People in UK-land (especially women) will loose their Human Rights after Brexit - while sharia prevails in UK, and UK citizens in EU are protected by the European Court of Human Rights. Brexit was meant to protect UK from muslim invasion via Turkey's proposed visa free deal with Merkel. Even the possibility of temporary membership in ECHR (in case of a deal) isn't enough - especially considering UK will be out of reach of the European Court of Justice.

US loosing the tech war - and starting a real one?

US loosing the tech war - and starting a real one?

Do Americans and Pompeo share the Saudi hate against Shia muslims?

BBC supports muslim persecution of Christians etc.

BBC supports muslim persecution of Christians etc.

Saudi investigating Saudi double tap airstrikes aided by US and UK

In the 8 October 2016 Sana'a (Yemen) funeral bombing by Saudi Arabia 155 people were killed and at least 525 more wounded when two airstrikes, about three to eight minutes apart, hit the packed Al Kubra hall. US and UK happy with the Saudis investigating it.

This Swedish muslim MP wants to criminalize Peter Klevius islamophobia. Really!

West's indulgence of islamofascism (sharia) has made its boasting against China about "democratic values" empty. The risk of you being stabbed, raped etc. by a hateful jihadi is created by your political leaders, BBC etc. - who also have arranged so it's not even called a hate crime.

BBC squeezes in Eng-land cricket in every news report - while UK-land plays borderless Brexit - and football is divided in four UK-lands, Welsh, English, Irish and Scottish players, and two top leagues with whatever players!? Confusing? Not even close to the "British" measuring decaphobia. English isn't "British", it belongs to the world. British stands for imperialism, colonialism, slavery and cooperation with islamofascists.

Peter Klevius stands for these "stops" and due huge implications - all shame on him if you can prove him wrong (click links if you need to educate yourself before saying something stupid): Stop using the misleading 'gender' instead of sex (sociology)! Stop islam's abuse of Human Rights (jurisprudence)! Stop saying humans came "out of Africa" (anthropology)! Stop talking about "consciousness" when you don't know what you're talking about (philosophy/ai).

Islam is the problem - China is the solution.

If China today became a full democracy (and even accepting full Human Rights) - nothing would change, because it's not the rulers but the high tech industry in China that outperforms the West. And unlike islam, China doesn't have tenets against Human Rights. However, islam is tied to its supremacist and sexist sharia tenets (OIC) which deny women full Human Rights - just the opposite to what is said in the anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration from 1948. If islam would accept full Human Rights it would not be islam anymore. China's economic expansion has been a non-aggressive big contributor to wealth around the world, but when China reached out its Belt and Road hand, then the West bit it and supported extremist muslim terrorists. Islam induced hate crimes and terror are based on a shared evil ideology (a global muslim collective rather than as nationals, which inspire and hail each other) - but because most are committed by lonely or gang muslims, and because police and media are told muslim "ethnicity" ought not to be revealed, then the public are kept unaware of most muslim hate crimes. How come that evilness is protected? The answer is in the question. To hide its original evilness. And how come that BBC and UK politicians dare to support islamofascism in Kashmir? Freedom from sharia for women in Kashmir!

* UK PM Theresa May opposed Human Rights.

Peter Klevius: BBC supports the islamofascist Saudi dictator family's strategic use of supremacist islam which has spred muslim hate all over the world's streets, institutions etc. (and usually not correctly, if at all, reported by BBC which instead doesn't hesitate to give long coverage of "alternative news" that better suits its propaganda) - while muslim terrorist organizations keep it within muslim territories. So if true Salafists became the "gurdians of islam's holy places" then that would mean less muslim terror elsewhere. And less to cover up for BBC. How big a contributor to the suffering of islamic supremacist hate crimes has BBC's fake (and lack of) info been? Will we in the future see BBC in an international court accused of crimes against humanity? As it stands now the spill over effect of BBC's cynical support of proxy evil is stained in blood and rape etc. over innocent people. And if true Salafists took over in muslim countries, they would quickly become non-muslim countries. A better option than today's prolonged suffering caused by the hopeless effort to "adapt" a medieval slavery ideology to a modern world based on everyone's Human Rights equality. And if it's so important to keep islam in name only - then islam would loose all of its racist and sexist "we and the other" appeal anyway.

Why is BBC aiding islamofascism?

Why is BBC aiding islamofascism?

UK's islamic and Sinophobic Parliament

UK's islamic and Sinophobic Parliament

Statues of football player Nilla Fischer and Caroline Seger vandalized in Sweden

Statues of football player Nilla Fischer and Caroline Seger vandalized in Sweden

Why didn't islam go to the moon?!

Why didn't islam go to the moon?!

Sex segregation/apartheid (aided by religion and poverty) means over-population.

Sex segregation/apartheid (aided by religion and poverty) means over-population.

Islam (represented in UN by Saudi based and steered OIC and its sharia called “islamic human rights”) is against Human Rights!

Sweden’s Supreme Court has found a man guilty of rape for having sex without explicit consent from a "teenage woman" who had been passive and gave no clear expression that she wanted to participate in the sexual acts. Lack of a partner’s spoken agreement or any other clear approval can hence be considered rape. However, islamic sharia gives a muslim man the "right" to have sex with wives and and concubines his "right hand possesses" (e.g. "infidel" girls/women). The neo-islamist rational (original openly supremacist islam didn't need one) is that "it satisfies the sexual desire of the female". Peter Klevius wonders if Swedish Courts will accept this reasoning - perhaps only for muslims?!

Peter Klevius also wonders whether BBC's leading presenter, the alcohol drinking and not Ramadan fasting, Pakistan rooted and Saudi raised muslim, Mishal Husain, approves of sharia?


UK introduced face recognition after for many years accusing Chinese for having it. Peter Klevius wonders how this fits UK's face covered muslims and others who utilize it?

In UK both Tories and Labour are against "islampohobia" - so apparently also against Human Rights? And if not, then they are "islamophobic" after all. So how do you vote for someone critical of islam's Human Rights violations if parties don't allow "islamophobia"? Is it democracy?

What do BBC and Jeremy Hunt have in common? Both support the islamofascist murderer and war criminal Mohammad bin Salman.

Peter Klevius: Girls' emancipation needs more football and less cricket, netball etc.

BBC's cricket propaganda is a slap in the face of young girls who need equally much moving around and spatial skills as young boys. However, there's a huge sex segregation in females motivation and access to football - not only the world's by far most popular physical sport, but also the only one that doesn't use tools or hands to handle the ball, and which makes all participants moving most of the time even without the ball. Moreover, the very nature of the sport forces participants to a never ending series of spatial and strategic challenges - with or without the ball and even while playing alone. So why is BBC so hostile to the Queen of sports (the "beautiful game") that is perfect for the physical and spatial development of girls - and in the face of the football loving majority who has to pay compulsory fees (and paying extra for football channels) to this faking regime propaganda media that uses stiff and lifeless colonial cricket for neo-colonial purpose?! England banned football for girls/women already 1921 and suggested cricket, land hockey and netball instead - almost like today except it's not called a ban. And what about the laughable notion of a "world cup" in cricket?! When is the "world cup" in caber tossing between Gotland and Scotland?

BBC, the world's biggest fake/selective news site - with an evil agenda

BBC, the world's biggest fake/selective news site - with an evil agenda

The murderous war criminal, Saudi muslim "custodian of islam" (and OIC) "prince" MBS is OK but Human Rights defender Peter Klevius isn't. Why?! Because the former isn't an "islamophobe", dude!

Stop US global bullying! What moral right does US have trying to dominate Earth and space? "God"?! Or the Saudi murderer and mass murderer "prince"?! Hasn't US sucked out enough already from the rest of the world? A global dollar manipulation favoring US and paid by the rest. A US marked global license and patent imperialism - and Android. Is Internet next?

26 June 2019: BBC's leading presenter, the alcohol drinking and not ramadan fasting Pakistan rooted muslim, Mishal Husain (brought up in Saudi Arabia), worried about Boris Johnson not having cricket as his hobby.

25 June 2019: BBC's leading presenter, the alcohol drinking and not ramadan fasting muslim, Mishal Husain (brought up in Saudi Arabia), sounds desperate when trying to smear Johnson. Is it because Boris 2016 was critical against the Saudis while foreign minister and 2018 critical of muslim women packed in burqas etc.?
BBC thinks the militaristic Saudiphil Jeremy Hunt "is a safer option" as UK PM. What about you?

BBC News 8:00 AM 23 June 2019: Johnson financially unfit because he spilled wine on a couch.

BBC  News 8:00 AM 23 June 2019: Johnson financially unfit because he spilled wine on a couch.
Is the Saudi "custodian of islam" a muslim - and is the very question "islamophobic", "muslimophobic" or "Saudiphobic"?
Why is BBC comparing Saudi with China?! China's leader isn't a murderer, war criminal, and spreader of terror on the streets! "If we drop the Saudis then we can't deal with China either." Really?! BTW, 'Diversity' means different/conflicting whereas its antonym stands for similar/friendly.

Blinked by BBC's fake "news" which instead boost militaristic confrontation and the smearing of China: The Saudi war criminal "custodian of islam" who murdered Khashoggi is now the world's new Hitler. However, unlike Hitler's Germanic language imperialism, bin Salman's Arabic language imperialism is added by a totalitarian imperialism due to the fact that he is a muslim and as such represents the totality of islam (inc. the Saudi based and steered all muslims world organization O.I.C.'s sharia declaration against Human Rights). Peter Klevius has for long pointed out that we need to distinguish between Human Rights obeying "muslims" and "extremist" muslims, but for some reason they are all bundled as 'muslims'.

Your choice: China high tech or US/UK bombs?

Your choice: China high tech or US/UK bombs?

US puppet empire UK's Jeremy Hunt wants to double spending on militaristic meddling for US

US puppet empire UK's Jeremy Hunt wants to double spending on militaristic meddling for US

Racist Sinophobia disguised as "security" while muslim terror spreading Saudi murderous dictator and war criminal is "an important security ally"!?

Peter Klevius evolution formula

Peter Klevius serious questions to you "out of Africa" believer! Ask yourself: How come that the oldest primates came from outside Africa; that the oldest great ape divergence happened outside Africa; that the oldest bi-pedals are from outside Africa; that the only australopithecines with a Homo skull lived as far from Africa you can get; that the oldest truly modern looking skull is from eastern China; that the oldest Africans are mongoloid; that the latest genetic mix that shaped the modern human happened in Siberia and is traced to SE Asia; that the earliest sophisticated art is found from Iberia to Sulawesi - but not in Africa; that the oldest round skulled Homo sapiens in sub-Saharan Africa are much younger than similar skulls in Eurasia; that we lack ancient enough DNA from Africa, etc. etc.? Peter Klevius theory answers all these questions - and more.

Peter Klevius evolution formula.

Existence-centrism (Peter Klevius 1986)

When muslim terrorists mass murder more than 100 in Mali, BBC gives it less time (2 min.) than an item on animal cruelty, Russian journalist arrest etc. in a 45 min "news" program!

Read this: The "out of Africa" hoax is worse than the Piltdown hoax - and much bigger and more worrisome. When will “out of Africaphobia” be criminalized?

Nothing in Primate/Haplorhini evolution came out of Africa - not even Africa (it was disconnected due to tectonics).



A “definition” of “islamophobia” ought to be balanced with a definition of muslim Human Rightsphobia.

"Diversity" without basic (negative) Human Rights is like having a car without steering - dangerous.

In its senseless and continuous "islamophobia" ranting BBC says to be 'muslim' is the same as to be 'English'. Klevius thinks not. A 'muslim' is one who wittingly or unwittingly adheres to what historical records show being the most evil enslaving ideology ever around (from a Human Rights perspective). And Klevius doesn't count as real muslims those who call themselves "cultural muslims" for the purpose of benefiting from a certain "ethnicity", or those who against their will are trapped in muslimhood because of the evil apostasy tenet in islam. And islamic "modesty" attires is a protected way of calling other women "whores".

The most serious threat to our Human Rights is the hate campaign against "islamophobia" which really is directed against Human Rights.


As long as most muslims in the world are ruled by a sharia (e.g. Saudi based and steered OIC) that gravely violates the most basic of Human Rights, and as long as the most devout muslims do the same by simply following original evil (according to Human Rights) islam, you can't legislate against criticism of islam without simultaneously legislating against Human Rights. Why do you want to hinder muslims from apostating? It's a Human Right! Islam should not be allowed to traumatize apostates. Authentic original (e.g. Wahhabi/Salafi) islam doesn't fit in the boots of "Euro-islam" and Human Rights.

Klevius suggests the UK baby should be named Muhammad. After all, according to BBC, the Queen is related to him and all politicians love islam. And several hadiths describe him as white (one even proposing the killing of anyone who says he was black). Only problem being that he then may be described as a white supremacist. Luckily the baby, according to BBC, is “mix-race”.

Klevius to EU voters: If you respect Human Rights - don’t vote for anyone who supports the islamofascist Saudi dictator family who spreads Human Rightsphobia via the Saudi based and steered OIC’s world sharia!

And if you respect your Earthly home – don’t support a hate ideology that encourages over-population and sex apartheid. We don’t need more workers because the most profitable sectors have the least jobs – a trend that AI accelerates.

No true muslim can be fully human.

Why? Because islam's dividing the world in muslims and (not fully human) "infidels" makes it impossible. Only by fully accepting the basic (s.c. 'negative') Universal Human Rights equality - which islam can't accept (see e.g. Saudi based and steered all muslims world Ummah sharia organization OIC) without committing ideological suicide - can we meet every human as basically equal, in the same way as we can give every road-user a basic equality in traffic, i.e. we have traffic sense. So Klevius asks muslims whether they have "traffic sense"? And for all the rest of you - to be 'human' in a global sense can only be achieved by giving every human you meet basic equality - no matter how alien that human might feel to you. Because every human has the right to be "alien" and there can't even be any alternative to this as long as we don't accept brainwashed totalitarianism (see e.g. Klevius 1996 paper Angels of Antichrist). This is the only way to meaningfully talk about 'humankind'. And to alien hunters Klevius says you probably meet them every day already.

So when BBC and other fake media talk about xenophobia against muslims, they actually contribute to spread xenophobia themselves.

A "good muslim" is one who suppresses and distorts original islam so to fit Human Rights. However, some just pretend to do so - and some just continue hating the "infidel".

Peter Klevius to Greta Thunberg: Saudi salafist oil funded supremacist islam or Chinese Taoist (kindness) high tech - which one do you think is the real threat to the people and environmment in EU and the world?

Ultimate bigotry and hypocrisy – militant spying and war mongering 5 Eyes instead of true 5G?

Saudi hate spreading antennas (Salafi/Wahhabi mosques etc.) or Chinese world leading 5G tech? No one knows the amount of street etc. victims of Saudi hate because when the haters are muslims their attacks are not recorded as hate crimes. If a Chinese would attack shouting 'Tao' it would most certainly be classified as a hate crime. However, chances are slim that it ever occurs compared to hate attacks made by muslims.

Arabic (not "white" etc.) islam has been the by far biggest enslaver throughout 1,400 years. Islamic language imperialism via the Koran. And all races have been complicit in the muslim Koranic slave trade. So how do you distinguish between descendants of slaves or slave traders? Will Cambridge check today's "Caribbeans", "Africans" etc. about it? Klevius warns there might be unwelcomed surprises, e.g. that many of those who come to Europe are actually descendants of slave trading black Africans on whose wealth lineage top they are better privileged than those from slave lineages. And what about "whites" like Klevius who were cut off from any lineages? Should the skin color Klevius was born with be used against him because of the privileges of others with the same skin color? Same question may be asked about sexism. Klevius doesn’t see it fair to blame him for male sexism just because he happens tp be male, do you!

The real threat is the US led Saudi supporting spy organization 5 Eyes, which 1) tries to block superior tech, and 2) uses China as a scapegoat for US/UK privacy breaches. It's not China but US that wants to control you! So "securing 5G from Chinese influence" actually means giving US/UK a technical space for spying/influencing etc. In short, trying to hinder US/UK customers from accessing the best technology while spying on them.

BBC collected a UKIP hating mob to shout "islamophobia" against islam criticism.


However, the very same BBC also willfully misleads people about islam so that most people in UK are completely unaware of that Saudi based and steered OIC and its extreme Human Rightsphobia is a world guide for (sharia) muslims. Moreover, BBC's top presenter (Mishal Husain) who seems to be muslim in name only (drinking alcohol, not fasting on Ramadan, no muslim attire, no Haji, no sharia, etc) so to dupe the public about islam.

The 1948 Human Rights declaration was created to protect against fascism. Accepting islam without a clear border against sharia that violates the most basic Human Rights, allows space for islamofascism (i.e. original supremacist islam).

However, the new fascist mob is shouting "islamophobia" because islam can't comply with it (compare Saudi based and steered OIC's sharia declaration against Human Rights). This smear is then "enhanced" by connecting it to murderers, Nazis, right wing extremists etc. Islam's sharia sexism and racist supremacism is the problem - so why is addressing it "bad"?!

BBC is also keen on silencing the only truly free media, i.e. bloggers etc. social media.

The crystal clear connection between the surge in knife, rape etc. attacks and islam - and its custodian, the islamofascist Saudi dictator family - is desperately silenced by BBC and politicians (BBC now tries to cover this up by airing long programs about "conventional" knife crimes instead). This means they are directly complicit, doesn't it. Klevius suggests boycotting BBC and Saudi bribed politicians. They constitute the worst security threat.

Muslim terrorists get legal aid to stay in UK - EU nationals don't!

The best explanation to the surge in knife crimes since 2015 is the Islamic State's exhortation to street jihad.

However, the police don't record hate crimes as muslim - other than if directed against muslims. And do consider that IS and the Saudi dictator family both rest on the same Salafi islam that most young true muslims in the West follow. Following Salafism (etc. true muslimhood) involves distinguishing muslims from others, to show that one only belongs to islam and that true muslims ought to be strangers to the "infidels". When Klevius sees a muslim woman in burqa, veil etc. he thinks that's a supremacist and rapist attitude towards other women. And certainly contempt of Human Rights.

UK/BBC's extreme double standard re. the islamofascist Saudi dictator family and China.

Klevius: How come that islamofascist tech poor Saudi property-, media-, infra structure- etc. 'vulnerable' investments and supremacist hate spreading mosques, is considered no threat to UK but instead an 'important ally' while China, which doesn't tick any danger boxes, is deliberately painted by BBC propaganda as the worst threat? And how come that China's peaceful Belt and Road spreading of wealth and high tech is considered worse than UK's continuing militaristic and (un)security meddling within an EU that UK decided to leave for the purpose of EU not meddling within UK?!

UK continues even after Brexit to use EU citizens as bargaining chips by placing their rights in an unsafe statutory instrument instead of in the law.

Stop security cooperation with UK whose close connection to the the suspected murderer, war criminal and islamic terror spreading islamofascist Saudi custodian of islam, Mohammad bin Salman, constitutes the by far worst threat against the security of people in EU! Moreover, sharia islam (the only real islam for real muslims) which is a racist and sexist supremacist ideology that violates Human Rights, is supported by UK.

Don't let haters and Human Rightsphobes get away with it by calling themselves 'believers'!

Either religion is (grades of) supremacist hate and sexism and you better become an Atheist (and therefore universal human) - or you keep your "beliefs" for yourself. In traffic you can think what you want about other people, but you can't drive over them!

You muslim should be ashamed of calling Human Rights defenders "islamophobes"

- and take responsibility for your own supremacist sharia, represented by Saudi based and steered all muslims world organization OIC, which violates the most basic Human Rights! And do note the difference between universal impositions and universal freedom! Full respect of the other rests on accepting her/his freedom. This is the only way of being universally human.

Islam is an evil* supremacist and divisive ideology - why isn’t this told by BBC, schools etc.?

* weighed against the anti-fascist, anti-supremacist, anti-racist and anti-sexist Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948 that all civilized people are supposed to build on. Islam doesn't fit these goals, so OIC (the legal world Umma steered from and by the Saudi dictator family) decided to replace them with medieval racist, sexist and supremacist sharia.

Article 24 of the Saudi based and steered OIC's sharia declaration (CDHRI) states: "All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia."

Article 19 says: "There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Sharia." CDHRI also fails to guarantee freedom of religion, in particular the right of each and every individual to abandon their religion, as a "fundamental and non-derogable right".

Article 10 of the Declaration states: "Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion or to Atheism." Since in Islamic society all reasons for conversion away from Islam are considered to be essentially either compulsion or ignorance, this effectively forbids conversion away from Islam.

CDHRI denies women equality with men by imposing "own rights" and "duties to perform".

A global world is only possible under the guidance of (negative – i.e. individual freedom from racist/sexist impositions) Human Rights - as outlined in the original anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948. It excludes any religious or other supremacist tenets or impositions on the individual.

Due to the above and due to the West (politicians and media) having locked itself in with the islamofascist Saudi dictator family (the custodians of islam) we now have a deficit of (negative) Human Rights education – but massively more religious propaganda (e.g. Saudi spread “islamophobia” smear) against these rights. Against this background it's utmost hypocrisy to point against wealth spreading China while supporting islamic hate, terror and war crimes spreading hegemonic Saudi dictator family.

This Viking tells you a lesson you didn't get in school, but you really need.

Klevius 1992-2010: From tropical SE-Asia to cold and protein/fat rich North Eurasia to global human

Peter Klevius was the first to connect the big Jinniushan woman with small mongoloid Khoisan (1992) and SE-Asia with the new brain setup due to island dwarfing (2004).

"Out of Africa" is no longer terminally ill - it's equally dead as Monty Python's parrot. So why do media and some anthropologists keep babbling when faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Not even all tricks in the book (like e.g. the spurious stretching of what counts as "anatomically modern human" - i.e. incl. long skulled species) can save OoA. But the simplest way of understanding human evolution is to place it where all primates originally came from, i.e. SE Asia and its volatile tropical archipelago which could do evolutionary tricks the African continent couldn't. The oldest "Africans" are the mongoloid Khoisan. However, no one can become mongoloid (i.e. cold adapted) in Africa. This means they must originally have come from northern Eurasia - just as their look-alikes, e.g. Shompen and South American natives. Khoisan population is extremely small and, except for Pygmies, most "Africans" entered the continent within the last 10,000 years. Khoisan are mongoloid together with e.g. Shompen in SE Asia, and tribes in South America.

Do you support Human Rights or sharia?

If you don't like Klevius (very few do) you may check if it's him or the anti-racist, anti-sexist and anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration you can't digest - but which Klevius stubbornly keeps feeding you.

Iran, Corbyn, bin Laden's son etc. - it's more about protecting BBC's poster boy, war criminal and state terrorist Mohammad Salman, than protecting people on the streets from Saudi exported racist islamic hate terror.

Saudi and BBC hate propaganda against Iran and Shia muslims behind attacks on Corbyn's "anti-Semitism"? BBC's inflammatory and offensive hate mongering use of the oxymoron "anti-Semitic" (reinforced by "islamophobia") protects Semitic (Arab/Sunni/Saudi) muslims from criticism while excluding non-Semitic Shia muslims (e.g. Iran). BBC also use "Asians" when they mean non-Semitic former British Asian muslims, i.e. again not incl. Iranian Shia muslims. Why? Because BBC's poster boy Mohammad Salman hates Shia. England also got a massive problem with "Asian" (sic - read 'mostly Sunni muslim') sex offenders. But no one dares to ask if islam's hate teaching of taking "infidel" sex slaves - and "muslim sensitivity" policies - may encourage it?


The world's biggest fake news producer, UK state media BBC, 20190221 gave the Japanese asteroid landing just a few seconds but managed to squeeze in the fake "info" that "it is the first attempt to bring back samples to Earth" (Cathy/PM 17:00) when the previous Japanese sond already 2010 brought back samples from an other asteroid. No one else has managed to do this except the Japanese. This is in line with BBC's usual racist attitude against Japan and China.

Klevius wonders whether BBC/UK government count Islamic State muslims who can't be directly tied to atrocities, as "peaceful muslims"?

Klevius wonders why semitic attacks on Jews are called "antisemitism"?

WARNING about "Five Eyes" and BBC, and their "close ally", the hate, terror and war crimes producing islamofascist "custodian of islam", the Saudi dictator family!
If you prefer peace, democratic non-fake information and positive development - ask your politicians to avoid US/UK's war mongering militarism and the world's biggest state propaganda tool BBC, which constitutes the most serious threat to free information. UK government is pushing for neo-British imperialist militarist meddling and intervention around the world - and making its propaganda tool BBC "the custodian of fact checks", i.e. a wolf among sheep.

Theresa May wants to leave EU. That should include UK militarist meddling within EU as well. Leave means leave! Don't let UK and its "close ally" the islamofascist Saudi dictator family contaminate EU citizens lives. Don't let the insidious spy organization Five Eyes spy on EU citizens and their leaders and parliamentarians. Don't let BBC's or islam's glossy surface (i.e. normal news/info and non-sharia muslims respectively) lure you to not see the evil core. Klevius is the opposite. WYSIWYG. No hidden evil core, just defense of your (whoever you are) basic Human Rights that islam wants to deny you.

UK government wants to force EU to put a border on Ireland - so it can blame EU for something UK-Brexit caused. Brexiters want to eat the cake while still having it. Unconstitutional UK has become a cancer that hopes to survive by creating metastases in line with old fashioned British imperialism.

Klevius islam logic: If I is SI and SI is not HR then I is not HR.
For those who don't understand formal logic: If islam is sharia islam and sharia islam violates Human Rights, then islam violates Human Rights.

Theresa May & Co defend sharia by saying "it's just a a contract". This is utter lie because any meaningful islam demands sharia and stepping out of the "contract" is the worst sin you can commit as a muslim (s.c. apostasy). Theresa May's and others deception is built on the mass of secular muslims, i.e. not true muslims. And these "secular muslims" get away with it as long as there's not enough true muslims to demand sharia all over the pitch - as yet. Moreover, Saudi led sharia finance demands sharia compliance - as does Saudi based and steered OIC, all muslims world organization.

Klevius supports "secular muslims" - Theresa May supports sharia muslims.

Fake journalism steered by Saudi islamofascism

Fake journalism steered by Saudi islamofascism

Theresa May & Co and state media BBC play with race cards

Theresa May  & Co and state media BBC play with race cards

UK is drowning in sharia islamofascism while BBC is silent

UK is drowning in sharia islamofascism while BBC is silent

US/UK is a security risk - not China. Tell your EU politician!

US/UK is a security risk - not China. Tell your EU politician!

Klevius "islamophobic" heroine Nawal El Saadawi from Egypt

Klevius "islamophobic" heroine Nawal El Saadawi from Egypt

Politicians in the worst interest of the people

Politicians in the worst interest of the people

Anti Human Rights muslim or not?

When Klevius writes 'islamofascist' it should always be understood as islamic default tenets (e.g. OIC's world sharia) that are gravely opposite UN's anti-fascist 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration. So Klevius suggests every muslim to openly declare if they oppose the most basic Human Rights or not. This is particularly important when it comes to media people and politicians who say they are muslims but hesitate on this most crucial issue.
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.

Britisharia Human Rightsphobia

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

Calling critics of islam "islamophobes" is pure racism and also supports islamic racism and sexism

Calling critics of islam "islamophobes" is pure racism and also supports islamic racism and sexism
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).

British militarist neo-colonialism

British militarist neo-colonialism

UK sells weapons to Saudis - and smears peaceful China who can do better weapons themselves.

UK sells weapons to Saudis - and smears peaceful China who can do better weapons themselves.

Why is Theresa May excused for her secret ties with islamofascism?!

Why is Theresa May excused for her secret ties with islamofascism?!

Saudi induced muslim attack on UK Parliament. How many elsewhere? And what about Saudi/OIC's sharia

Saudi induced muslim attack on UK Parliament. How many elsewhere? And what about Saudi/OIC's sharia

A "close ally" of the islamofascist Saudi dictator family mixes OIC sharia with Human Rights

A "close ally" of the islamofascist Saudi dictator family mixes OIC sharia with Human Rights

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.

Rabbi Sacks: "BBC runs Britain." Klevius: Pro-sharia BBC meddles worldwide.

Rabbi Sacks: "BBC runs Britain." Klevius: Pro-sharia BBC meddles worldwide.

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family criminalizes Human Rights and calls them "islamophobia".

Are you or your representative(s) for or against basic universal 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.

Saudi terror, war crimes, sharia - and "islamophobia" smear campaign against Human Rights.

Racist UK Government and BBC

Racist UK Government and BBC

The world's most dangerous war criminal is the guardian of islam's holy places and OIC

The world's most dangerous war criminal is the  guardian of islam's holy places and OIC

UK's sharia ties to Saudi islamofascism threaten EU (and UK) security

UK's sharia ties to Saudi islamofascism threaten EU (and UK) security

Warning for BBC's faked "news" and support for Human Rights violating Saudi/OIC islamofascism

Warning for BBC's faked "news" and support for Human Rights violating Saudi/OIC islamofascism

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

Saudi war criminal "prince" "reforms" islam to fit Saudi islamofascism against Human Rights

Saudi war criminal "prince" "reforms" islam to fit Saudi islamofascism against Human Rights

Saudi "ally" responsible for chemical attacks (Jaysh al-Islam)

Warning for a muslim robot!

Sharia and weaponry keeps Brexit-UK in EU - with leaking borders and against the will of the people

Sharia and weaponry keeps Brexit-UK in EU - with leaking borders and against the will of the people

EU closes internal borders - and opens its external ones.

EU closes internal borders - and opens its external ones.

Welcoming UK's main security threat - and committing treason against the will of the people

Welcoming UK's main security threat - and committing treason against the will of the people

What's left for UK when finance is fully AI? Profiting from conflicts and wars.

What's left for UK when finance is fully AI? Profiting from conflicts and wars.

The ultimate treason against people in England, Ireland and Scotland

The ultimate treason against people in England, Ireland and Scotland

True Brits for the islamofascist Saudi dictator family and against Human Rights

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

Jacob Rees-Mogg, UK's top far right religious extremist, hates Human Rights and laughs at Germans

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

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 A(mono)theists, i.e. not "believing" in an impossible "one god"*. Such a "collective god" would mean equally many personal "gods" as there are believers/interpretors. "Monotheisms" are for racist/sexist movements - not for individuals. Human Rights are for individuals living among individuals with same rights.

Religion always means a total or partial reduction of some people's (e.g. women''s) Human Rights equality.

Being against A(mono)theism must be categorized as contempt of basic Human Rights equality because "monotheists" have doctrines which can't comply with basic Human Rights equality.
Klevius moral formula is a bedrock you can't beat:

1 There's no absolute and fixed moral in a dynamic society.

2 Therefor we have to repeatedly agree on a minimum moral and equality for all.

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

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

"Brits" who are racist against EU citizens but dare not criticize muslims - here's your passport.

"Brits" who are racist against EU citizens but dare not criticize muslims - here's your passport.

Klevius 1979: Human Rights rather than religion

Klevius 1979: Human Rights rather than religion

BBC (imp)lies that 84% of the world is "monotheist" although most people are A(mono)theists

BBC (imp)lies that 84% of the world is "monotheist" although most people are A(mono)theists

Klevius can no longer distinguish between the techniques of BBC and Nazi propaganda - can you!

By squeezing in Atheist ideologies/philosophies as well as polytheisms under the super set BBC calls "religion", and by narrowing 'Atheism' to what it's not (Atheism is what it says on the tin - no god) they produced the extremely faked proposition that 84% of the world's population is "religious". Moreover, BBC also proudly claimed that the 84% figure is rising even more. Well, that's only by relying on those poor women in Pakistan, Bangladesh, English muslim ghettos (where most so called "British" women don't even speak English) etc., who still produce many more children than the average in the world. But Klevius doesn't think this abuse of girls/women is anything to cheer.

Klevius CV

Some basic facts to consider about Klevius* (except that he is both "extremely normal" and extremely 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).

Racist Theresa May robs EU citizens of their Human Rights

This (via Saudi steered sharia finance) is the biggest threat to your Human Rights

This (via Saudi steered sharia finance) is the biggest threat to your Human Rights

UK's security pact with the Devil himself

UK's security pact with the Devil himself

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its hate and losses over you

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its hate and losses over you

Is Mrs Theresa May digging a racist "British" sharia "empire" under the Brexit cliff?

BBC's compulsory fee funded propaganda for Saudi sharia islam

Tuesday, November 21, 2017
Today England's parliament vote between islamofascist sharia and Human Rights - without even mentioning sharia. Shame on you England, to even have to vote about it!

While Theresa May tries to pave the way for islamofascist Saudi friendly sharia by trashing Human Rights, BBC fills its news with the suffering of Rohyngia muslims - without a word about the Saudi backed muslim terrorist attacks against Buddhists that preceded it.

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".

Theresa May's sharia = >23,000 jihadi - before Brexit. How many after?

Theresa May's sharia = >23,000 jihadi - before Brexit. How many after?

The earliest truly modern human skull was found in Liujiang/China.

The Viking phenomenon started with bilingual Finns raiding/trading sex slaves to Abbasid (ca 750)

UK DID NOT vote Brexit. EU residents weren't allowed to vote while non-EU residents were.

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family is the root of most islam induced suffering

While Klevius is forcing islam into a Human Rights corner, Obama continues supporting islamofascism

The "Birmingham Koran" hoax - and a sonless "prophet" invented after it!

Homo Naledi - and a late "West" hating lawyer relative. A judge for May?

BBC lies and fake news

Lego won't sponsor the defense for Human Rights equality - but islamofascism and sharia is ok

Apostate (?) Obama's bio- and adoptive dads were both muslims

Choudary and May both want more sharia and less Human Rights - so what about Brits?

Islam is the hide-away for racist/sexist supremacists

Nazi-muslim cooperation: Audi then built by Jewish slaves - today dangerous quality problems

Japan 10 yrs ahead of Europe ln hybrid/fuelcell cars, space tech etc

God is bad semantics - Science is good math

Origin of Goths and Vikings

The world's oldest real portrait ever found (Central Europe). Carvings dated to 26-29,000 bp.

Origin of islam: Sharia slave finance and sex apartheid

Muslims and Hillary against Human Rights

We're all born unequal - that's why we need Human Rights, not islam!

"Allah" is man made racist/sexist interpretation against Human Rights

Muzzammil Hassan (the man on the pic who receives award from the influential islamofascist US organization CAIR-PA's Chairman Iftekhar Hussain and CAIR National's Chairman Parvez Ahmed) founded Bridges TV "to correct misconceptions about islam in America". He then stabbed his divorcing wife nine times and decapitated her in accordance with islamic Sharia tradition in the premises of Bridges TV. Being a believing muslim he was leniently sentenced only for second degree murder for this gruesome islamic honor killing.

Contrast these scumbags against those (incl. Klevius) who relentlessly volunteer for spreading knowledge about Human Rights and are called "islamophobes" simply because islam doesn't submit to Human Rights (this is why the islamofascist organization OIC has openly abandoned Human Rights and replaced them with islamofascist Sharia).

Klevius is probably now the world's foremost expert on sex segregation (sad, isn't it) and islam (the worst hate cime ever) is the most evil expression of sex segregation. By 'islam' Klevius means Sharia as described by Bill Warner and as adopted by OIC in their Human Rights violating Saudi initiated Cairo declaration (Sharia) from 1990 which replaces Universal Human Rights for women and non-muslims with sexism and racism! Why? Because it's the very soul and origin of islam which wouldn't survive if applied to full Human Rights!

The islamic extermination of the Jews

Burn OIC's islamic anti-Human Rights declaration!

Samantha Lewthwaite, Mishal Husain and Michael Adebolajo have sharia islam in common

The distinct art tracks of the first truly modern humans

Iceage refuges were rooted in Eurasiatic - IE came much later

Klevius altruistic virtual volunteering in defense of Universal Human Rights

Ferrari is a poor quality but expensive Fiat

Ferrari is a poor quality but expensive Fiat

Friday, November 30, 2018

Klevius suggests Musk should take a lot of dirt and bugs with him to Mars.

Musk allegedly said there's a 70% chance for him to move to Mars.
However, Klevius warns him that the ISS strains of Enterobacter were 79% likely to cause illness.





In Demand for Resources (1992:31, ISBN 9173288411) in a discussion about the olfactory organ that we call the brain, Klevius warned for (over)hygien being the most important factor causing allergies etc. Apart from pure logic and knowledge about super bugs etc., Klevius had an other experience with his newborn child who  had a bleeding navel that the nurses repeatedly cleaned with disinfection and asked us parents to do the same at home. However, we didn't and the navel was fine next day.

Newborn babies before modern hygiene got better used to their bacterial environment.

So what went wrong on ISS was that they didn't make the toilet dirty enough on Earth, in other words, surrounding it with a normal protective flora of germs. We don't live on oxygen and food alone, we need also to be embedded in a protective symbiotic "bubble" of a multitude of various germs.

Compare this to how Pygmies are protected against Ebola whereas the Bantu (i.e. Eurasian late comers to Central Africa
msee Klevius out-of-Asia theory below and on the web) are less well prepared.



Something similar will happen on Mars.

Also consider what Klevius wrote in


Klevius wrote:

Wednesday, August 3, 2016

Peter Klevius 1992 (and developing* ahead of others) theory on human evolution - and guts with brains

* It follows science, not bias, and is powered with exceptional intelligence (what, a dirty word?) and therefore seems to be at the ultimate edge of our collected understanding (compare "the extremely normal") - yet the least commented despite millions of viewers. And the few comments are usually from tragic ignorants who don't even have the most basic understanding of the topic.

"Ornamented" bacteria colonies (copyright* Peter Klevius - but do feel free to cite)

 * Klevius texts are usually way ahead of the time they're written down, i.e. truly original. However, precisely because of this they rarely get the attention they deserve. Moreover, due to general time-bound alterations in the discourse at stake, not to mention particular alterations in attitudes and values, connotations may vary and make reading more difficult, especially if the text was progressive for its time. However, Klevius texts can usually be safely "time-translated" because central concepts are thoroughly presented at the time of writing (this is the delicate balancing act Klevius mentions in the foreword to his book, i.e. connecting associations between author and reader. This is also why Klevius loves to "brag" by challenging readers to find serious thoughts by Klevius anywhere else earlier than Klevius. A good example is EMAH - the Even More Astonishing Hypothesis on human cognition. An other is sex segregation and the social state, a third one being Klevius analysis of the so called Negative Human Rights from a sex neutral point of view, a fourth is Klevius classification of human societies not according to what they do but what they want (see e.g. chapter Khoe, San, and Bantu in Demand for Resources), a fifth being an analysis of Freud, his daughter, and Margaret Mahler, from a sex segregation and "motherhood guilt" perspective (see e.g. Pathological Symbiosis), and a sixth could be Klevius analysis of the social state (see e.g. Angels of Antichrist), and a seventh... There are also loads of other minor discoveries made by Klevius, such as, for example, the crucial connection between Freud's emerging psychoanalysis and Caton's much earlier discovery of electrical brain activity, and a PhD thesis on Heterosexual attraction and the failure of feminist theory (compare Klevius web museum from 2007, klevius.info, and Gametes have nos sexes), etc. etc.,

All organisms, including us, are differently equipped bacteria colonies. The first such bacteria colonies probably evolved from bacteria "mats" that rolled into a membrane through which they could communicate nutrition/metabolism. This evolutionary step resembles Klevius view on how RNA much earlier cloaked itself in a protein capsid. Viruses may have evolved from self-replicating molecules that later on created the cells which conventionally have been seen as predecessors for virus. Klevius first got the idea as a late teenager when he first heard about prions, i.e. self-convoluting proteins. He wondered whether it could be possible that prions at some point wrapped around loose RNA, hence creating the first viruses. "Pre-life" amino acids capable of forming foldable proteins would have made this possible. RNA would hence constitute a proto-DNA.

When colonies of one-cell organisms got an outer membrane that could communicate food supply and disposal (incl. disposal of parts of itself) the next step was to create independent movement etc. This last stage led to a diversity of different solutions and approaches depending on environmental circumstances.

So in short, we are walking and thinking slaves of our guts. And the brain and its intelligence that we are so proud of (as long as it's not Klevius brain, of course) is created for the purpose of feeding our guts. When it produces tech, innovations, art etc., this is just a byproduct of its main duty to serve the gut bacterias.

Existencecentrism in an endless unimaginable Universe where the very question "why are we here?" resides (with all its connotations etc) inside existencecentrism, hence outside the very realm that it's supposed to address.


In Demand for Resources (1992, ISBN 9173288411) - where Klevius called this realm the unreachable - he sketched evolution and our position with a tool called 'existencecentrism', i.e. a fundamental bias that we can change but never get rid of. Klevius thought this axiomatic statement could stand as a basis for hunting down lower level bias in science. This approach was well received 1980 by George Henrik von Wright (the Finland-Swedish philosopher who succeeded Ludvig Wittgenstein at Cambridge) and was first published in the Finland-Swedish Hufvudstadsbladet 1981. Payment was Fmk 500.00 (so quite a distance from e.g. Hillary Clinton who gets enormous sums for opening her mouth in accordance to her muslim sharia masters).

According to Klevius (1981, 1992) the basic element in our understanding of Universe is motion that causes evolution and devolution in a causal stream of changing complexities.  This understanding, however, also locks itself on our metaphysical explorations.

Although Einstein taught us about the 4-dimensional space-time continuum relativity, few seem to have understood that this means that the farther we look the less we see. Combine this with the crazy "monotheist" idea of "creation from nothing" by a "god", and the confusion is total. Ever considered if this cultural limitation is the clue to why e.g. East-Asian Atheists score better IQ! "The one Universe" in the middle of the pic below is just a part of universe.

No wonder the "big bang" concept was invented by a cleric.


Klevius wrote:

Monday, January 9, 2012


The ridiculous idea about "one god" hampers CERN/LHC


Universe doesn't have limits - nor is it endless


In my book Demand for Resources (Resursbegär1992:21-22) I pointed out not only the dangers of such a senseless "model" as "Big Bang" but also how this "model" is trapped in a "monotheistic" view demanding "creation", i.e. a "starting point". Not only is such a "starting point" conceptually impossible (apart from its very obvious other limitations, e.g. how do you "bang" in "nothing") but it also fatally misdirects research focus because it assumes "a universe" or "the universe" where there's only universe.

A time trip back towards the "Big Bang" would only reveal a continuing growth of neighboring "universes". The space/time continuum and warping would make the "Big Bang" model laughable.

To my surprise I've noticed how many decently minded people seem to have great difficulties understanding how the great distances and the great limitations caused by the speed of light constant, warps every effort to take even quite small thought steps, say for example only within our own tiny galaxy. 



Cameras never lie - pictures do!

All space cameras, from our own eyes to the Hubble space telescope and its follow-ups, have in common that they don't take pictures of space but of themselves, i.e. photo reactions on the retina, CCD etc. These reactions are then interpreted by our knowledge. However, to describe such reactions as a picture of space is extremely misleading.

Kleius wrote:

Friday, April 5, 2013


Where's the star and where were you?


The illusion of a Universe


A ten billion year old supernova has been discovered. It means it died ten billion years ago, i.e. 5.5 billion years before our Sun was born.



The black area on the pic above corresponds to the white area on Klevius' Origin of Universe pic.




The nearest star, Proxima Centauri, is 4.2 light years from the Earth. Light travels at a speed corresponding to 7.5 laps around the Earth in one second.

The light from the farthest objects detectable by Hubble and other cameras (incl. radio waves etc), i.e. more than 13 billion years ago, marks the end of our capabilities, not the end of Universe. Because there is no "end" or "beginning". These terms are oxymorons and semantically absurd.

So next time you take a look at the stars do consider what you don't see.



Klevius wrote:

Thursday, March 15, 2012 (with some random updates)

The Red Deer Cave people add more evidence for Klevius’ ape/homo hybridization theory





The irrefutable art track in Northern Eurasia (see map below) has no contemporary equivalent in other parts of the world. Based on what we know now it had no fore bearers whatsoever in any period of time. Moreover, it seems that there was even a decline before "civilizations" started tens of thousands of years later! Yet Klevius seems to be the only one addressing this most interesting (besides genetics) fact! According to Klevius (and no one else so far) the new and more efficient brain evolved in a jungle environment (SE Asia?) and spread up until meeting with big headed Neanderthals hence creating the modern human who later spread and dissolved with archaic homos. In this process Homo erectus was most probably involved as well.

Updated info about the origin of Klevius' theory

Keep in mind that mainland SE Asia possibly harbored physically truly modern humans already before the time range (12,000/18,000 ybp - 98,000 ybp) of the Homo floresiensis remains in the Flores cave.



Liujiang, SE China (est. 100,000-140,000ybp)


If this Liujiang skull had been found in Africa or Mideast Wikipedia and other media would be overfilled. But this is all you get now (summer 2015 update) from Wikipedia about this extremely important skull:



The Liujiang skull probably came from sediment dating to 111 000 to 139 000 which would mean it's older than the oldest Homo floresiensis remains on Flores. Nothing even remotely close to this modern skull has ever been found in Africa, Mideast or Europe this early. In other words, we have the extremely archaic looking Red Deer Cave people 100,000 years after this extremely modern looking Liujiang population at approximately the same region. Even the least probable estimate of 70,000 bp would make Liujiang more modern looking than anything else.

Also compare Lake Mungo remains in Australia with an mtDNA that differs completely from ours (incl. Australian Aborigines). Sadly the remains have been kept out of further research because of stupid* "Aboriginal"(?!) greed (for the purpose of making certain people more "special" than others for no good reason at all (also compare the ridiculous Kennewick man controversy). Does it need to be said that the Mungo remains are as far from Australian Aborigines in appearance as you can imagine. However, according to Alan Thorne, 'Mungo could not have come from Africa as, just like Aboriginal Australians don't look like anybody from Africa, Mungo Man's skeleton doesn't look like anybody from Africa either. LM3 skeleton was of a gracile individual, estimated stature of 196 cm, which all sharply contrast with the morphology of modern indigenous Australians. Compared to the older Liujiang skull Mungo man had a much smaller brain.

* There's no way anyone can state who was "first" in Australia - and even if there was, then there's still no way of  making any meaningful connection to now living people.





In Demand for Resources (1992:28 ISBN 9173288411) in a chapter about human evolution, Peter Klevius used only one example, the remarkable Jinniushan skeleton/cranium:

In northern China near North Korean border an almost complete skeleton of a young man who died 280,000 years ago. The skeleton was remarkable because its big cranial volume (1,400cc) was not expected in Homo erectus territory at this early time and even if classified as Homo sapiens it was still big. The anatomically completely modern human brain volume is 1,400 cc and appeared between 50-100,000 years ago. One may therefore conclude that big brain volume by far predated more sophisticated human behavior (Klevius 1992:28).

Today, when many believe the skeleton is female, the brain size becomes even more remarkable.

Updated map


Most "mysteries" in genetics disappear by abandoning OOA and changing direction of HSS evolution. Only South East Asia offered a combination of tropical island/mainland fluctuations needed to put pressure on size reduction paired with evolutionary isolation in an environment where only those survived who managed to shrink their heads while keeping the same intelligence as their mainland kins with some double the sized brain. Homo floresiensis is evidence that such has happened there.


Denisovan is an extinct species of human in the genus Homo. In March 2010, scientists announced the discovery of a finger bone fragment of a juvenile female who lived about 41,000 years ago, found in the remote Denisova Cave in the Altai Mountains in Siberia, a cave which has also been inhabited by Neanderthals and modern humans. Two teeth and a toe bone belonging to different members of the same population have since been reported.

Analysis of the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of the Denisovan finger bone showed it to be genetically distinct from the mtDNAs of Neanderthals and modern humans. Subsequent study of the nuclear genome from this specimen suggests that this group shares a common origin with Neanderthals, that they ranged from Siberia to Southeast Asia, and that they lived among and interbred with the ancestors of some present-day modern humans, with about 3% to 5% of the DNA of Melanesians and Aboriginal Australians deriving from Denisovans. DNA discovered in Spain suggests that Denisovans at some point resided in Western Europe, where Neanderthals were thought to be the only inhabitants. A comparison with the genome of a Neanderthal from the same cave revealed significant local interbreeding, with local Neanderthal DNA representing 17% of the Denisovan genome, while evidence was also detected of interbreeding with an as yet unidentified ancient human lineage. Similar analysis of a toe bone discovered in 2011 is underway, while analysis of DNA from two teeth found in layers different from the finger bone revealed an unexpected degree of mtDNA divergence among Denisovans. In 2013, mitochondrial DNA from a 400,000-year-old hominin femur bone from Spain, which had been seen as either Neanderthal or Homo heidelbergensis, was found to be closer to Denisovan mtDNA than to Neanderthal mtDNA.

Little is known of the precise anatomical features of the Denisovans, since the only physical remains discovered thus far are the finger bone, two teeth from which genetic material has been gathered and a toe bone. The single finger bone is unusually broad and robust, well outside the variation seen in modern people. Surprisingly, it belonged to a female, indicating that the Denisovans were extremely robust, perhaps similar in build to the Neanderthals. The tooth that has been characterized shares no derived morphological features with Neanderthal or modern humans. An initial morphological characterization of the toe bone led to the suggestion that it may have belonged to a Neanderthal-Denisovan hybrid individual, although a critic suggested that the morphology was inconclusive. This toe bone's DNA was analyzed by Pääbo. After looking at the full genome, Pääbo and others confirmed that humans produced hybrids with Denisovans.

Some older finds may or may not belong to the Denisovan line. These includes the skulls from Dali and Maba, and a number of more fragmentary remains from Asia. Asia is not well mapped with regard to human evolution, and the above finds may represent a group of "Asian Neanderthals".

Jinniushan and Floresiensis - the keys to Denisovan and the truly modern humans

Jinniushan had a bigger brain than anything in contemporary Africa




In Demand for Resources (1992:28 ISBN 9173288411) in a chapter about human evolution, Peter Klevius used only one example, the remarkable Jinniushan skeleton/cranium:

In northern China near North Korean border an almost complete skeleton of a young man who died 280,000 years ago. The skeleton was remarkable because its big cranial volume (1,400cc) was not expected in Homo erectus territory at this early time and even if classified as Homo sapiens it was still big. The anatomically completely modern human brain volume is 1,400 cc and appeared between 50-100,000 years ago. One may therefore conclude that big brain volume by far predated more sophisticated human behavior (Klevius 1992:28).

Today, when many believe the skeleton is female, the brain size becomes even more remarkable.

Since 1991 when Klevius wrote his book much new information has been produced. However, it seems that the Jinniushan archaic Homo sapiens still constitutes the most spectacular anomaly (together with Homo floresiensis) in anthropology. So why did Klevius pick Jinniushan instead of one of the more fashionable human remains? After all, Klevius was a big fan of Rchard Leakey (he even interviewed him in a lengthy program for the Finnish YLE broadcasting company) and there was a lot of exciting bones appearing from the Rift Valley.

In the 1980s Klevius paid special attention to Australian aborigines and African "bushmen" and noted that the latter were mongoloid in appearance (even more so considering that todays Khoe-San/Khoisan are heavily mixed with Bantu speakers). But mongoloid features are due to cold adaptation in the north and therefore the "bushmen" had to be related to Eurasia. Klevius soon realized that the Khoisan speakers had moved to the southern Africa quite recently as a consequence of the so called Bantu expansion. More studies indicated that the "bushmen" had previously populated most of east Africa up to the Red Sea and beyond.

So the next step for Klevius was to search for early big skulled human remains in the mongoloid northern part of Eurasia. And that search really paid off.

This happened more than 20 years before the discovery of the Denisova bracelet and the human relative Denisovan in Altai. 

Klevius book Demand for Resources (1992) in which these thoughts about mongoloid traits were published also predates Floresiensis with more than a decade.



Both fossils show clear cold adaptation (mongoloid) traits. However, Jinniushan (right) is older and has a bigger cranial capacity although it's female.

Peter Brown (world famous for discovering/defending Floresiensis in 2004 and who had big trouble getting his PhD accepted because of a biased supervisor/institution): What makes Dali, as well as Jinniushan (Lu, 1989; Wu, 1988a), particularly important is that both of their facial skeletons are reasonably complete. This is an unusual situation in China as the only other middle Pleistocene hominids to have faces in China are the Yunxian Homo erectus (Li and Etler, 1992), which are both very distorted. Originating in the pioneering research of Weidenreich (1939a, 1939b, 1943) at Zhoukoudian, there has been strong support by Chinese Palaeoanthropologists for evolutionary continuity between Chinese H. erectus and modern humans in China. It has been argued that this is most clearly expressed in the architecture of the facial skeleton (Wolpoff et al., 1984). East Asian traits have been argued to include lack of anterior facial projection, angulation in the zygomatic process of the maxilla and anterior orientation of the frontal process, pronounced frontal orientation of the malar faces, and facial flatness. While some of these traits may occur at high frequency in modern East Asians (cf Lahr, 1996) they are not present in late Pleistocene East Asians, for instance Upper Cave 101 and Liujiang (Brown, 1999), or more apparent in Dali and Jinniushan than archaic H. sapiens from Africa or Europe. Recently there has been a tendency to link a group of Chinese hominin fossils, including Dali, Maba, Xujiayao, and Jinniushan, previously considered by some researchers to be "archaic Homo sapiens", with the Denisovians (Reich et al. 2010; Martinón-Torres et al. 2011) (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7327/full/nature09710.html). However, apart from a few teeth, the Denisovians are only known from palaeo DNA. There is also a great deal of anatomical variation in the Chinese "archaic Homo sapiens" group. It will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next decade, or so.

Klevius: It turns the conventional anthropological map on its head!


For a background to Klevius' theory see previous postings and Out of Africa as Ape/Homo hybrids and back as global Mongooids 


First and third from the left are Red Deer Cave people 14,300-11,500 years ago. Second and fourth the so called Venus from Brassempouy in France 25-26,000 years ago. The last pic is a reconstruction of a 1.9 Million year old Homo rudolfiensis skull. They all had flat broad cheeks, no chin and rounded forehead.

From the left: Red Deer Cave, Sami, Cro-Magnon


Was the sculptural portrait of Venus of Brassempouy made because she looked so different from Cro Magnon? Was she kept as a pet or something by her Cro Magnon captors?

There were certainly completely different looking modern humans living in Eurasia side by side some 26,000 years ago. And the only way to make sense of these enormous differences is Klevius hybridization theory, i.e. that the modern brain came from small ape-like creatures (compare the "scientists" who didn't believe that the small Homo floresiensis brain could be capable of tool-making, fire-making etc..

Debbie Martyr (an Orang Pendek* researcher): "the mouth is small and neat, the eyes are set wide apart and the nose is distinctly humanoid"
* Orange Pendek is the most common name given to a small but broad shouldered cryptid ceature that reportedly inhabits remote, mountainous forests on Sumatra.

Venus of Brassempouy, one of the world's oldest real portrait
(this one slightly retouched by Klevius)

The Red Deer Cave people, discovered in southern China and who lived some 14,300-11,500 years ago  had long, broad and tall frontal lobes behind the forehead, which are associated with personality and behavior.  However, they also express prominent brow ridges, thick skull bones, flat upper face with a broad nose, jutting jaws and lack a humanlike chin. Their brains were smaller than modern humans and they had large molar teeth (just like Denisovan), and short parietal lobes at the top of the head (associated with sensory data). According to Curnoe, "These are primitive features seen in our ancestors hundreds of thousands of years ago".
Unique features of the Red Deer Cave people include a strongly curved forehead bone, broad nose and broad eye sockets, flat and wide cheeks and wide and deep lower jaw joint to the skull base.
Klevius comment: Compare this description to Venus of Brassempouy on the pic, one of the world’s oldest portrait/sculpture of a human made some 25-26,000 years ago in what is now France.

This Cro Magnon could have been the captor of Venus of Brassempouy. Compare e.g. his protruding chin with the retracting one on Venus of Brassempouy. And keep in mind that the human chin has been an elusive and quite recent feature in human evolution. The delicate features we used to attribute to anatomically modern human while simultaneously attributing high intelligence may, in fact, not be connected at all. Slender and delicate skeletal features are not always connected with high cultural achievement. Quite the opposite when looking at skeletal remains outside the Aurignacian area..





In Dolní Věstonice, Eastern Europe a portrait of an almost modern Cro Magnon is now scientifically dated to at least 29,000 BP. The performance of its creator is on an extremely high cultural level when considering it predates Mideastern civilizations with some23,000 years, and that it evolved in a cultural tradition that has never been found in Africa or Mideast.

Klevius comment: Consider the circumstances. Small population and, at some stage, no previous "teachers". This northern part of the Aurignacian struck almost out of the blue unles you also consider the Denisova bracelet.


















This extremely complicated to manufacture stone bracelet was made by the ape-like "non-human(?) Denisovan hybrid in Siberia >40,000 years ago by utilizing a drilling technology, comparable to modern machines, according to the researchers who found it.














Professor Ji Xueping ( Yunnan Institute of Cultural Relics and Archeology): “Because of the geographical diversity caused by the Qinghai-Tibet plateau, south-west China is well known as a biodiversity hotspot and for its great cultural diversity”.
Klevius comment: Compare what was said already 2004 (before the presentation of Homo floresiensis) on the web(and 1992 in book form): Genes were "pumped" back and forth through mostly the same (Central-Asian) geographical "veins" by frequent climate changes, hence prohibiting speciation but encouraging local "raciation".

According to Klevius' theory we got our modern brain intelligence from hybridization with apes (Pan?). These creatures were small and apelike although bipedal.  When they moved north they encountered cold adapted Homos with large skulls. This combination created the most intelligent people ever on the planet. However, when this extremely small population began expanding it dissolved with the big headed but stupid Homos hence empowering their intelligence while diluting its own. The mix became today's humans.

Homo floresiensis on Java (i.e. north of the Wallace line as opposed to thise found on Flores) may be, and the Denisovans in Siberia are variants on this hybrid path.



























"Racial" distribution in accordance with Klevius' "Out of Siberia and back to Africa" theory (aka "Out of Africa as pygmies and back as global mongoloids"

Mongoloids and Australoids are the races most distant from each other because whereas Africa had a strong back migration of mongoloids Australia due to its location came to be less involved. This is also why the so called Caucasoid race (in a broad sense) came to populate what in Klevius terminology is called the "bastard belt" (the grey area on the map).





The senseless Mideastern "creation out of nothing" ideology got popular only because it boosted patriarchal sex apartheid (Adam created by "god" and woman created from Adam).

The incredibly stupid (see postings below) "Out of Africa" term only competes with the equally misleading and stupid "Big Bang" term - see Klevius new blog on the Origin of Universe (note that there's no 'the' in front of universe).






M130
Genetic traces of Denisovan

Klevius' human evolution formula from hot to cold


Chimp/Homo hybridization  (FOXP2 variant) + meeting/mixing with Eurasian Homos = Denisovan (Floresiensis?) and leaves an early but misleading genetic Africa label due to the back and forth movement between Eurasia and Africa.

Denisovan (Floresiensis?) gets a better packed brain in island Indonesia through sea level isolation. Later on the opposite effect releases some of them into Asian mainland.

In summary, the oldest African genes are not human, and the later ones are just the result of mixing from back migration.

When Klevius in the 1980s got in contact with African aborigines he immediately was struck by their mongoloid appearance. Why on earth would African aborigines have traces of cold adaptation? Today we have the answer in Siberia.

Klevius wrote:

Monday, October 22, 2018

John Hawks again missed (since 1992 in a book and since 2003 on the web) Klevius' original science contribution re. social evolution of human societies.


Among serious anthropologists John Hawks' blog is the most read while Peter Klevius' blog is the least* read. Why? Is it because of Klevius' "Saudiphobia"/"islamo(fascism)phobia"?

 * So have patience with Klevius self-citations (and do read the chapter Science and References in Demand for Resources) which clearly are more important for general science than for Klevius own satisfaction.

 See Klevius 1992:40-44.

Richard Lee's The !Kung San: Men, Women, and Work in a Foraging Society came 1979 and was the main trigger of Klevius first letter to Georg Henrik von Wright (Wittgenstein's successor at Cambridge) on the topic and Klevius 1981 article Demand for Resources and 1992 book with the same title.

Out of respect and as support for Lee's work Klevius also bought the expensive  Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunter-Gatherers (1999), which, of course, was of no practical use for Klevius.

Here's John Hawks recent blog-post:


Hawks writes:

He (Lee) has written an article in this year’s Annual Review of Anthropology that examines both uses and misuses of hunter-gatherer ethnography in theory-building about human nature: “Hunter-Gatherers and Human Evolution: New Light on Old Debates.”

In the introduction to the article, he recounts a story involving his “Man the Hunter” co-editor, the late Irven DeVore:

    Senator William Fulbright of Arkansas, a brilliant US legislator in the 1960s and the founder of the scholarship program that bears his name, was just one public figure struggling to come to grips with the import of Lorenz’s theses. I vividly remember the late Irven DeVore coming into my office at Harvard University. “I just got off the phone with Senator William Fulbright calling from Washington,” Devore said. “He asked me ‘Professor DeVore, if Konrad Lorenz is right, how are we ever to negotiate a nuclear arms reduction treaty with the Soviet Union?’”

    DeVore reassured Fulbright that Lorenz’s views were far from universally accepted among anthropologists, that violence in human history was a variable not a constant, and that its causes and expressions were far more complex than could be explained simply by pure animal instinct.

    DeVore’s disclaimers appeared to calm Senator Fulbright’s nerves, and in fact the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) went on to successfully negotiate a series of nuclear arms reduction treaties over the years. Nevertheless, the question of violence in human history continued to animate the debate within anthropology, fueled by Robert Ardrey’s “killer ape” hypothesis in his books African Genesis (Ardrey 1961) and The Territorial Imperative (Ardrey 1966). Interest was sustained by Napoleon Chagnon’s (1968) influential ethnography of the “fierce” Yanomamo and more recently by the writings of Wrangham & Peterson (1996), such as Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence. I have labeled this persistent thread within anthropology and related disciplines as the “Bellicose School” (Lee 2014).

I am spending some time reading this review and taking notes, and it bears close reading. Lee’s theme is that many people who use “hunter-gatherers” as a category are actually lumping things that are quite different from each other. If you want to use ethnographic studies of today’s people to say anything about prehistoric people, you need to understand that any living group may be like ancient people in some ways, and very different from ancient people in other ways.


Klevius writes: When it comes to Konrad Lorentz I share Lee's view - as clearly stated on page 20 in Demand for Resources (1992):

Det finns ett flertal delikata kulturantropologiska fördomar som fått starka grepp på allmänheten. En sådan gäller föreställningen om människans aggressivitet som en oemotståndlig negativ biologisk kraft som måste få utlopp. Att hävda detta och samtidigt förorda kanaliserad aggressivitet i syfte att förmildra verkningarna av densamma innebär i själva verket att man kulturellt skapar och stimulerar beteendemönster av negativ karaktär. Fysiskt våld mot artfränder är liksom utvidgat resursbegär en inlärd egenskap. Den organiserade form av fysiskt våld mot artfränder som krig innebär verkar inte vara äldre än det utvidgade resursbegäret. Troligen hänger de intimt samman.

And translated from original English, i.e. Swedish, to modern English:

There are several delicate cultural-anthropological prejudices which have got a strong grip on the public. One is the view about human aggression as an irresistible negative biological force which has to be released. To argue this while simultaneously proposing channeled aggressiveness for the purpose of mitigating its effects, in fact, means that one culturally creates and stimulates patterns of negative behavior. Same species violence is, like expanded demand for resources, a learned behavior. The organized form of violence, i.e. war, seems not to be older than expanded demands for resources. They are likely intimately connected.

Demand for Resources by Peter Klevius (1992).

The civilized wo/man walks
back in her/his foot steps,
strikes a light and lets her/himself be enlightened
and glorified
Only the forgotten suffering,
and the shadow behind her/him,
hovering over the future,
are greater (P. Klevius 1992, title page).

"The archeologist of knowledge finds
in his/her digging
often him/herself"
(P. Klevius 1992:7)

The concept of freedom is created,
like diamonds,
only under pressure
(P. Klevius 1992:33)



More from Demand for Resources (1992, ISBN 9173288411):


So called civilized societies can be described as dynamic, hence contrasting against the more static appearance of the economic setting (lack of investment) of e.g. hunter-gatherers.

A re-classification of human societies departing from C. Levi-Strauss idea about "warm" and "cold" societies (Klevius 1992):

A  Without 'extended demands for resources' (EDFR).
B  Affected by EDFR but still retaining a simplistic, "primitive" way of life.
C  Civilized with EDFR

These categories are, of course, only conceptual. Applied to a conventional classification the following pattern appears:

1  The primitive stage when all were hunter/gatherers (A, according to EDFR classification).
2  Nomads (A, B, C).
3  Farmers (B, C).
4  Civilized (C).

As a consequence EDFR is here used as a concept tied to civilization (and its preliminary stages) The above also suggests a critique against our conventional conception of a simplistic connection between intelligence and performance as (wrongly) exemplified by C. Popper's scenario of a World 1-3 transition of human cultural development.

 (Implications of this view can be seen in Klevius theory of mind EMAH, The Even More Astonishing Hypothesis, which deals with the mind/body "problem" and the closing gap between not only humans and other living things but also betweenhumans and machines).


Here's the last part of the chapter Khoe, San and Bantu (in Demand for Resources, Klevius 1992). 



For those who don't master original English there are some modern English words as well in the text:

I begreppet San inryms de tre grupperna !Kung, !Xu och G!wi vilka alla har egna närbesläktade men självständiga språk. Av dessa grupper är det G!wi som kan antas stå närmast det klassiska samlar/jägarsamhället även om egentligen inga grupper i dag återfinns i de kulturmönster som förekom ännu på 50-60-talet.

En uppskattning av de traditionella egenskaperna i kulturmönstret hos San (konventionellt grupp 1, URB-grupp A) inkluderar frånvaro av domesticering, lös sammanhållning, ofixerad, icke hierarkisk beslutsordning samt i det närmaste obefintlig materiell status (undantag utgör t.ex. jaktvapen och byten före den oundvikliga fördelningen).

Patricia Draper har i anslutning till "The Harvard !Kung Bushmen Study Project" gjort en undersökning om skillnader i könsroller hos kringvandrande klassiska samlar/jägargrupper och stationära "mångsysslande" !Kung grupper. Hon fann då bl.a. "that !Kung society may be the least sexist of any we have experienced" samt att detta märks genom "women's subsistence contribution and the control women retain over the food they have gathered, the lack of rigidity in sex-typing of many adult activities including domestic chores and aspects of child socialization; the cultural sanction against physical expression of aggression; the smaller group size; and the nature of the settlement pattern." Hon noterar vidare att "authoritarian behavior is avoided by adults of both sexes." Alla dessa egenskaper naggades enligt Draper i kanten hos de stationära grupperna.

En pionjär då det gällde att påvisa hur lite arbete som San samlar/jägarna lade ner på födoanskaffning och boende var Richard Lee som 1963 studerade den bland antropologer numera välkända Dobe Base Camp 12. Han levde med dem, noterade metodiskt allt han såg, mätte och vägde såväl mat som människor, tog tid på allt de gjorde och resultatet av hans, och senare även andras arbeten kan sammanfattas i Marshal Sahlins ord: "If the affluent society is one where all the people's material wants are easily satisfied this is the first affluent society." Han fortsatte: "The human condition must keep man the prisoner at hard labor of a perpetual disparity between his unlimited wants and his insufficient means... " och vidare "There is (instead) a road to affluence, departing from premises... that human wants are few, and technical means unchanging but on the whole adequate."

I mitten av 70-talet kunde bl.a. Diane Gelburd konstatera att bushmännens liv i Dobe hade ändrat karaktär sedan Richard Lee's fältstudier. Hyddorna var byggda av lera istället för av gräs och stod längre ifrån varandra. En del fick dörrar i takt med att de fylldes med personliga ägodelar. Man byggde stängsel för djuren som man nu införskaffat. Likadant var det med benresterna som tidigare enbart bestått av lämningar från vilda djur men 1976 till 80% bestod av benrester från domesticerade djur.

Samtidigt skedde förändringar i de interna sociala relationerna. Fördelning av tillgångar minskade och formerna för t.ex. äktenskap komplicerades p.g.a. nya, förut okända problem kring egendomsfrågor.

"What explains the shattering of this society"? frågade sig John Yellen från The National Science Foundation anthropology program. Han fortsätter: "It hasn't been a direct force, a war, the ravages of disease..." och svarar slutligen: "1t is the internal conflicts, the tensions, the inconsistencies, the impossibility of reconciling such different views of the world."

Till detta kan tilläggas att Khoi och San har levt i flera tusen år sida vid sida utan att de samlande/jagande San blivit boskapshållare. Dessutom har de jordbrukande ochboskapsskötande Bantufolken för åtminstone 500 år sedan invaderat Khoisan?folkens traditionella marker.

Det är alltså något mer som skall till för att knäcka ryggraden på ett typiskt San-samhälle. Handlar det om en kritisk punkt för försörjningsunderlag/befolkningsstorlek? Finns det en nedre gräns för antalet individer i en fungerande samlar/jägarkultur? I vilket skede exakt bryts det sociala immunförsvaret gentemot utvidgade resursbegär ner?

Oavsett om det finns en kritisk punkt eller om det är fråga om en långsamt ökande spänning som efter hand får det ena fästet efter det andra att ge efter så ser vi här uppkomsten av den spricka mellan kulturformer där det utvidgande resursbegäret med varierande framgång slagit rot.

Monday, November 26, 2018

Klevius repeated warning to EU: Watch up for militaristic UK and its undermining, destabilizing and egoistic interest of its military suppliers and financial dependents.


UK is loosing its grip and reaches for its guns like a cornered rat. Spying, meddling, war mongering and BBC propaganda




UK's official use of islamofascism: "Political islamists (read Muslim Brotherhood) are a firewall against violent extremism and should be engaged with, either when in power or in opposition."

UK government has rowed back from the main conclusion of a controversial 2014 review into the Muslim Brotherhood conducted by John Jenkins, the UK's then-ambassador to Saudi Arabia, which suggested that the organisation had served as a “rite of passage” for violent militants.

It now agrees with an assessment offered by the parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) following its inquiry into the government's policy towards "Political Islam" which concluded that political islamists (i.e. sharia islamofascists) were a “firewall” against violent extremism and should be engaged with, either when in power or in opposition.

The admission came in a series of responses from the UK foreign office to the highly critical inquiry.

UK foreign minister Jeremy Hunt "didn't agree with the charges". What's the difference between him and Putin in this respect - just asking.

Klevius foremothers/fathers created Russia (see Origin of the Vikings) as a consequence of their slave trade with Abbasid islamofascists. Rurik had the same Y-DNA as Klevius and most probably also similar mtDNA. And Rurik came from that very Anglo-Saxon land that took over England. And the Gothic Crimea has been a repeated center point in this picture.


.

Saturday, November 24, 2018

Sweden neglects Northern Ireland by calling UK Storbritannien (i.e. Great Britain). A constructive approach for Brexit?

UK participates with four (!?) "countries" in football - but BBC News talks mostly about England and cricket. And only England voted for Brexit.



The border between EU and UK Brexiters pretend not to see.

Interestingly, Ireland is in old Nordic/Swedish called Irrlande, meaning the land you get lost in or loose (comp. Swed. irra meaning err, or get lost). This could have been a change in the use of the word Eire - or even some common ancestor. And the word 'land' comes from Fennoscandia and is first observed in Gothic texts (various etymologies you see all over the web are just theoretical guesswork).

UK consists of England plus three satellites: Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.

England colonized Ireland but lost most of it except Northern Ireland.

When Scotland ruined its economy England had already sucked up so much wealth from its wars and colonies etc. that it could easily buy it up with similarly diffuse and unreliable promises it used against Ireland.  It didn't even bother to write down its "deal" with corrupt Scottish politicians. Which fact doesn't seem to hinder them calling it a "constitution".

So unlike most other civilized modern states UK doesn't have a real constitution. Which fact may explain why only in UK such a political anomaly as the Brexit vote could possibly have passed unchallenged. People weren't told what they voted for but Theresa May will deliver it.

In a civilized modern state issues of such an importance could never be as lightly handled.

Friday, November 23, 2018

Klevius asks: 1 Why is Imran Hosein so popular among British muslims? 2 Why is BBC completely silent about him?

An image says more than a thousand words, doesn't it. Especially when it comes to West's dealings with islam. 


Imran Hosein blames the Zionist-Judeo-Christian* West - but not the Orthodox Christian East which he sees as islam's eternal ally - and crucial for the coming nuke war through which islam shall be victorious. Imran Hosein promises that cities where homosexuals can marry will be targeted and that true muslims ought to move out from the cities.Imran Hosein had no problem visiting UK in 2018 to tell British muslims about this.

* Luckily Klevius doesn't belong to this category at all. Which fact didn't hinder a Pakistani muslim in theearly 1990s to rudely stop talking to Klevius when he  was told Klevius was a pure Atheist. He steered with disappointment and horror despite the fact that he before that had showed great interest in talking with Klevius at the party. But there are similar idiots in US as well...

Nigel Farad defends islamists against "islamophobes" and says the Saudi problem is Wahhabism - i.e. following standard UK/US rhetoric aiming to protect the world's most dangerous man Mohammed Salman and his "reform" jihad.

Jacob Rees-Mogg doesn't have a clue about Human Rights which comes handy if  he's a homophobe and Saudi lover.

Klevius stops here but dig more for yourself and you start seeing the true power of the image below.



What do these three have in common? Human Rightsphobia.

Klevius analysis: This populist muslim nut head, Imran Hosein, combines the two Brexit nut heads below on the pic. And the reason Imran Hosein is persona non grata for BBC is precisely that he pin points embarrassing truth about that very Britisharia Farage and Rees-Mogg stand for. While standing for an equally twisted "moral" himself. A moral deficit that Imran Hosein hides in the Koran.

The "free speech" that is now most desperately forbidden (in practice) is the defending of basic Human Rights in accordance with the anti-fascist, anti-racist and anti-sexist 1948 Human Rights declaration which was produced precisely to protect muslims and non-muslims against Human Rights violating sharia islam (e.g. Saudi based and steered OIC). To stand up for Human Rights is now called "racist" "islamophobia" because it goes against "important allies" such as junk "states"* such as UAE and Saudi dictators.

* Measured by Human Rights standard.

Btw, will London's Holocaust memorial also fully include the other half of the victims, i.e. the 5 million non-Jews who were murdered?


BBC (2005): Approximately 11 million people were killed because of Nazi genocidal policy.

5 million of those murdered were non-Jewish.

Others were Nazi victims because of what they did, who they were, their genetic or cultural origins, or health conditions.

It was the explicit aim of Hitler's regime to create a European world both dominated and populated by the Aryan race. The Nazi machinery was dedicated to eradicating millions of people it deemed undesirable.

Some people were undesirable by Nazi standards because of who they were, their genetic or cultural origins, or health conditions. These included Jews, Gypsies, Poles and other Slavs, and people with physical or mental disabilities.

Others were Nazi victims because of what they did. These victims of the Nazi regime included Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, the dissenting clergy, Communists, Socialists, ‘asocial’s, and other political enemies.

Those believed by Hitler and the Nazis to be enemies of the state were banished to camps. Inside the concentration camps, prisoners were forced to wear various coloured triangles, each colour denoting a different group.

The letters on the triangular badges designated the prisoners' countries of origin.

Poles and other Slavs

Christian Poles and other Slavs, notably Ukrainians and Byelorussians, were also primary targets of Nazi Germany hatred during World War II.

To the Nazis, the Slavs were considered Untermenschen,or subhumans, and nothing more than obstacles to gaining territory necessary for the superior German race.

There was not one badge designation for Poles and other Slavs. Rather, a Polish or Slavic person was categorized as a criminal, asocial, political prisoner, and so on.

Roma (Gypsies)

The Roma, a nomadic people believed to have come originally from northwest India, consisted of several tribes or nations.
Roma gypsies in concentration camp
Roma prisoners in concentration camp

Most of the Roma who had settled in Germany belonged to the Sinti nation.

The Sinti and Roma had been persecuted for centuries. The Nazi regime continued the persecution, viewing the Roma both as asocial and as racially inferior to Germans.

Like Jews, they were deprived of their civil rights. In June 1936, a Central Office to "Combat the Gypsy Nuisance" opened in Munich. By 1938, Sinti and Roma were being deported to concentration camps.

By 1943, a large area of the camp complex Auschwitz-Birkenau was assigned to house deported Sinti and Roma.
Chart showing concentration camp badges
Chart showing concentration camp badges

The number of inmates is estimated to have been some 23,000. Many became the victim of medical experiments; others died of exhaustion or were suffocated by poison gas.

The camp was dissolved in August 1944. Many of its prisoners were murdered or transferred to other camps. Gypsies wore brown cloth triangles.

Homosexuals

A state policy of persecution of homosexuals began in Germany in 1933.

Publications by and about homosexuals were prohibited and burned.

In 1934, a special Gestapo division on homosexuals was set up. German police raided gay clubs and bars and made arrests.

Some homosexuals spent time in regular prisons, and an estimated 5,000-15,000 were sent to concentration camps.

Those defined as homosexuals were designated by a triangle of pink cloth attached to their clothing.

Jehovah’s Witnesses


In 1933, the Jehovah's Witnesses in Germany totaled about twenty thousand.

In 1934, Jehovah's Witnesses attempted to fend off Nazi attacks by having congregations send letters to the government explaining their beliefs and political neutrality.
The group was banned by national law in April 1935. Those Witnesses who defied the ban on their activities were arrested and sent to prisons and concentration camps.
Jehovah’s witnesses were marked with purple triangular badges. Approximately 2,500 to 5,000 died in Dachau, Belsen, Buchenwald, Auschwitz, and other camps.

Physical & Mentally Disabled

These people never were assigned a badge because they were rarely sent to concentration camps.

Persons with physical or mental disabilities threatened the Nazi plan for human "perfection."
In 1934, forced sterilization programs sterilized 300,000 - 400,000 people, mainly those in mental hospitals and other institutions.

Political and religious Dissidents

The remnants of the Communist and Socialist parties and members of the trade unions resisted the Nazi regime.
Pastor Neimoller
Pastor Martin Niemoller


As did any members of the clergy, of all denominations, who like Pastor Martin Niemöller , opposed Adolf Hitler's efforts to bring the German churches under control of the Nazis.


He also founded the Pastors' Emergency League, a group, among its other activities, helped combat rising discrimination against Christians of Jewish background.


In 1937, Niemoller was imprisoned for four years in solitary confinement and eventually sent to Sachsenhausen and then to Dachau concentration camps, he was moved in 1945 to the Tirol, where Allied forces freed him at the end of World War II.

In the early years of the Third Reich, political prisoners were a significant portion of the concentration camp inmates. At the end of July 1933, about 27,000 political prisoners were being held in concentration camps in "protective custody."

Dachau was always a camp for political prisoners.
Nazi propaganda poster discouraging racial mixing
Nazi's promoted racist propaganda


African-Germans


When the Nazis came to power there were hundreds of African-German 
children living in the Rhineland, the offspring of German mothers and African soldiers brought in during the French occupation.

Hitler claimed these children were part of a Jewish plot to begin "bastardising  
the European continent at its core." Under the Nazi regime, African-German 
children were labeled "Rhineland Bastards" and forcibly sterilized.




Friday, November 16, 2018

Brexit was actually a vote about leaving UK.

The "Brits" can't be that dumb (or?!) that they didn't understand that after many decades of religious terror and the "good Friday" agreement, UK's border on Ireland was hidden under the EU super set, but became immediately visible with Brexit.


Blaming this on EU is just spurious (e.g. "we can't let EU split our country").


Klevius supports no border on Ireland. Follow the will of the people, i.e. let England (who voted leave) leave and let Scotland and Northern Ireland (who vote remain) 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.

Klevius also asks the "Brits" (who are they anyway), what's so good about Theresa May as a PM?




1 A racist/hostile attitude against immigrants (especially if they are non-muslim and "white" EU citizens, especially East Europeans - which fact doesn't seem to exclude an eager interest in spreading "British" militarism there).

2 Advocates for sharia islam which clearly is against the most basic Human Rights - especially for women.

3 Against Human Rights in "British" politics - presumably for the purpose of protecting evil sharia finance.

4 Advocates for "British" (UK?!) nuke use against civilians (in a world where military technology goes for accurate and small nukes aimed against military, not civilian,  targets - no dude, Klevius doesn't approve of nukes at all).

5 A strong supporter of the world's most intolerant "country" (an evil aggressive war and terror spreading medieval dictatorship) Saudi Arabia and a friend of the "world's most dangerous man" Mohammad bin Salman.

6 Supporting war crimes in Yemen. A valid question may be posed: Is the Theresa May and her cabinet guilty of war crime?

7 Being an extremist bigoted hypocrite (measured by Human Rights standards) when she dares to talk about the 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration while simultaneously supporting islamic sharia and the terror and war crimes committing Saudi "custodian of islam" she calls "an important ally" and whom she knowingly assists by selling weapons and actually participating in the war.


Again, what's so remarkable about her. That she is a woman?!

Tuesday, November 13, 2018

Peter Klevius congratulates Nilla Fischer for winning the 2018 Diamond Ball award in Sweden

Football (no dude, not American handball) is the Queen of all sports.


No, dear reader, this image isn't here to emphasize something so stupid as "sexual identity". What is it? Klevius doesn't have a clue about his "sexual identity" and certainly doesn't miss it. And why even care about it? According to the anti-sexist, anti-racist and anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948 sex shouldn't matter. And isn't it stupid to connect football with private life etc.? The only reason Klevius assembled this image was to emphasize that because football is the trickiest and most multifaceted sport there is, women's participation has been more questioned than in most other sports. 100 years ago in Sweden when women in Gothenburg wanted to start playing football they were "advised" to play handball instead. This aversion against female football has led to much prejudice bolstered by cultural sex segregation. For Klevius the image represents that deep love for football (or seduction as Klevius prefers it) doesn't exclude deep love for other humans. But perhaps most importantly, in Klevius research and interviews in depth it has become extremely clear that football provides precisely that liminal non-sex segregated space that is lacking elsewhere. And although Klevius might be described as extremely heterosexual, when watching females playing football it's precisely the de-sexed character of the sport that is most rewarding. In football women become humans.

Human Rights rather than sex segregated religion - drawing from 1979 by Peter Klevius.

Klevius also wants to remind you dear reader about these facts:

1 Women's football was (in practice) forbidden in 1921 in England by English FA because a female physician from Harley Street, London, witnessed as an expert that football wasn't appropriate for girls/women. This, btw, was the reason why Klevius bothered himself to write a PhD thesis about women's football history in England and Sweden. There's a deep connection - and you can read about it soon when it's out in book format.

2 In Sweden socialist women (Grupp 8) vehemently opposed female football in the 1960s and 70s.



Klevius wrote:

Monday, July 17, 2017

Women's Euro cup 2017 has started - but BBC's women ignore it and rather talk cricket(because cricket is Commonwealth - backwardness?!)


Football is the king/queen of all sports, and therefore officially banned for women in England 1921-1971 - and in practice unofficially still today.

Perpetua (died as a martyr 203 A.D.): "And I was stripped and became a man".

The focused women on these pics are - at least momentarily - freed from sex segregation, albeit not from a deep rooted sexism that renders their beautiful performance less worthy than that of men. However, Klevius can't stop watching these heroines, nor does he have any problem "comparing" them with Messi & Co. And Klevius still thinks Flo-Jo is (R.I.P. Flo) the best sprinter ever - no matter of sex.

Multitasking without hands.

How many girls in England are even aware of Euro Cup 2017? It has certainly not been given any space so far between BBC's huge amount of boring cricket, rugby, tennis, etc.

Russia's win today will probably not be celebrated by BBC.

Relying on the "expert" suggestion by a female physician from London's Harley street, FA in 1921 decided to ban women from playing football.

The ban was finally officially lifted in 1971. However, everything unofficially possible has been made since to divert girls/women from football to other sports. Why?

The answer has much to do with the simple fact that football (no dude, not American handball) is the most challenging of all sports. So how come? Well, just consider the fact that no other sport both lack any tools but also not even arms and hands are allowed to touch the ball while in play. This divine setup has therefore been seen among many as the most "masculine" of sports - not the least by many not football playing women.

Klevius old but revealing PhD thesis on the subject will soon be available in fresh book format. It shows how Sweden and England interacted in a way that was detrimental for early female football, yet in very different ways.

Klevius wrote:

Wednesday, June 24, 2015


Klevius reports from Womens World Cup 2015 about heroic Japanese women and disgusting BBC


Japan has now won all their matches, only let in two goals, and has lifted up the technical level of womens football to never before seen heights. And England's women passed the knockout stage for the forst time ever. Yet BBC keeps silent and boosts cricket for girls instead.



Yes, in the previous posting Klevius asked for the blondest team to win in the face of black haters, but Klevius also said that he from the bottom of his heart wants the Japanese women to win because they are by far the best football players. And this is even more remarkable keeping in mind that football in Japan is a minority sport in the shadow of the American WW2 influences from baseball and American handball (aka American "football").

Mizuho Sakaguchi curled in a beautiful goal from outside the penalty area against Netherlands after an equally beautiful foreplay that was on level with Barcelona's male team.

Japan has tested three goalkeepers in this world cup and the only two goals scored against Japan so far has been when Ayumi Kaihori guarded the cage. She did so first in a 2-1 victory over Cameroon, and then again Tuesday when Kirsten van de Ven drove home a ball in added time.

Kaihori, was playing in place of injured Erina Yamane (dislocated shoulder).

 Unfortunately the Japanese women use to have the referees against them which fact encourages other team to add even more violence to what they already see as their only chance against technically superior Japanese women.

A disgrace for the beautiful game.


Klevius wrote:

Saturday, July 09, 2011


Japan women beat Germany in the world's hardest* sport

* The combination of no hands allowed, extreme individual freedom, 1.5-2 hours play on a 100 m long and 50 m wide pitch. This is also why the rest of the world can't stop laughing when Americans call their rugby "football"! Moreover, there's no difference in rules and gears (except for sport bras of course) whatsoever between women and men (although islam wants to change that of course). You can be a good football player no matter of your size or constitution. The world's best male player, Lionel Messi, is 170 cm (no 2 Christiano Ronaldo is 186 cm)  and the world's best female player, Marta da Silva, is 163 cm (no 2 Birgit Prinz is 179 cm)!

Karima Maruyama's World Cup goal was a real classic when it comes to football technique. Running at high speed towards the side of the goal and then, at the right microsecond,directing a kick just outside the opposite goalpost makes the forward inertia in the ball curving it enough to be out of reach for the goalkeeper while still making its way to the inside of the post.

Klevius question: Is this the real reason why football is by far the most controversial of sports when it comes to female participation? Check out: Did feminists kill the World's best female football team in 1921?


Sexist BBC

While some of the most exciting matches are played in Women's World Cup BBC decides to neglect it all together and instead offers EIGHT HOURS OF F1 RACING added by some golf etc!!! No wonder British girls/women in general don't have a clue about football and are among the most sex segregated in the world. This is then reflected in British men's due attitude towards women. According to many of my Finnish and Swedish female friends who have experienced Britain British men are the most sexist they have ever encountered in the West!

Of all sports a girl can use (many girls don't use any sport at all) to sculpture her future physicsfootball is by far the best.


An other moment of disgrace was when Mishal Husain's BBC news neglected the Japanese women completely and gave England's womens football team less than five seconds of air time (compare to some five minutes of womens cricket) when they won their knockout match to reach the quarter finals for the first time ever!


Mishal Husain's BBC news didn't mention Japan's victory at all but instead talked a long time about cricket as usual. Why? Simply because cricket is part of their muslim propaganda (compare e.g. cricket frenzy Pakistan, one of Michal Husain's muslim home countries.




.

Monday, November 12, 2018

Klevius sex tutorial and suggestion for DSM-6 (no pun intended).



What is the difference between a "Tomboy" and gender dysphoria? Klevius answer: Sex segregation.


Human Rights rather than religion (Klevius drawing from 1979 - used in many exhibitions back then).
Klevius vocabulary for those poor souls who haven't followed his previous tutorials (shame on you):
Sex is biology (male, female or in rare, and for this analysis irrelevant, instances hermaphrodites).

Gender is ever-changing extremely varied cultural expectations, norms or even laws (e.g. sharia) based on biological sex.

Sex segregation doesn't mean having women and men competing in different groups in sports because of biological differences (no more than e.g. weight groups). What it means is a biologically unfounded cultural prejudice based on biological sex.

Heterosexual attraction is the only relevant way of distinguishing between women and men. Why? Because every other distinction is cultural - and giving birth to a child has nothing to do with men. However, heterosexual attraction only affects some women (usually younger ones) and only monumentarily. Moreover, because heterosexual attraction only exists in males (as a built in address for sperm delivery) but directs towards, and affecting, females, it can't define some imagined "totality" of femininity/masculinity. And perhaps most importantly, unlike what Tertullian thought some 1,800 years ago, the Western world has actually proved (as had so called "primitive" societies long before - see Klevius 1992) that women showing their bodies in public isn't "a sport of nature" (see Klevius PhD thesis - extracts available on this blog, see e.g. below). Men can actually live with it without becoming rapists or necrophiliacs (a term Klevius has introduced to describe male sexing - e.g. up-skirting - of women who aren't even aware of it or interested in being the target of "the male gaze").

Dear reader. Klevius, the world's foremost expert (sad isn't it) on sex segregation, challenges you to find any logically inevitable relational sex difference between men and women, except heterosexual attraction. Monotheist religions are founded on it but have used its reproductive consequences for cultural self reproduction. This in turn explains why all monotheisms in general and islam in particular have problems with the anti-fascist, anti-racist and ant-sexist 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration which gives equal rights to all - without exceptions for sex.


Two female "Tomboys" are given different diagnosis although nothing is wrong with any of them. Why? Because of desperate sex segregation (see e.g. Klevius Warning for Feminism 1998).







A (female sex) is a "Tomboy". Boys and girls like her. She also enjoys her heterosexual attraction (i.e. biological femininity) but on her own terms.

B (female sex) is also a "Tomboy" but is bullied by boys and girls and calls herself Rick and feels bothered by heterosexual attraction. DSM-5 diagnoses her with "gender dysphoria".

The reason B called herself Rick was the surrounding cultural sex segregation. If A should have been equally treated she might also had wanted to call herself Rick.

In Warning for Feminism (1998) Klevius pointed to the fact that the desperate effort to sex segregate has been proportional to de fact de sex segregation in practical life. And the main tool for this has been to enclose girls/women in cultural "femininity".

When Klevius daughter played football in San Francisco she was the only one with short hair. And when Klevius commented on it for the other parents they just looked confused and embarrassed when checking the sea of long pony tales waving in front of them. Klevius got the impression that they hadn't even thought about it before.


Klevius wrote:

Sunday, March 8, 2015

Klevius' sex tutorial on Women's Day


British siekh leader Lord* Indarjit Singh: Cigarettes are to cancer as muslims are to sexual grooming/abuse. However, he also cowardly added that 'it's not islam'!

 * i.e. elected by a politician for the purpose of supporting a certain political ideology or cause. Such "life peers" are entitled to sit in the House of Lords for the duration of their lives, but their titles are not hereditable by their heirs.

Sikh and Hindu organisations have signed an open letter claiming that sex-grooming gangs "predominantly originate from a Pakistani muslim community, while their victims are almost always of a White, Hindu or Sikh background".

Klevius comment: How could it possibly 'not be islam'? Islam seems to be defined as 'without negative consequences' although islam itself eagerly points out such negative consequences of the "disbelievers" infidels" or "wrong believers" and proudly tells us that we all should be muslims and if we don't we are just crap - i.e. we are no longer "innocent" and therefore the legitimate target for whoever lunatic muslims. This is what your imam means when he says (usually via BBC to make it sound more serious) that 'islam forbids attacks on innocent people'.

Islam is all about sex apartheid (sexism) and "hatred against "infidels" (racism). In fact, Klevius blog Origin if islam - the worst crime ever against humanity, started as a blog against sex segregation and racism.

Klevius has been loaded with at least the average (probably more) tesosterone since his early teens (i.e. 10-30 times more than most women). Klevius has also had the opportunity to befriend a lot of representatives of the opposite sex. Not a single one can report abuse or failure. However, Klevius has never seduced anyone - precisely because he has always considered himself prepared for sex whenever while simultaneously never been in need for sex and therefore left the initiative to the one with a lower libido! Moreover, Klevius has never had sex without heterosexual attraction as the motivation - which fact in no way should be seen as criticism of other forms of sexuality. Likewise Klevius has often sneezed in the kitchen because of white pepper but never deliberately thrown white pepper around just because of the pleasure of sneezing.

The power and curse of biological female heterosexual attraction - leading to stupid cultural "femininity" and due sex segregation/apartheid


Teenage girls (and many women as well) realize the power of their asses but mis-connects it as part of their personhood. And often with disastrous consequences when males act without respecting basic Human Rights, i.e. seeing the individual that's connected to the ass.


Is RFSU suffering from sexual correctness or what's going on here? The pic below is from RFSU's campaign "Don't put it in".


Is this man a victim of MGM (male genital mutilation) or is he just religiously mutilated - or both?!

RFSU: 'Don't put it in!'

The video from which the first pic is taken has been a success in Thailand and - Saudi Arabia!


RFSU's picture (top) modified by Klevius (bottom)


The Swedish Association for Sexuality Education (RFSU, Riksförbundet för sexuell upplysning) is a Swedish nonprofit organization that works with public opinion formation on sexual and reproductive health and rights as well as information and education about sexuality and relationships. One of RFSU's main issues is the right to free abortion. The current Secretary-General is Åsa Regnér.

RFSU was founded February 24, 1933 by, among others, Elise Ottesen-Jensen, Gunnar Inghe and Hanna Lundin. Ottesen-Jensen was chairman from its inception until 1959, and has come to be strongly associated with the organization, whose journal, Ottar, was named after her.

RFSU works with information, education and advocacy by organizing courses, conferences and debates. Moreover the RFSU carries an extensive international work with similar organizations in other countries. RFSU is the Swedish national affiliate of the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

RFSU's booklet “Sex: your own way” for teens is about sexual feelings and what you can do when caressing, making out, masturbating or having intercourse with someone.

It is aimed at everyone, whether you have sex on your own, with someone else, or don’t want to have sex at all. We’re also writing for those who would like to have sex with someone, but haven’t done it yet.

RFSU believes that sex isn’t just something you do or feel. It’s also about knowledge. It’s good to have facts and tips, so you can make your own decisions – now and later in life. Everyone has the right to make their own decisions about their body and their sexuality.

Openness is a key factor for prevention and sexual health. Everyone should have the freedom to choose, to be oneself and to enjoy.


Klevius additional clarification


For analytical purpose one needs to distinguish between heterosexual attraction (residing only in the "male gaze") and physical sexual acts (incl. intercourse, masturbation etc).  Most people are able to feel sexual pleasure just as Klevius feels pleasure by inhaling a little white pepper enough to make him sneeze.

However, although men have a stronger overall sex drive (plus the heterosexual attraction* feature programmed in their brain) than women, the latter may feel a strong urge sexual around the time of ovulation.

* Do keep in mind that 'heterosexual attraction' is here biological, not cultural! Rapetivism, nymphomania etc are cultural.

The relaxation of the smooth muscle in the vagina and clitoris and the increase of blood flow into these organs is thought to be essential in the female sexual response. However, unlike Klevius (and most other men) who is always ready for hetero sex (but never in need for it) women are most receptive for sex only a couple of days per month. And how else could heterosexual reproduction function if not based on heterosexual attraction implanted in males as a code for seeing females as sexually attractive? The pistil is receptive for pollen but to get them she has to attract them, e.g. via honey bees etc. And many male fishes get aroused not by the female fish but by the eggs on which they spray their sperm without a penis. 

However, due to the fact that religion has made sex so culturally weird, we now have a situation where heterosexual attraction is used by both men and women as an excuse for sex segregation/apartheid.

To really see the confusion surrounding heterosexual attraction do consider the following:


Wikipedia: The term heterosexual or heterosexuality is usually applied to humans, but heterosexual behavior is observed in all mammals and in other non-human animals.

Klevius: Would you believe it! 'Observed in all mammals and in other non-human animals'! Since we left the germ state of being, heterosexual attraction has been the rule of sexuality. It's the very definition of sexual reproduction, dude! And even in creatures with both sexes within the same individual there has to be heterosexual attraction to get the sperm to the egg.

Wikipedia: Heterosexuality is romantic attraction (Klevius: impossible), sexual attraction or sexual behavior between persons of opposite sex or gender (sic).

Klevius:  Thus single sentence is packed with stupidities. Heterosexuality can never be romantic attraction because it's purely physical. 'Hetero' means different biological sex. And what would cultural 'gender' have to do with biology!

Wikipedia's senseless babble continues: As a sexual orientation (sic), heterosexuality is "an enduring pattern of emotional (sic), romantic (sic), and/or sexual attractions" to persons of the opposite sex; it "also refers to a person's sense of identity (Klevius: How could physiology suddenly become cultural?!) based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community (sic) of others who share those attractions."

Klevius: Unbelievable conflation of poorly understood (or poorly conceptualized) concepts. Heterosexual' can not be anything else than based on biology, i.e. sex - no matter what you or someone else thinks about it. And yes, you can well be attracted to someone of the opposite sex without it being heterosexual! And the other way round, a man can get heterosexually attracted to someone of the same sex who mimics the opposite sex. What determines heterosexuality is what the man thinks it is. To understand this you may compare a cyber sex robot whom you can't distinguish from a living person.

Drawing (1979) and photo (2012) by Peter Klevius.

Islam is a grave violation of women's sexual freedom (incl. freedom from sex all together). However, Human Rights freedom lets you lead your life as you wish.

The main outlet of islamofascism - i.e. the "respectable" wrapping that really makes it tick. By allowing sharia islam into UN history repeats itself. Either UN as a whole or sharia islam (islamofascism) has to go.

It's precisely UN's and PC babblers' "diversity" (islam) rhetoric that paves the way for and legitimizes muslim "extremisms" and gives their cause something to resonate from.

Saudi based OIC (and its sharia declaration against the most basic of Human Rights) and its Saudi Fuhrer Iyad Madani constitutes the backbone of islamofascism today. So what do you have to say - you half to one billion anti-sharia "muslims"? Talk louder cause Klevius can't hear you!

Klevius wrote:

Monday, May 21, 2012


Klevius beats BBC when it comes to true reporting about OIC!


Totalitarian fanaticism replacing Human Rights while BBC misinforms muslims and others on how they're robbed of their Human Rights!

Sadly, Klevius is still the foremost (and lone?!) expert on sex segregation/apartheid and, consequently, also the web's foremost expert on islam. Why? Because islam rests so heavily on sex segregation/apartheid, even in its most "secular" form (as long as it's meaningful at all to call it islam) that an effort to understand islam without understanding sex segregation/apartheid is doomed to complete failure! In essence what Klevius is doing is in Bourdieu's words 'to restore to historical action, the relationship between the sexes that the naturalistic and essentialist vision removes from them'.  And where Bourdieu went to the Kabyles Klevius went to the origin of islam, Christianity and Judaism!

Klevius beats BBC in reporting on the most essential and critical issue of our time: OIC and its Fuhrer Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu's islamofascist violation of the most basic of Human Rights!

BBC, the largest broadcaster in the world, has as its main responsibility to provide impartial public service broadcasting.

Klevius question: How come then that Klevius beats BBC when it comes to informing about OIC? As you can see on the 'OIC BBC' search below Klevius' 'BBC News', i.e. not BBC, is the first to offer real info about OIC. on the web (see the eighth result on the pic below: BBC News by Klevius)! And to really prove it you will find a picture of the first BBC post (BBC News - Profile: Organization of the Islamic Conference) further down to show that it completely avoids to inform the most essential feature of OIC, namely that it has abandoned Human Rights and replaced them with Sharia.











































































According to BBC OIC's aims are to 'safeguard islamic holy places' (Klevius comment: Those places are already carefully destroyed by the Sauds) and toe eradicate racial discrimination (meaning Human Rights "discrimination" of islamic Sharia) and colonialism (sic - islam has been the worst colonizer ever throughout 1400 years!). But nowhere in BBC's text can you find the most important namely OIC's violation of Human Rights by replacing them with Sharia!

While BBC has some 23,000 staff Klevius is not only alone* and without resources, he is also deliberately hindered in his extremely informative work by active and continuous "islamophobia filtering". Yes, Klevius knows that he could do much better by avoiding words like 'islamofascism' etc. but he loves it.

* no offence to other "islamophobes" out there but Klevius happens to be the one with the best potency for evaluating the origin of islam from a perspective of sex segregation/rapetivism.




Klevius wrote:

Saturday, September 27, 2008


Heterosexual attraction & sex segregation in islam

Quote of the day (Edmondo de Amicis visiting islamic Morocco some 100 yrs ago): "She appeared sad. Perhaps the reason was that her husband's fourth wife, a recently arrived young 14 yr old girl in his harem, had triumphed over her in a way that was clearly reflected in her husband's indifference." Klevius comment: Heterosexual attraction (HSA) combined with sex segregation is often disastrous for human relations! Only with full access to respective social spheres, as well as full awareness of the HSA discrepancy between the sexes (i.e. what möst feminists deny) an open de-sex segregated interaction is possible' HSA per se doesn't presupposes/determines sex of any kind - neither does women "need a normal penis several times" (S. Freud) nor does a male need to rape. What could the older wife possibly offer her husband behind an impenetrable wall of sex segregation when her physical attraction didn't work anymore? Only islam was satisfied because she had to continue her inescapable (Sharia & apostasy ban) fate of fostering new islamists!



Klevius wrote:

Monday, April 15, 2013


Rapetivism and heterosexual attraction


Researching rapetivism in research




“I had no power to say ‘that’s not okay:’” Reports of harassment and abuse in the field, By Kate Clancy.


Klevius (who seems to be, sad to say, still the world's foremost expert on sex segregation): Sexism is a widespread social disease fueled by sex segregation/apartheid. And it's not cured by covering in burqas and Sharia.

Sex segregation results in girls being stripped off their humanhood and hence becoming the sole target for heterosexiual attraction and cultural sexism. Usually the only sex freed relationship outside a girl's own sex  in a sex segregated world is with close male kins (because they lack bio-heterosexual attraction).

Rapetivism , i.e. the enslavement/abuse of confined/veiled girls/women as physical and cultural reproducers of as many new muslims (i.e. islam) as possible under the threats from Sharia and apostasy ban, is, in fact, a form of HSA perversion , i.e. "cultural/physical necrophilia" that rests on cultural sex segregation. However, although islam is the ultimate sex segregation/apartheid, most of us, at least partially, still suffer under milder forms of the same cultural disease. This (+ our untreated vulnerability for fascism) is the main reason why evil medieval islam has been able to rise its ugly face of slavery/racism/sexism again.

(text extracted from Klevius old original writings)

So underpinning these rapes and sexist attitudes lies a cultural sex segregation/apartheid that is codified in the Bible and driven to ultimate excess in the Koran/Sharia.

God made Adam in his image but to entertain Adam he created a being called Eve from the least valuable part of Adam's skeleton, i.e. a ribbon which happens to be the only bone that has multiple copies and which doesn't cause much of a trouble even if broken.


Educate yourself on the crucial difference between positive and negative Human Rights!





Klevius wrote:

Tuesday, December 16, 2014


Muslim stupidity behind islam's misogyny


Klevius, the world's foremost expert on sex segregation (sad isn't it), sex tutorial for muslims and their accomplices in their crimes against Human Rights





Samantha Lewthwaite, Mishal Husain (BBC's sharia presenter) and Michael Adebolajo all have islam and its Human Rights violating sharia in common




onislam.net (a deceptive but popular A/Q site for naive/ignorant people): By covering herself, a Muslim woman declares that she is equal to man and has brains. She closes the door to being seen as “a piece of meat”.

Klevius: Really! Muslim women have brains! A muslim brain, is it? However, Klevius has always enjoyed seeing his infidel girlfriends and wives as heterosexually attractive (i.e. what muslims see as “a piece of meat”). However, unlike all true muslims (defined according to onislam.net) and many sexist non-muslims as well, Klevius has always seen women as equal to himself - even while appreciating their heterosexual attraction and during sexual acts. This approach seems to be radically different from muslim sex predators who, following the Koran and onislam.net etc., see "infidel" girls/women as sex slaves 'their right hand possesses'. In other words, whereas muslim women just belong to an inferior "race" in need of male dictators, non-muslim women are considered even lower than that. Klevius approach, however, goes in the very opposite direction and makes it possible for him to encounter, on an equal basis women with or without heterosexual attraction! Klevius is the opposite to Casanova or Don Juan and has never ever seduced a woman - and he is extremely proud about it. Why should he even try to lure her into something and consequently loose the human virginity in the relation?! And how could one fully enjoy a relation with a woman if there are mutual "no go zones" - not to mention restrictions laid on her? And what if the woman isn't interested in heterosex or sex at all? The fact that Klevius might appreciate the look of a woman's body doesn't make him believe the woman wants it. And although Klevius has nothing to say about voyeurism emanating from women themselves, he completely disapprove of peeping Tom. Likewise Klevius can not comprehend how anyone could be aroused by seeing a naked woman who isn't herself aware and positive to it. Klevius files such perversions under necrophilia. 

onislam.net: As for women praying behind men, it is not, my dear (sic), because they are inferior. Muslim prayers involve bowing and prostrating. If women were next to or in front of men, their movements would be distracting. It is again, to keep their chastity and avoid focusing on their bodily existence.

Klevius: Poor muslim men. They seem to be real extremists. Although Klevius would love to be unique, facts seem to prove him "extremely"* normal". Unlike muslims, the majority of civilized men have no problem seeing female bodies without connecting it to sex or sexism, not to mention rape etc. Where Klevius differs from many other civilized men is only when it comes to sex segregation, i.e. the prevalent but so problematic confusion produced by mixing heterosexual attraction with the human person. And in this both men and women have been guilty of upholding a perverted view on each other. This is also why Klevius always refers to the (negative) Human Rights declaration from 1948 which clearly states that one's sex ought not to infringe on one's Human Rights - as it does in islam and which caused OIC (all muslims Saudi based and Saudi steered world Umma organization) to abandon Human Rights and replace them with misogynist sharia.

* Among 1.5+ Billion muslims and another 1.5+ Billion naively/ignorant (or purely evil) muslim supporters, Klevius normality has to be underscored in the same way as his normality in defending Human Rights isn't "extremism" but extremely important today.
onislam.net: In Islam, the husband is responsible for all the expenses of the household. Then, in return, the wife is to guard his property and her chastity in his absence. She is to obey him in things regarding their life together.

Klevius: An imprisoned whore!

onislam.net: A Muslim husband has the right to order his non-Muslim wife not to serve pork or alcohol in the house. Yet, he is also responsible not to offend her creed or prohibit her from her given right of worshiping, according to her Christian or Jewish faith.

Klevius: Only Christian or Jewish faith? What about people outside the book, i.e. the majority of the world's population? And is she allowed to eat pork? More to the point, Klevius would hate to be a family dictator. Why? Because Klevius believes in democracy. Which fact doesn't exclude criticism of bad decisions/opinions. And the best way to criticize is to highlight possible drawbacks and let her balance them just as she would do against his. I.e. that kind of criticism that isn't allowed against islam!

onislam.net: But, if a Muslim woman were to marry a non-Muslim man and he ordered her to serve pork or alcohol, what would she do? What if he ordered her not to pray or fast?

Klevius: She doesn't have to eat it, does she, precisely because he is a non-muslim. Or should we interpret it as muslim women aren't allowed to even touch wine bottles or pork packages etc. Islam is a laughably rigid system of restrictions and impositions. And a civilized non-muslim man would probably not "order" a woman at all. Only in the worst ever ideological hate crime is it today possible to even hint at such stupidities.

onislam.net: A Muslim wife is originally obliged to obey her husband, in order to maintain peace and love with the family relations. Yet, off course a woman should obey Allah first. So, if there is conflict between the husband’s demands and Allah’s orders, it puts a great strain on the marriage. Thus, Islam prohibits a Muslim woman from marrying a non-Muslim man.

Klevius: Not at all. The will of "Allah" is completely deleted in islam. The real reason is that the kids should become muslims. And this extreme one way immoral is perhaps the most striking feature of islam compared to civilized Human Rights thinking.


onislam.net: Even if a non-Muslim wife doesn't respect Islam the Muslim husband has the right to demand certain behavior from her.

Klevius: "Certain behavior" like domestic sex slavery and responsibility to foster her kids to muslim jihadis and not according to her own beliefs.

onislam.net: Men and women do not have the same responsibilities and rights in Islam. For example, the wife has the right to  stay home and care for her young children. She can instill the best values in them. She can build a strong family… and strong families build strong healthy societies.

Klevius: Healthy societies?! The majority of the most unhealthy societies are and have always been muslim caliphates, nations or muslim communities! No matter if a muslim nation is rich due to slavery or Western oil money, or poor when this is lacking - the result is always unhealthy societies!


Iyad Madani, the Saudi dictator family's islamofascist leader of the world's muslims most important organization OIC.




Thursday, March 14, 2013

Klevius sex and gender tutorial


Klevius' proposal to bright minded and non-biased readers: Do read EMAH, i.e. how continuous integration in Thalamus of complex neural patterns without the assistance of one or infinite "Homunculus" constitutes the basis for memory and "consciousness".

Klevius quest of the day: What's the difference between the Pope and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg?


Klevius hint: It's all about 'not sameness' and Human Rights! Human Rights IS 'sameness' stupid!


When God was created he was made like Adam.

When the basic idea of Universal Human Rights was created it was made like Adam AND Eve.

And for you who think heterosexual attraction, i.e. that women are sexier than men, could be (exc)used as a reason for depriving women of legal sameness. Please, do think again!And read Klevius Sex and Gender Tutorial below - if you can!




                           The Plan of God


A Cardinal, a Pope and a Justice "from medieval times"





Keith O'Brien has reiterated the Catholic Church's continued opposition to civil partnerships and suggested that there should be no laws that "facilitate" same-sex relationships, which he claimed were "harmful", arguing that “The empirical evidence is clear, same-sex relationships are demonstrably harmful to the medical, emotional and spiritual wellbeing of those involved, no compassionate society should ever enact legislation to facilitate or promote such relationships, we have failed those who struggle with same-sex attraction and wider society by our actions.”

Four male members of the Scottish Catholic clergy  allegedly claim that Keith O'Brien had abused his position as a member of the church hierarchy by making unwanted homosexual advances towards them in the 1980s.

Keith O'Brien criticized the concept of same-sex marriage saying it would shame the United Kingdom and that promoting such things would degenerate society further.


Pope Francis, aka Jorge Bergoglio: Same-sex is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God." He has also insisted that adoption by gay and lesbian people is a form of discrimination against children. This position received a rebuke from Argentine president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who said the church's tone was reminiscent of "medieval times and the Inquisition".




Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: 'Sex' is a dirty word, so let's use 'gender' instead!


Klevius: Let's not!


As previously and repeatedly pointed out by Klevius, the treacherous use of 'gender' instead of 'sex' is not only confusing but deliberately so. So when Jewish Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg proposed gender' as a synonyme for 'sex' (meaning biological sex) she also helped to shut the door for many a young girl's/woman's possibilities to climb outside the gender cage.

The Universal Human Rights declaration clearly states that your biological sex should not be referred to as an excuse for limiting your rights.







Islam (now represented by OIC and its Sharia declaration) is the worst and most dangerous form of sex segregation - no matter in how modern clothing it's presented!


Klevius Sex and Gender Tutorial

What is 'gender' anyway?


(text randomly extracted from some scientific writings by Klevius)
It might be argued that it is the developing girl, not the grown up woman, who is the most receptive to new experience, but yet is also the most vulnerable. Therefore we need to address the analysis of the tyranny of gender before the point at where it's already too late.  I prefer to use the term ‘female’ instead of ‘woman’, when appropriate in this discussion. I also prefer not to define women in relation to men, i.e. in line with the word 'universal' in the Human Rights Declaration. In short, I propose 'gender blindness' equally as, for example, 'color blindness'.

According to Connell (2003:184), it is an old and disreputable habit to define women mainly on the basis of their relation to men. Moreover, this approach may also constitute a possible cause of confusion when compared to a definition of ‘gender’ which emphasizes social relations on the basis of ‘reproductive differences’.

To really grasp the absurdity of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's and others habit of confusing 'gender' with 'sex' one may consider that “normal” women live in the same gender trap tyranny as do transsexuals.
The definition of ‘acquired gender’ is described in a guidance for/about transsexuals as:
Transsexual people have the deep conviction that the gender to which they were assigned at birth on the basis of their physical anatomy (referred to as their “birth gender”) is incorrect. That conviction will often lead them to take steps to present themselves to the world in the opposite gender. Often, transsexual people will undergo hormonal or surgical treatment to bring their physical identity into line with their preferred gender identity.
This evokes the extinction of the feminine or women as directly dependent on the existence of the masculine or men. Whereas the feminine cannot be defined without the masculine, the same applies to women who cannot be defined - only described - without men.
Female footballers, for example - as opposed to feminine footballers, both male and female - are, just like the target group of feminism, by definition distinguished by sex. Although this classification is a physical segregation – most often based on a delivery room assessment made official and not at all taking into account physical size, strength, skills etc. - other aspects of sex difference, now usually called ‘gender’, seem to be layered on top of this dichotomy. This review departs from the understanding that there are two main categories that distinguish females, i.e. the physical sex belonging, for example, that only biological women may participate in a certain competition, and the cultural sex determination, for example that some sports are less ‘feminine’ than others.
‘Gender’, is synonymous with sex segregation, given that the example of participation on the ground of one’s biological sex is simply a rule for a certain agreed activity and hence not sex segregation in the form of stipulated or assumed separatism. Such sex segregation is still common even in societies which have prescribed to notions of general human freedom regardless of sex and in accordance with Human Rights. This is because of a common consensus that sex segregation is ‘good’ although its effects are bad.

In Durkheim’s (1984: 142) view such ‘organized despotism’ is where the individual and the collective consciousness are almost the same. Then sui generis, a new life may be added on to that of the main body. As a consequence, this freer and more independent state progresses and consolidates itself (Durkheim 1984: 284).

However, consensus may also rest on an imbalance that is upheld and may even strengthen precisely as an effect of the initial imbalance. In such a case ‘organized despotism’ becomes the means for conservation. As a consequence, the only alternative would be to ease restrictions, which is something fundamentally different from proposing how people should live their lives. ‘Organized despotism’ in this meaning may apply to gender and to sex segregation as well.
According to Connell (2003) whose confused view may be closer to that of Justice Ginsburg, gender is neither biology, nor a fixed dichotomy, but it has a special relation to the human body mirrored in a ‘general perception’. Cultural patterns do not only mirror bodily differences. Gender is ‘a structure’ of social relations/practices concentrated to ‘the reproductive arena’, and a series of due practices in social processes. That is, gender describes how society relates to the human body, and has due consequences for our private life and for the future of wo/mankind (Connell 2003:21-22).
Gender is neither biology, nor a fixed dichotomy, but it has a special relation to the human body mirrored in a “general perception.” What is wrong with this view is the thought that cultural patterns only mirror bodily differences. Gender is “a structure” of social relations/practices concentrated to “the reproductive arena”, and a series of due practices in the social processes. I.e. it describes how society relates to the human body, and due consequences to our private life and for the future of wo/mankind (Connell 2003:21-22). The main problem here involves how to talk without gender.
... sex should properly refer to the biological aspects of male and female existence. Sex differences should therefore only be used to refer to physiology, anatomy, genetics, hormones and so forth. Gender should properly be used to refer to all the non‑biological aspects of differences between males and females ‑ clothes, interests, attitudes, behaviours and aptitudes, for example ‑ which separate 'masculine' from 'feminine' life styles (Delamont 1980: 5 in Hargreaves 1994:146).
The distinction between sex and gender implied in these quotations, however, does not seem to resolve the issue precisely because it fails to offer a tool for discriminating biological aspects of differences from non-biological, i.e. cultural. This is also reflected in everyday life “folk categories of sex and gender” which (most?) often appear to be used as if they were the same. Although 'masculine' and 'feminine' are social realities, there is a mystique about their being predetermined by biology” (ibid). Furthermore the very relational meaning of ‘gender’ seems to constitute a too an obvious hiding place for essentialism based on sex. Apart from being ‘structure’, as noted above, gender is, according to Connell, all about relations (2003:20). However, if there are none, or if the relations are excluding, the concept of sex segregation may be even more useful.
It seems that 'masculine' and 'feminine’ in this definition of gender is confusingly close to the ‘mystique about their being predetermined by biology’ when compared to the ‘reproductive arena’ and ‘reproductive differences’ in Connell’s definition of gender. However, although gender, according to Connell (2003: 96), may also be ‘removed’ the crucial issue is whether those who are segregated really want to de-sex segregate? As long as the benefits of a breakout are not clearly assessable, the possible negative effects may undermine such efforts.
According to Connell (2003:20) the very key to the understanding of gender is not to focus on differences, but, instead, to focus on relations. In fact, this distinction is crucial here because relations, contrary to differences, are mutually dependent. Whatever difference existing between the sexes is meaningless unless it is connected via a relation. On the one hand, big male muscles can hardly be of relational use other than in cases of domestic violence, and on the other hand, wage gaps cannot be identified without a comparative relation to the other sex.
Biological determinism is influential in the general discourse of sports academia (Hargreaves 1994:8). However, what remains to analyse is whether ‘gender’ is really a successful concept for dealing with biological determinism?
‘To explain the cultural at the level of the biological encourages the exaggeration and approval of analyses based on distinctions between men and women, and masks the complex relationship between the biological and the cultural’ (Hargreaves 1994:8).
With another example: to explain the cultural (driver) at the level of the technical (type of car) encourages the exaggeration and approval of analyses based on distinctions between cars, and masks the complex relationship between the car and the driver. However, also the contrary seems to hold true;. that the cultural (driver/gender) gets tied to the technical/biological. The ‘complex relationship’ between the car and the driver is easily avoided by using similar1 cars, hence making the driver more visible. In a sex/gender setting the ‘complex relationship’ between sex and gender is easily avoided by distinguishing between sex and culture2, hence making culture more visible. The term ‘culture’, unlike the term ‘gender’ clearly tries to avoid the ‘complex relationship’ between biology and gender. The ‘complex relationship’ makes it, in fact, impossible to distinguish between them. On top of this comes the ‘gender relation’ confusion, which determines people to have ‘gender relations’, i.e. to be opposite or separate.
This kind of gender view is popular, perhaps because it may serve as a convenient way out from directly confronting the biology/culture distinction, and seems to be the prevalent trend, to the extent that ‘gender’ has conceptually replaced ‘sex’, leading to the consequence that the latter has become more or less self-evident and thus almost beyond scrutiny. In other words, by using ‘gender’ as a sign for ‘the complex relationship between the biological and the cultural’, biological determinism becomes more difficult to access analytically.
Gender is neither biology, nor a fixed dichotomy, but it has a special relation to the human body mirrored in a ‘general perception.’ What is problematic with this view is the thought that cultural patterns only mirror bodily differences. Gender is ‘a structure’ of social relations/practices concentrated to ‘the reproductive arena’, and a series of due practices in social processes. That is, it describes how society relates to the human body and has due consequences to our private life and for the future of wo/mankind (Connell 2003: 21-22). The main problem here involves how to talk sex without gender:
‘Sex should properly refer to the biological aspects of male and female existence. Sex differences should therefore only be used to refer to physiology, anatomy, genetics, hormones and so forth. Gender should properly be used to refer to all the nonbiological aspects of differences between males and females clothes, interests, attitudes, behaviours and aptitudes, for example which separate 'masculine' from 'feminine' lifestyles’ (Delamont 1980 quoted in Hargreaves 1994: 146).
The distinction between sex and gender implied in these quotations, however, does not seem to resolve the issue, precisely because it fails to offer a tool for discriminating biological aspects of differences from non-biological ones, i.e. those that are cultural. This is also reflected in everyday life. ‘Folk’ categories of sex and gender often appear to be used as if they were the same thing. Although 'masculine' and 'feminine' are social realities, there is a mystique about their being predetermined by biology. Furthermore the very relational meaning of ‘gender’ seems to constitute a too obvious hiding place for a brand of essentialism based on sex. Apart from being ‘structure’, as noted above, gender is, according to Connell (2003:20), all about relations. However, if there are none - or if the relations are excluding - the concept of sex segregation may be even more useful.
In Connell’s analysis, however, gender may also be removed (Connell 2003:96). In this respect and as a consequence, gender equals sex segregation. In fact it seems that the 'masculine' and 'feminine’, in the definition of gender above, are confusingly close to the ‘mystique about their being predetermined by biology’ when compared to the ‘reproductive arena’ and ‘reproductive differences’ in Connell’s (2003:21) definition of gender. The elusiveness of gender seems to reveal a point of focus rather than a thorough-going conceptualization. So, for example, in traditional Engels/Marx thinking the family’s mediating formation between class and state excludes the politics of gender (Haraway 1991: 131). 

What's a Woman?

In What is a Woman? Moi (1999) attacks the concept of gender while still emphasizing the importance of the concept of the feminine and a strong self-conscious (female) subject that combines the personal and the theoretical within it. Moi (1999: 76), hence, seems to propose a loose sex/gender axis resting on a rigid womanhood based on women’s context bound, lived experience outside the realm of men’s experience.
Although I share Moi’s suggestion for abandoning the category of gender, her analysis seems to contribute to a certain confusion and to an almost incalculable theoretical abstraction in the sex/gender distinction because it keeps maintaining sex segregation without offering a convincing defence for it. Although gender, for example, is seen as a nature-culture distinction, something that essentializes non-essential differences between women and men, the same may be said about Moi’s approach if we understand her ‘woman’ as, mainly, the mainstream biological one usually classified (prematurely) in the delivery room. If the sexes live in separate spheres, as Moi’s analysis seems to imply, the lived, contextual experience of women appears as less suitable for pioneering on men’s territory. 
This raises the question about whether the opening up of new frontiers for females may demand the lessening or even the absence of femininity (and masculinity). In fact, it is believed here that the ‘liminal state’ where social progression might best occur, is precisely that. Gender as an educated ‘facticity’ then, from this point of view, will inevitably enter into a state of world view that adds itself onto the ‘lived body’ as a constraint.
It is assumed here that we commonly conflate constructs of sex, gender, and sexuality. When sex is defined as the ‘biological’ aspects of male and female, then this conceptualization is here understood as purely descriptive. When gender is said to include social practices organized in relation to biological sex (Connell 1987), and when gender refers to context/time-specific and changeable socially constructed relationships of social attributes and opportunities learned through socialization processes, between women and men, this is also here understood as descriptive. However, when description of gender transforms into active construction of gender, e.g. through secrets about its analytical gain, it subsequently transforms into a compulsory necessity. Gendering hence may blindfold gender-blind opportunities.
In conclusion, if gender is here understood as a social construct, then is not coupled to sex but to context, and dependent on time. Also it is here understood that every person may possess not only one but a variety of genders. Even if we consider gender to be locked together with the life history of a single individual the above conceptualization makes a single, personal gender impossible, longitudinally as well as contemporaneously. Whereas gender is constructive and deterministic, sex is descriptive and non-deterministic. In this sense, gender as an analytical tool leaves little room for the Tomboy.

The Tomboy - a threat to "femininity"

Noncompliance with what is assumed ‘feminine’ threatens established or presumed sex segregation. What is perceived as ‘masculinity’ or ‘maleness’ in women, as a consequence, may only in second place, target homosexuality. In accordance with this line of thought, the Tomboy embodies both the threat and the possibilities for gendered respectively gender-blind opportunity structures. 
The Tomboy is the loophole out of gender relations. Desires revealed through sport may have been with females under the guise of a different identity, such as that of the Tomboy (Kotarba & Held 2007: 163). Girls throw balls ‘like girls’ and do not tackle like boys because of a female perception of their bodies as objects of action (Young 2000:150 cited in Kotarba & Held 2007: 155).
However, when women lacking experience of how to act in an effective manner in sport are taught about how to do, they have no problem performing, quite contrary to explaining shortcomings as due to innate causes (Kotarba & Held 2007: 157). This is also opposite to the experiences of male-to-female transsexuals who through thorough exercise learn how to feminisize their movements (Schrock & Boyd 2006:53-55). Although, according to Hargreaves (1994), most separatist sports philosophies have been a reaction to dominant ideas about the biological and psychological predispositions of men and women, supposedly rendering men 'naturally suited to sports, and women, by comparison, essentially less suited (Hargreaves 1994:29-30), the opposite may also hold true. Separatism per definition needs to separate and this separation is often based on biological differences, be it skin colour, sex or something else. 
From this perspective, the Tomboy would constitute a theoretical anomaly in a feminine separatist setting. Although her physical body would possibly qualify what makes her a Tomboy would not.
The observation that in mixed playgrounds, and in other areas of the school environment, boys monopolize the physical space (Hargreaves 1994:151) may lack the additional notion that certain boys dominate and certain boys do not. Sports feminists have 'politicized' these kinds of experience by drawing connections between ideas and practice (Hargreaves 1994:3) but because of a separatist approach may exclude similar experience among parts of the boys. Moreover, a separatist approach is never waterproof and may hence leak Tomboy girls without a notion.
Femininity and feminism

Feminism and psychoanalysis as oppressors

According to Collier and Yanagisako (1987), Henrietta Moore (1994) and other feminist anthropologists, patriarchal dominance is an inseparable socially inherited part of the conventional family system. This implicit suggestion of radical surgery does not, however, count on unwanted secondary effects neither on the problem with segregated or non-segregated sex-worlds. If, in other words, oppression is related to gender segregation rather than patriarchy, or perhaps that patriarchy is a product of sex segregation, then there seems to be a serious problem of intellectual survival facing feminists themselves. If feminism1 is to be understood as an approach and/or analytical tool for separatism2, those feminists and others who propose not only analytical segregation but also practical segregation, face the problem of possible oppression inherent in this very segregation (Klevius 1994, 1996). In this sense oppression is related to sex segregation in two ways:
1. As a means for naming it (feminism) for an analytical purpose.
2. As a social consequence or political strategy (e.g. negative bias against female football or a separatist strategy for female football).
It is notable that the psychoanalytic movement has not only been contemporary with feminism, but it has also followed (or led) the same pattern of concern and proposed warnings and corrections that has marked the history of ‘feminism’ in the 20th century. According to S. Freud, the essence of the analytic profession is feminine and the psychoanalyst ‘a woman in love’ (L. Appignanesi & J. Forrester 1992:189). But psychoanalytically speaking, formalized sex and sex segregation also seem to have been troublesome components in the lives of female psychoanalysts struggling under a variety of assumed, but irreconcilable femininities and professional expectations. 
In studying the history of feminism one inevitable encounters what is called ‘the women’s movement’. While there is a variety of different feminisms, and because the borders between them, as well as to what is interpreted as the women’s rights movement, some historians, incl. Klevius, question the distinction and/or methods in use for this distinction.
However, it could also be argued that whereas the women’s right movement may be distinguished by its lack of active separatism within the proposed objectives of the movement, feminism ought to be distinguished as a multifaceted separatist movement based on what is considered feminine values, i.e. what is implied by the very word ‘feminism’3. From this perspective the use of the term ‘feminism’ before the last decades of the 19th century has to be re-evaluated, as has every such usage that does not take into account the separatist nature underpinning all feminisms. Here it is understood that the concept ‘feminism’, and its derivatives, in every usage implies a distinction based on separating the sexes - e.g. addressing inequality or inequity - between male and female (see discussion above). So although ’feminism’ and ‘feminisms’ would be meaningless without such a separation, the ‘women’s rights movement’, seen as based on a distinct aim for equality with men in certain legal respects, e.g. the right to vote, could be described as the opposite, i.e. de-segregation, ‘gender blindness’ etc.
As a consequence the use of the word feminism in a context where it seems inappropriate is here excepted when the authors referred to have decided to do so. The feminist movement went back to Mary Wollstonecraft and to some French revolutionaries of the end of the eighteenth century, but it had developed slowly. In the period 1880 to 1900, however, the struggle was taken up again with renewed vigour, even though most contemporaries viewed it as idealistic and hopeless. Nevertheless, it resulted in ideological discussions about the natural equality or non-equality of the sexes, and the psychology of women. (Ellenberger 1970: 291-292). 
Not only feminist gynocentrists, but also anti-feminist misogynists contributed with their own pronouncements on the woman issue. In 1901, for example, the German psychiatrist Moebius published a treatise, On the Physiological Imbecility of Woman, according to which, woman is physically and mentally intermediate between the child and man (see Ellenberger 1970:292). However, according to the underlying presumption of this thesis, i.e. that the borders between gynocentrism and misogyny are not well understood, these two approaches are seen as more or less synonymous. Such a view also confirms with a multitude of points in common between psychoanalysis and feminism. As was argued earlier, the main quality of separatism and ‘complementarism’ is an insurmountable border, sometimes contained under the titles: love, desire etc.

.