

Is BBC's Pakistan rooted and Saudi raised muslim(?) presenter Mishal Husain an "islamophobe" against evil* islam, or an apostate supporting toothless** "islam"? She doesn't fast during Ramadan but rather drinks some alcohol, and doesn't veil herself and says she doesn't feel any threats to her way of life (Klevius: thanks to Human Rights - not sharia islam), well knowing how muslim and non-muslim women suffer in muslim sharia countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia without Human Rights. What would she say to a muslim terrorist asking her if she's a muslim? Isn't it about time to stop this bigoted and hypocritical indirect support of islamofascism that this Saudi/OIC initiated "islamophobia" smear camopaign against Human Rights*** is all about?

* Human Rights equality violating sharia islam
** in line with the anti-fascist, anti-racist and anti-sexist U.N.'s 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration.
*** Socialists have an ideological problem with individual Human Rights, and are therefore vulnerable for islamism (see Klevius 1994).

Cameron's Britisharia Brexit

Cameron's Britisharia Brexit

Politicians against people

Politicians against people

Is UK turning into a militaristic unconstitutional islamofascist rogue state?

Is UK turning into a militaristic unconstitutional islamofascist rogue state?

First UK people voted to join and share borders with EU. Then England voted to leave while Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to stay. And now UK politicians want to leave while keeping the Irish EU border open. UK lacks a modern constitution according to which a constitutional issue has to pass at least two majority votes.

Klevius CV

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).

Forerunners of the next iceage?

Peter Klevius "islamophobia"/Human Rightsphobia test for you and your politicians

Warning for a muslim robot!

BBC means global faked/filtered "news"/"info" - and propaganda for Human Rights violating sharia.

BBC means global faked/filtered "news"/"info" - and propaganda for Human Rights violating sharia.

Klevius: Face it, Wikipedia, BBC etc. fake media - Finland was first in the world with full suffrag

There's no true islam without Human Rights violating sharia (compare OIC)

There's no true islam without Human Rights violating sharia (compare OIC)

PM candidate Rees-Mogg: Germans needed Human Rights, we don't. Klevius: I really think you do.

Peter Klevius 1986 zero budget experimental refugee video

Saturday, January 27, 2018

UK's Human Rights problem: Jacob Rees-Mogg's HR ignorance (?) and Theresa May's sharia recommendation


This man, Jacob Rees-Mogg, wants to rob people in England of their most basic Human Rights



Pic text furthest down on this posting.

Jacob Rees-Mogg wants to skip Human Rights and to prefer trade/sharia finance* with Human Rights violating islamofascists: "I don’t think eternal, everlasting moral principles… go very well with the day-to-day practice of government and legislation."

* Do note that England is more dependent on finance than any other EU country, and that finance is the sector first in line to be practically 100% robotized in the very near future.

Peter Klevius: This statement either means that this homophobic right wing extremist doesn't understand Human Rights at all - or that he's lying in the UK parliament.

Here's Klevius help if it's indeed ignorance he suffers from: 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 the individual. If you still have trouble understanding this, then compare it with traffic rules which are all about the individual, and with no reference to "communities", "collectives", "groups", "religion" etc. And the reason is self-evident for most people, 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.


No matter how "Western", "imperialist" etc. - Atheism (or A(mono)theism) is the only road to moral responsibility and Human Rights equality. Why? Simply because it eliminates "chosen people", "forgivness of sins", and totalitarian sharia racism and sexism, by giving everyone the same "rights space". This is the very foundation of the anti-fascist 1948 Universal Human Rights Declaration.

Why is Wikipedia lying, faking, and misrepresenting islam and Human Rights? How hard could it be to disinguish clear evil from good? Sharia islam imposes limitations on women - Human Rights protects women from such imposed limitations.


Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (i.e. islamofascist sharia)


ARTICLE 6:
(a) Woman is equal to man in human dignity,
and has her own rights to enjoy as well as
duties to perform, and has her own civil
entity and financial independence, and the
right to retain her name and lineage.

(b) The husband is responsible for the
maintenance and welfare of the family.


The anti-fascist 1948 Universal Human Rights Declaration


Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration,
without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion,
political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political,
jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person
belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other
limitation of sovereignty.


It's all about the islamofascist Saudi dictator family. Sounds silly, does it? What could ppossibly such a small power among the world's giants do? Well, consider what the islamofascist Saudi dictator familyreally is. It's not what it looks like because the real power behind it (and all "religion" retorics) is that the islamofascist Saudi dictator family (no dude, it won't help to get rid of the Wahhabi branch) are the "guardians" of islam and that we have lumped together 1.5 Billion muslims, and that those muslims furthermore are lumped together in a judicial sharia prison via Saudi based and steered OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) which more or less now steers UN despite opposing those very basic Human Rights UN was built around. And even this wouldn't be enough was it not for the financially tied support these islamofascists (i.e. Human Rights violators) get from Western business and politicians.

Klevius criticism of islam has nothing to do with what individual muslims might believe but all to do with the collective use of religion for financial, political and military uses.

There's a widespread conflation of individual beliefs and collective religion. Klevius couldn't care less about what individuals believe as long as they respect each other.What bothers Klevius is the faceless "community" in which the individual is lost.


There's no equality between men and Women in islam

A combination of islam and feminism has been advocated as "a feminist discourse and practice articulated within an islamic paradigm (i.e. sharia)". Islamic feminism is defined by islamic "scholars" (i.e. with "PhDs" in islamism using sharia as their pseudiscientific tool) as being anchored with the non-sensical Koran as its central text.

In islam there is a difference between men and women based on physical differences and their roles given by "Allah", i.e. what we usually call essentialism, i.e. the view that categories of people, such as women and men, or heterosexuals and homosexuals, or members of ethnic groups, have intrinsically different and characteristic natures or dispositions - i.e. what we call racism and sexism.

Muslim men are given the "right" to "take care" of "their" wives and kids, and those who do not will suffer the consequences. This is in twisted islam "logic" because men are created physically stronger than women. Islam stresses on the different roles "Allah" (i.e. the human muslim interpretor) has given to men and women because of how "Allah" created them. Men are providers and women are the caregivers at home, given more patience, resilience, and the "ability to forgive more than men".

Klevius concluding comment: Try to get some structure in this craziness. There are sharia muslims and cultural "muslims" (or secular "muslims") on a scale from poor and ignorant muslims to educated Billionary muslims. And they are all lumped together under the muslims/islam title which is then used as a sledgehammer - not the least against the most precious asset we as humans possess, i.e. basic (negative) Human Rights equality against racism and sexism.

Klevius has fought for these rights all his adult life - and did never image a time when he should be called an "islamophobic" "racist" for fighting against racism.


Pic text

Jacob Rees-Mogg  paving the way for racist and sexist religious fascism in
UK Parliament

This man wants to rob people in England of their most basic Human Rights.

Eton boy Jacob Rees-Mogg wants to skip Human Rights and prefer trade with
Human Rights violating islamofascists: "I don’t think eternal, everlasting moral
principles… go very well with the day-to-day practice of government and
legislation."

Peter Klevius: This statement either means that this religious homophobic right wing extremist doesn't understand Human Rights at all - or that he's lying in the UK parliament.

Here's Klevius help if it's indeed ignorance he suffers from: 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 the individual.

   If you still have trouble understanding this, then compare it with traffic
rules which are all about the individual, and with no reference to "communities",
"collectives", "groups", "religion" etc. And the reason is self-evident for most people, 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.

No comments:

Post a Comment