| Peter Klevius' definition of the Holy* (negative & univer- sal) Human Rights (+ fundamentalist test) KLEVUX * Whereas Koran considers only those who submit to it, as real humans, the Holy Universal Human Rights Declaration of 1948 encompasses EVERYONE! Algeidjuborg: Islamic slave rigin of Vikings & Russia! Definition of religion", Definition of feminism IS 1400 YEARS OF ISLAMIC GENOCIDE/SLAVERY/RAPETIVISM THE WORST CRIME EVER AGAINST HUMANITY? Quotes like: "Islam isn't the problem" and "Islam is basically good" and "Islam+Democracy=true", are naive, dangerous, tautological platitudes. Which Islam? The Arabs'? The clergy's? We need freedom FROM religion - not freedom for Pan-Arabic sexist totalitarianism disguised as religion. Negative human rights, for a positive human future, are your only legal protection against positive (imposed) "rights". But see California's new mandatory (and non-critical) Islamic Jihad propaganda! Instead of religion we need to re-attach detached individuals. Slavery and colonialism inherited from Arabic Islam followed Columbus to America, the very same year Spain got rid of its Muslim colonizers! Do you really want to cure your ignorance abt pan-Arabic Islam? Maybe you should then take an easy but informative start by reading: Legacy of Terror: "Islamic roots to convert, kill, or subjugate with humiliation". |
| Negative Human Rights Definition Note that negative human rights apply regardless of race, sex, age, strength, wealth, health etc! (Link to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) 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 text on this page is partly extracted from yet unpublished Homo Filius Nullius - the illegitimate man as well as from other writings by P. Klevius and will be updated when I feel for it. Please, in the meantime have patience with all the bugs and flaws in the texts... All human rights for all. UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights Threats against (negative) Human Rights State socialism (religious and/or secular) constitutes the main, classic and natural threat against (n)HR. (n)HR limit the potential realm of state (or religious) interventions, i.e. contrary to the inborn power in a state bureaucracy that is positive for expansion (see e.g. Angels of Antichrist - kinship vs. social state). Feminism has a symbiotic relation to state socialism (i e state feminism). As a consequence only the doors marked "state socialism" are in practise opened for feminists. Compare the case of Condoleezza Rice. As a strong, black, female republican she represents the "limited state" view which by no means make her acceptable among state bounded feminists. |
| Does every individual, religious or non-religious (also see Definition of religion), including those who deliberately reject your system of belief, have the same value and rights as humans in your system of belief, as in the negative human rights perspective outlined below and in the UN 1948 declaration? If they have everything is just fine, but if they don't, then your system of belief may equal fascist totalitarianism, e.g. like Hitler's National Socialism, Pol-Pot's communism, Arabic Islam etc..A totalitarian system of belief is easily recognizable because it presupposes that you submit to it before you get your rights. This is precisely the opposite to the basic idea of negative human rights, namely that you should always be allowed your freedom to think and act as long as you do not violate negative human rights of others. This freedom hence should be granted above the laws and regulations in that society you happen to live within. No one (in whatever name) should impose such rules on you that your basic negative human rights are violated. Fanatics, no matter if they are communists or religious fundamentalists (and many of those who do not think they are may still be, but can continue after having admitted these negative UN human rights to everyone else) usually refer to the one and only true God, namely their own. So remember, real (negative) human rights can never be part of the system that grants them. If they are, be suspicious! (P. Klevius 2004) What's the difference between freedom and nihilism? As seen in the definition below negative human rights are synonymous with frreedom. However, this should not be confused with nihilism. Whereas nihilism lacks essential values freedom/liberty is the essential value per se. So although human existence may be described as lacking "objective" meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, etc.the "bubble of freedom" (that makes life itself possible - see Demand for Resources), i.e. the essence of negative human rights, grants a truly universal human value. Whereas a nihilist has no objections against bursting a neighbour's bubble, this would be theoretically impossible in a value system based on negative human rights. |
 |
 |
 |
|
| Why do you call yourself a feminist, Judith Butler? EMAH - Peter Klevius' hypothesis on consciousness and AI |
| Fundamentalist test |
| Description of the lunatics:"17-20 year old (Koran readers?) of North-African origin speaking Swedish with a foreign accent". Linda 13, sexually abused to death |
 |
| Screen dump June 13, 2005 |
 |
| Heroic anti-fascist Ayaan Hirsi Ali in Spiegel interview Feb 6, 2006 |
 |
|
|
| Always onsider the dark, true side of "nice" Koran quotes! |
 |