China (laws against sharia islamofascism) and EU (Human Rights against sharia islamofascism) are now the only ones protecting basic (negative*) Human Rights.
* Religious people and socialists don't like negative Human Rights simply because they prefer collectives ("communities") rather than individuals. That's why the web is full of misinfo about these rights. Read Peter Klevius definition instead if you want a deep view - or listen to Lauren Chen starting from 7:11 if you want it light
The Saudi "custodian of islam" has some 1.5 billion "citizens" in the muslim world Ummah nation - and demands the world to bow them no matter what (as long they aren't Shia or so, of course). China, on the other hand, keeps its citizens and laws within its own borders. IS islam IS fascism and islam (even the archbishop agrees). So why is sharia fascism not separated from an "islam" that submits to basic Human Rights? As it stands now Saudi based and steered OIC's sharia (the 1990 Cairo declaration) still stands as the basic Human Rights violation via sharia muslims all over the world. And whereas China actively tries to erase sharia islamofascism, EU keeps promoting import of it while judicially telling us it's not right, yet doing nothing to stop it.
Unlike the West, China hasn't aggressively meddled militaristically in other countries around the world, but rather being the world's foremost spreader of new technology and wealth. And whereas the West has eagerly supported Mohammed's totalitarian aims, China has, in practise, implemented in law most of the Human Rights advices that The Council of Europe has directed against OIC. Against this background West's Saudi backing and China smearing is deeply bigoted and hypocritical.

John le Carré: I'm depressed and ashamed of British nationalism. Nationalism needs enemies but today we really have no identifiable enemies except among ourselves.

North Atlantic (sic) Treaty Organization invades a country in Mideast and attacks a people without a country.

Read K.S. Lal (free online) on islam's evil spread!

A Google (i.e. U.S. web monopoly) search (20191006) reports 'islamists Hong Kong' "missing". Really! No islamists in Hong Kong? Peter Klevius also wonders if EU citizens in UK are UKongers and can peacefully demand the same rights as Joshua Wong violently demands (and eagerly broadcasted by BBC) for Hong Kongers?

Peter Klevius congratulates Savid Javid for abandoning the islamofascist "islamophobia" smear. BBC’s bigoted hypocrite Mishal Husain and others ought to follow!

BBC's Mark Mardell couldn't get a visa to China because of his extreme and hateful Sinophobia - but that didn't stop him/BBC from producing a fake anti-China program series while pretending to be there. Is Sinophobia really better than cooperation?


Are EU citizens in UK included in Tom Tugenhadt's "British people"?

Sinophobe Tom Tugendhat, chair of UK's Foreign Affairs Committee (who has studied islam and Arabic in Mideast) suggests that English speaking universities should consider banning Chinese students because "they might be used as leverage like Huawei". Peter Klevius wonders if one could be any more racist than this, and if he doesn't see any islamofascist sharia supremacist "leverage" at all? Btw, there are more than 50,000 Chinese muslims in Hong Kong. Peter Klevius wonders how many of them are "radical" ones and participate in BBC's lengthy anti-China propaganda "news" - while the world doesn't suffer from Chinese but from muslim violence and Human Rights violations?
US/UK destroyed the lives of millions of Chinese during some hundred years of evil militaristic meddling. BBC is now busy smearing China all the time while supporting Saudi islamofascism and violent Hong Kong demonstrators - but neglecting the mass of peaceful pro-China demonstrators. BBC also "worries" about Chinese "surveillance state" while the truth is China's technological superiority. US is much more insidious in its surveillance policies but lacks the techno - can't even produce a working 5G so far. US/UK follow exactly China but utilize the meantime to smear it. And who is really behind the Hong Kong riots? Someone who can't take China's success? But the Syria tactics won't work. US (and its UK puppet) wants to be able to meddle militarily near China - therefore its interest in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Korea, Tibet, Myanmar, Uyghur extremist muslims etc.

As Greta Thunberg is allegedly reported to the Swedish social authorities, Peter Klevius suggests that her parents read his thesis Pathological Symbiosis in LVU, Relevance, and Sex Segregated Emergence. Keeping in mind that Peter Klevius daughter was only 15 when she entered university and at 16 made her graduate paper about women in ancient times, it shouldn't be considered too sensitive for Greta either. Also read the attached email correspondence which clearly shows how democracy is manipulated. And why not consider Angels of Antichrist, the Social State vs the People (P. Klevius 1996). And last but not least, Peter Klevius 1981/1992 Demand for Resources (original titel Resursbegär).
Peter Klevius and the Council of Europe share exactly the same "islamophobia".
Council of Europe. Resolution 2253 (2019), Sharia, Saudi based and steered OIC's Cairo Declaration and the European Convention on Human Rights: Human Rights protect the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion as enshrined in Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The right to manifest one’s religion, however, is a qualified right whose exercise, under Article 17 of the Convention, may not aim at the destruction of other Convention rights or freedoms.

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?

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, October 30, 2018

Klevius to muslims: Show some courage and take a stance against Human Rights violating sharia! Be a proud apostate like Obama.

Can you trace "shariaphobia hate" and Human Rightsphobia in this image? 




Klevius defends Greece's muslims' right to get rid of sharia.



From Wikipedia:



While the law permits a muslim man to marry a non-muslim woman, it does not allow a muslim woman to marry a non-muslim man without proof of his conversion to islam. Almost all muslim nations prohibit it.

Under muslim sharia, if a non-muslim woman is married to a non-muslim, and she converts to islam, the marriage is suspended until her husband converts to islam. She could, in theory, leave the non-muslim husband and marry a muslim one. If the non-muslim husband does convert a new marriage is not needed.


Modern practice

In practice, many Arab countries allowed interfaith marriage to Christian or Jewish women but not to non-muslim men. In Lebanon for example there is no civil personal status law and marriages are performed according to the religion of the spouses. There, Muslim women cannot marry non-muslim men, whereas this is possible vice versa, at least if the spouse is a Christian or Jewish woman. Turkey allows marriages to non-muslim men through secular laws. In Tunisia since 16 September 2017, muslim women can lawfully marry any man of any faith, or of none. In Malaysia (which by Western media/politicians was described as a "moderate" benchmark) a non-muslim must convert to islam in order to marry a muslim. The offspring of such unions are automatically muslims and all Malaysian muslims are legally prohibited from leaving islam (Riddah).

Interfaith marriage especially between Hindus and muslims often have been the bone of contention and have resulted in communal riots in India. Love Jihad, also called Romeo Jihad,  is an alleged activity under which young muslim boys and men target young girls belonging to non-muslim communities for conversion to islam by feigning love.

However, there's something peculiar with monotheisms. Canaanites, Jews in Medina, Catholic inquisition etc. And when will non-muslims get the same right to not be offended as muslims have?






.

Sunday, October 28, 2018

ECHR, Elisabeth Sabaditsch Wolff, Peter Klevius, Jurgen Habermas - and the incompatibility of sharia with Human Rights


It was wrong and cowardice by the  European Court of Human Rights to (in practice) agitate* for more Human Rightsphobia among muslims. And the reason is what Klevius calls the "Mishal Husain-syndrome"**.


* ECHR hid behind "margin of appreciation" (see below) and utilized some less elegant patterns of speech by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, hence again blinking the clear connection between islamic teachings and muslim assaults on "infidels" and Human Rights. Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff could have got away with calling Mohammad (not to be confused with Mohammad Salman) a pedophile by just saying it in a slightly different way (see ECHR verdict below). So in short, ECHR hid behind multiple barriers: 1) margin of appreciation 2) utilizing clumpsy wording by the accused 3) utilizing a diffuse "the rights of muslims (which muslims? not Mishal Husain I gather - Mohammad Salman?!) to have their religious feelings protected". Moreover, the fact that muslim sharia isn't compatible with Human Right is the very allure of true evil islam. because it paves the way for allowing open racism and sexism. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali used to say: We shouldn't tolerate intolerance.

BBC's  presenter Mishal Husain says she's a muslim but doesn't follow sharia, i.e. she doesn't fast during Ramadan but rather drinks some alcohol, nor does she use veils or similar muslim attires.  So when she also says "I don't feel any threats against my way of life" Klevius considers it deeply offensive against all those women who have their Human Rights crashed because of muslim sharia.

** "Michal Husain-syndrome" stands for presenting islam and muslims as a Potemkin village, i.e. painting muslims and islam as something true sharia muslims/islam is not. Also compare the evil Saudi "prince" and "custodian of islam" and war criminal etc. muslim terrorist Mohammad Salman who wants to "justify" his Western way of life while calling himself a muslim and utilizing the world's muslims and islam for his hegemonic efforts. No wonder he since many years back has been called the word's most dangerous muslim".




However:

Annual Report on 2003 of the European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe, re. sharia incompatibilty with Human Rights:


    Noting that the Welfare Party had pledged to set up a regime based on sharia law, the Court found that sharia was incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy as set forth in the Convention. It considered that “sharia, which faithfully reflects the dogmas and divine rules laid down by religion, is stable and invariable. Principles such as pluralism in the political sphere or the constant evolution of public freedoms have no place in it”. According to the Court, it was difficult to declare one’s respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverged from Convention values, particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, its rules on the legal status of women and the way it intervened in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.

Three member countries of the Council of Europe have ratified both the European Convention on Human Rights and the Cairo Declaration, which is a declaration of Human Rights compatible with the sharia. These countries are Albania, Azerbaijan and Turkey. One must add that the Russian Federation and Bosnia and Herzegovina have not signed the Cairo Declaration but are members observers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and they have signed the ECHR.

OIC's Cairo Declaration of 5th August 1990 stipulates inter alia that “islam is the religion of unspoiled nature”. It does not contain a right to freedom of religion, does not confirm the equality before the law of all humans regardless of their sex, religion or no-religion, and Article 25 stipulates that “The islamic shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration”. In other words," Human Rights can go to Hell" as many muslims write on their posters.

Klevius answer: Only if it wants to be as close to Universal Human Rights as possible.

Dear reader, if you wonder why Klevius doesn't use capitals on muslims and islam - take a look at BBC which doesn't use capitals for Atheism, although the latter is way closer to Human Rights moral than sharia muslims/islam. There are also technical/grammatical reasons but Klevius has no time right now to also explain that. 

 Drawing called 'Human Rights rather than religion' by Peter Klevius 1979.

Many  of the principles stated in muslim sharia contravene the principles which are recognized as Human Rights, and first of all, freedom of/from religion, women's rights and the one way marriage system which leads to ever more muslims through birth (compare Obama who is technically an apostate).



According to muslim sharia, a muslim does not have the right to change his religion to another religion or to Atheism. If he does so, he is an apostate, which generates his civil death (opening of his succession) and deserves a death penalty or in some muslim "communities" just expulsion, condemnation etc. racist/sexist abuse. When it comes to women it really doesn't matter if she is muslim or not except that she under sharia always has to foster the kids to become muslims.

Saudi war criminal "prince" and Mohammad al Issa "reform" islam to fit Saudi islamofascism against Human Rights by demanding EU to condemn "islamophobia" i.e. Human Rights.

  Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff: On Thursday, 25 October 2018 the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights) ruled that my conviction by an Austrian court for discussing the marriage between Prophet Mohammed and a six year old girl, Aisha, did not infringe my rights of freedom of speech.


    I was not extended the courtesy of being told of this ruling. Like many others, I had to read it in the media.

    The ECHR found there had been no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights and that right to expression needed to be balanced with the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected, and served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria.

    In other words, my right to speak freely is less important than protecting the religious feelings of others.

    This should ring warning bells for my fellow citizens across the continent. We should all be extremely concerned that the rights of Muslims in Europe NOT to be offended are greater than my own rights, as a native European Christian woman, to speak freely.

    I am proud to be the woman who has raised this alarm.

    I am also optimistic. Since giving my seminars in Austria in 2009, we have come a very long way.

    Ten years ago the press labeled me a “confused doom-monger” and I was compared to Osama Bin Laden. Now, Islam is being discussed in every sphere of life and people are waking up to the reality of a culture so opposed to our own.

    The cultural and political threat posed by Islam to Western societies is now widely recognized and discussed. It is fair to say European society, as well as the political realm, is undergoing an enlightenment, as it is more awake than ever to the need to defend our own Judeo-Christian culture.

    I believe my seminars in 2009, and subsequent work have contributed to strong push back against an Islamic culture which is so at odds with our own. And note with interest that only one sentence out of 12 hours of seminars on Islam was a prosecutable offense. I assume the remaining content is now officially sanctioned by our Establishment masters.

    It is obvious to me that public education and discourse on the subject of Islam can have a fundamental and far-reaching impact, even if our state or supra-national authorities try to stifle or silence it, in order to appease a culture so foreign to our own.

    This fight continues. My voice will not and cannot be silenced.

European Court of Human Rights and its decision which neglects the (negative*) rights of non-muslims to have their feelings protected - or no protection on an equal basis, which still would leave muslims with a problematic (religious) tendency to actively imply supremacy in accordance to Koranic interpretations and acts by Maohammad.

* see Klevius tutorial on Negative Human Rights.

Background: ECHR judges are elected for a non-renewable nine-year term. The number of full-time judges sitting in the Court is equal to the number of contracting states to the European Convention on Human Rights, currently 47. Judges cannot hear or decide a case if they have a family or professional relationship with a party. So what about religion?

Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,
any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges
considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final
judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.


Decision of the Court

Article 10 ((freedom of expression)

The Court noted that those who choose to exercise the freedom to manifest their religion under
Article 9 of the Convention could not expect to be exempt from criticism. They must tolerate and
accept the denial by others of their religious beliefs. Only where expressions under Article 10 went
beyond the limits of a critical denial, and certainly where they were likely to incite religious
intolerance, might a State legitimately consider them to be incompatible with respect for the
freedom of thought, conscience and religion and take proportionate restrictive measures.
The Court observed also that the subject matter of the instant case was of a particularly sensitive
nature, and that the (potential) effects of the impugned statements, to a certain degree, depended
on the situation in the respective country where the statements were made, at the time and in the
context they were made. Accordingly, it considered that the domestic authorities had a wide margin
of appreciation in the instant case, as they were in a better position to evaluate which statements
were likely to disturb the religious peace in their country.

The Court noted that the domestic courts comprehensively explained why they considered that the
applicant’s statements had been capable of arousing justified indignation; specifically, they had not
been made in an objective manner contributing to a debate of public interest (e.g. on child
marriage), but could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad
was not worthy of worship. It agreed with the domestic courts that Mrs S. must have been aware
that her statements were partly based on untrue facts and apt to arouse indignation in others. The
national courts found that Mrs S. had subjectively labelled Muhammad with paedophilia as his
general sexual preference, and that she failed to neutrally inform her audience of the historical
background, which consequently did not allow for a serious debate on that issue. Hence, the Court
saw no reason to depart from the domestic courts’ qualification of the impugned statements as
value judgments which they had based on a detailed analysis of the statements made.

Klevius analysis of ECHR's ambiguous decision: 


As Klevius has written since the early 1990s, ECHR's main jurisprudential fuse* is the problematic 'margin of appreciation' - see e.g. Angels of Antichrist (1996), several judgements were Klevius has represented the claimant, as well as many of Klevius articles on the subject. And perhaps most importantly, do read Klevius analysis in Demand for Resources (1992:50-51). Here's a short example where Peter Klevius sides with Jurgen Habermas in a match against misdirected state power:

* In Demand for Resources (Klevius 1992:43, ISBN 9173288411) in a chapter dealing with science and citations, jurisprudence is pointed out as "the perfect scientific project" due to the fact that it, instead of searching for answers, starts with an already existing answer, i.e. the law. And in difficulties interpreting the legislator most nations ask their Supreme Court which can either correct or send it back to the legislator for a better distinction. However, ECHR's fuse is "the margin of appreciation", i.e. to excuse themselves by referring to national law.


Original Swedish text from Demand for Resources (Klevius 1992, ISBN 9173288411):


Jag tar mig friheten att citera några lösryckta men i sammanhanget intressanta citat av Jurgen Habermas:

Habermas: "Det lidande som orsakas av kontingenserna i ett okontrollerat förlopp får en ny kvalitet i den mån vi tilltror oss förmågan att kunna ingripa förnuftigt i det. Detta lidande är då negativet till ett nytt behov."

Klevius: Denna process, d.v.s. följden av den till synes goda tanken att lägga tillrätta sociala fenomen som betraktas som oönskade, leder till nya, okontrollerade "motsvängningar" som i sin tur kräver nya insatser i en kumulerande, aldrig sinande ström.

Habermas: "Då eftersträvas nämligen överhuvudtaget inte längre en förnuftig konsensus medborgarna emellan om hur de praktiskt skall behärska sina livsvillkor. I dess ställe kommer försöket att på teknisk väg uppnå kontroll över historien i form av en fulländad förvaltning av samhället."

Klevius: Till detta ändamål styckas verkligheten upp i mer och mer sofistikerade utbildningslinjer i vars slutända tjänsteprofilen mejslas fram i symbios och växelverkan med lagstiftning.

Habermas: "Det ena värdets företräde framför det andra, alltså värdets anspråkpå att vara bindande för handling, kan helt enkelt inte berättigas. Ideologikritik på denna nivå bevisar ofrivilligt att en fortskridande erfarenhetsvetenskaplig rationalisering, som är begränsad till teknisk kontroll, betalas med en proportionell tillväxt av irrationalitet inom själva området för praxis."

Klevius: Irrationaliteten yttrar sig rent konkret i att verksamhetens nettoresultat blir negativt (vägt efter de värderingar som initierade processen).

Habermas: "Men eftersom fördomen hämtar sin egenartade objektivitet ur denna sammanbindning av undanhållen autonomi, förnekad frihet och förhindrad tillfredsställelse, kräver en kritisk upplösning av den existerande osanningen, av villfarelsen som substans, i sin tur något som går utöver den förnuftiga insikten. Framför allt krävs kardinaldygden mod."

Klevius: Verksamhetens negativa nettoresultat förnekas med hänvisningen till att verksamheten växt fram som en produkt av dess inneboende välvilja. Att kritiskt granska denna verksamhet blir följaktligen inopportunt (Klevius 1992:50-51).
Google translation with just some minor corrections of the worst - Klevius is a lazy (or healthy, as he himself prefers to call it) guy. Btw, who will support a good English (and perhaps other languages as well) translation of the whole tiny book?:
I take the liberty of quoting some loose but in the context, interesting quotes by Jurgen Habermas:

Habermas: "The suffering caused by contingencies in an uncontrolled process is given a new quality to the extent that we think we have the ability to intervene sensibly in it. This suffering is then the negative for a new need."

Klevius: This process, i.e. the consequence of the seemingly good idea of ​​correcting social phenomena considered unwanted leads to new, uncontrolled reactions which in turn require new efforts in a cumulative, never-ending stream.

Habermas: "At the very least, there is no longer a sensible consensus between the citizens as to how they will practically master their living conditions. Instead there's the attempt to technically gain control over history in the form of a total management of society."

Klevius: To this end, reality is split up into more and more sophisticated lines of education in which the final bureaucratic profile is hammered out in symbiosis and interaction with legislation.

Habermas: "The privilege of one value over an other, i.e. the claim about a value to necessitate action, simply can not be justified. Ideological criticism at this level will inevitably prove that progressive experiential rationalization, limited to technical control, leads to a proportional increase in irrationality in the very field of practice itself."

Klevius: This irrationality reveals itself in terms of a negative net result (weighted by and against the values ​​that initiated the process).

Habermas: "But because the prejudice retrieves its peculiar objectivity from this interlink of retarded autonomy, denied freedom and prevented satisfaction, a critical dissolution of the existing misunderstanding, of the error as substance, in turn requires something beyond reasonable insight - it requires courage (here Google suggested that 'cardiovascular wear is required' - which is indeed an interesting point of view)."

Klevius: The negative net result of the activity is blinked by referring to the fact that the activity emerged as a product of inherent goodwill. Critically reviewing this activity therefore becomes inevitably unwelcomed (Klevius 1992: 50-51)
.

Friday, October 26, 2018

Klevius, the world's foremost expert on sex/gender issues (sad isn't it), demands a stop for in sane cultural sex segregation that hurts and violates Human Rights.


The ambigous use of 'gender' for the purpose of upholding sex segregation/apartheid is the real culprit behind many suicides and destroyed lives.


Klevius drawing from 1979 (background photo by Klevius 2012): Human Rights rather than religion

A legal definition of sex as "a biological, immutable condition determined by genitalia at birth" is proposed in US. What could possibly be clearer than that? And why hasn't it been there all the time?!

This definition says nothing about cultural gender restrictions. And the fact that it's also supported by in sanely religious "communities" shouldn't stain it.


The insidious "socially constructed roles and behaviors typically (sic) ascribed to men and women" is like the Spanish inquisition.


However, when it comes to gender the American medical community currently recognizes a distinction between sex -- a classification based on bodily characteristics, internal and external -- and gender, the socially constructed roles and behaviors typically ascribed to men and women.

It also recognizes that no single aspect of sex or gender defines a person's gender identity -- their internal sense of gender, which may not match the sex assigned to them at birth.

So "behaviors typically ascribed to one sex" aren't allowed but demand hormonal, surgical etc. change of biology instead of human society stopping the sexist "typically ascribed roles and behaviors" of "mainstream" culture.

Under the 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration there's no room whatsoever to command rights and behavior in accordance to sex - no matter how "typical" such sexism is.

And when you have digested this, then take a new reading of what Klevius has tried to teach you throughout his adult life, namely understanding heterosexual attraction.

Klevius hates* the concept "sexual identity" but if he's necessitated to use it it would mean that his only "sexual isentity" is heterosexual attraction and that women's only possible "sexual identity" is as possible receivers of "the male gaze". Every other form of sexuality can be performed or imagined by any person no matter of sex.

* The concept of "sexual identity" is an oxymoron introduced via sociology and theoretical feminism for the sole purpose of keeping up old fashioned sex segregation. As Klevius wrote in Warning for Feminism (1998): When sex segregation in real life vanishes, cultural sex segregation is reinforced by those who seek political etc. power out of it - well knowing that women in most areas have been in a backward position due to classical sex segregation due to child rearing etc., and that many women have felt embarrassed about lacking competence in many "male activities" and therefore an easy target for the proposal of not admitting it but rather call it "feminine behavior". 


Klevius wrote:

Tuesday, April 28, 2015

Bruce Jenner becomes a cultural lesbian because of sex segregation


Bruce Jenner says he becomes a cultural woman - but is still sexually attracted to biological women

He changes his body with hormone therapy and he continues calling himself he. Why? Klevius has the answer further down.

Will Toril Moi accept Bruce as a "woman"?


Bruce Jenner can never have a make up that makes him a biological woman. Not even if he manages to get rid of his heterosexual attraction capacity. Is this masquerade (for whom?) intended to culturally over compensate a biological lack? Why? Who denies Bruce Jenner the right to be as he is unless he masquerade himself into a mirage of "a woman" that simultaneously contributes to the restraints put on young girls via rigid cultural sex segregation? 

 Sometimes ago in Sweden many (most?) persons wearing a dress on a Monday were not biological women.

Toril Moi: I'm not a cultural woman writer but I write like a biological man can not.


Klevius explains: Toril wants to free her writings from the category of women writers ("not to conform to some stereotypical norm for
feminine writing") while simultaneously make sure that she can write in a way a man can not. In other words, like all other true feminists she is a fanatic defender of sex segregation. And like Luce Irigaray, she is probably just a sex politician waiving the affirmative sword - in a way that continuously hurts young girls, for the sake of defending own or women's in general backwardness - which is due to hers and Moi's continuing of historical sex segregation/apartheid.



Sex change is biologically impossible and "gender" or, more properly, sex segregation isn't biological but cultural

Klevius "gender" and sex tutorial


"Sexual Orientation" and "Gender Identity" defined from the perspective of Heterosexual Attraction

Forcing people into a rigid (yet simultaneously completely arbitrary) sex segregation through the creation of "gender identity" categories is a violation against the 1948 Human Rights declaration according to which sex shouldn't matter. How people look and behave changes all the time and varies between communities as well as between individuals. Sex segregation is therefore pure intolerance, i.e. a form of racism. And no, you idiots who think de-sex segregation means giving dresses and dolls to boys, you're very wrong. De-sex segregation means stopping mounting girls with dresses and dolls to an extent that robs them of their possibilities compared to boys.

Dear reader, as you already know, due to a complete lack of competition Klevius is the world's formost expert on sex and sex segregation (sad isn't it). This fact makes it understandably sometimes confusing for you because of the corresponding complete lack of "peer reviewers" who could boost your confidence in what Klevius is saying. However, as you already know, even if there were supporting "peer reviewers" Klevius would never trust them (i.e. in accordance with his scientific methodology which rests on a relentless pursuit of self criticism). So here's some logic instead:


Sexual orientation - why does it matter outside sexuality? It doesn't!

There exists only one meaningful "sexual orientation" and that is heterosexual attraction, i.e. what makes males sexually interested in females. The means for heterosexual attraction vary from bees transporting male pollen, to male fishes getting horny at the sight/smell of eggs left by female fishes, all the way to human males getting excited by female curvature. A male's physical attraction to the opposite sex (not "gender"). "Women" "gay" and "lesbian" are terms indicating lack of this heterosexual attraction in their sexual activities (which fact of course doesn't exclude that male "gays" can have heterosexual attraction activities outside their "gay" activities). 

Sexual activities which lack the element of heterosexual attraction simply have nothing to do with sex dichotomy. A so called heterosexual couple may well perform sexual acts without heterosexual attraction whereas a man may well be heterosexually attracted to a transvestite etc because he thought it was a biological woman - until he finds out.

Gender identity is a hoax term made up for the purpose of guarding sex segregation.

Gayatri Spivak's strategic essentialism (i.e. sex segregation) was meant to signal that while huge intragroup differences may exist, it is important to strategically bring forward a simplified ‘essentialised’ group identity.  "I saw the insane division between Hindus and muslims. This is what makes the idea of including religion in politics and faith-based activism so inconceivable for me." Klevius agrees about this latter part. However, the insane division between Women and Men locks half the population in rigid yet unpredictable cultural fashion groups while islam, on top of this, locks all of us in a similar sharia muslims/Human Rights infidels dichotomy.


Were Bruce Jenner's wives lesbian?


Chrystie Scott, Bruce Jenner's first wife: "It's so hard to wrap your head around it, particularly because he was such a manly man. He never indicated anything feminine in his demeanor. However, it didn't threaten our relationship. It wasn't really a problem,"

Klevius: Indeed, why would it! Who made it a problem? And if you thought of him as "such a manly man" while he actually was a "feminine woman", doesn't it confirm that you didn't know him at all and that you indeed were a lesbian in your love relation to Bruce? He said he has the "soul of a female" even though he was born with male body parts.

Linda Thompson, Bruce Jenner's second wife: "He can finally realize his need to be who he authentically is, who he was born to be. I have respectfully kept his secrets private and would have taken his confidences to my grave had he not spoken out. He can finally realize his need to be who he authentically is, who he was born to be."

However, Linda Thompson also wrote that she would not have married Jenner if she had known about his "gender issue" when they first met. But she's glad she didn't know because she would have missed the chance to share a life with him.
Looking back, I'm so grateful to God, the universe, and Bruce that I didn't know, and that Bruce played the role in my life that he did."

Klevius: Would you believe it! He was the perfect guy for her yet when he put dissonating words (or clothes etc) on it she got scared.

The two met in 1979 at the Playboy Mansion (a house built on a foundation of heterosexual attraction and some silicon), and married on January 5, 1981, and moved to Hawaii.

"The Bruce I knew back then was an easygoing, down-to-earth, casual, romantic, good and loving man. I was extremely happy to have found such a remarkable partner with whom to share my life. I found him to be honorable and, well, just too good to be true. Just too good to be true indeed. The Bruce I knew back then was unstudied, affable, and seemingly very comfortable in his own skin. So it seemed."

Klevius: The big questions are: 1 Why did he do anything? and 2 Why did his sex segregated masquerade affect you so much back then when you applaud it today?

Jenner told her in 1985 that "he identified as a woman" and hoped to move forward with the process of becoming a woman." Confused and desperate, Thompson suggested therapy to overcome or fix it."

They separated after the failed six months therapy and Jenner began taking female hormones and removing face and body hair. He then started developing breasts.

She hopes people will remember him as "world's greatest athlete, who became trailblazer for the civil rights of the transgender community."

Klevius: He is a trailblazer for the Human Right not to be restricted by one's sex. However, his method is over ambitious and he might lose some of his heterosexual attraction instinct.


How to differentiate between the "soul of a female" and the "soul of a man"?


Toril Moi: I try to answer two questions: Why did the question of the woman writer disappear from the feminist theoretical agenda around 1990? Why do we need to reconsider it now? I then begin to develop a new analysis of the question of the woman writer by turning to the statement ‘I am not a woman writer’. By treating it as a speech act and analysing it in the light of Simone de Beauvoir’s
understanding of sexism, I show that it is a response to a particular kind
of provocation, namely an attempt to force the woman writer to conform
to some norm for femininity. I also show that Beauvoir’s theory illuminates Virginia Woolf’s strategies in A Room of One’s Own before, finally, asking why we, today, still should want women to write.

If there is a difficulty with Woolf’s view, it is that she argues as if it were
always wrong to write as if one were a woman. In the end, the danger of
identifying with the despised category, namely femininity, is more terrify-
ing to her than the danger of having to pretend to be entirely genderless.
That she feels this way, is surely Professor von X’s fault.

However, here's Klevius' Virginia Woolf (extracted from his PhD thesis):


Virginia Woolf on heterosexual attraction


Virginia Woolf: "Why are women... so much more
interesting to men than men are to women?"

According to Virginia Woolf ‘all this pitting of sex against sex, of quality against quality; all this claiming of superiority and imputing of inferiority belongs to the private-school stage of human existence…’ (1928: 21).

Woolf’s androgyny and Bloomsbury’s sexual liberalism can be traced to nineteenth and early twentieth century science and individuals such as Richard von Krafft-Ebing, Edward Carpenter, Havelock Ellis, Otto Weininger, and Sigmund Freud, who all maintained the theory of a third sex in which masculine and feminine characteristics (drawn of course along the lines of biological essentialist binary thought) unified in a single body (Wright 2002: 1-4).

Woolf’s androgyny has been interpreted in a variety of ways. However, ‘Woolf distilled a purer essence from the concept than contemporary critics tend to do. Androgyny, for Virginia Woolf, was a theory that aimed to offer men and women the chance to write without consciousness of their sex – the result of which would ideally result in uninhibited creativity’ (Wright 2007: 1 & 4). The function of Woolf’s androgyny would ideally be to provide ‘a third term that neutralises the gendered way in which the subject is constructed.’ Woolf’s androgyny was assigned to sex instead of settling down into the sexual polarisation it is designed to avoid. We may then read androgyny as either liberation for women, as a bisexuality to which women are closer than men, or the result of the split that continually takes place in female consciousness due to sex segregation (Wright 2007: 4).

Ultimately, according to Wright, Woolf’s androgyny implied a way of thinking that would enable women and men to write as themselves, ‘still in a sexed body, but without the attendant prejudices and discriminations that are connected to the body by society’ (Wright 2007: 8), i.e. what here is termed sex segregation. In Wright’s words:

‘For Woolf, the enemy of androgynous thinking was summed up in the Victorian age which forced writers into a consciousness of their sex and led to the production of abortive works deformed by sexual self-awareness…. How do women avoid writing as women constructed by patriarchy, or avoid writing like men in the service of patriarchy?’ (Wright 2007: 9-10)

For Woolf, ‘androgyny is the capacity of a single person of either sex to embody the full range of human character traits, despite cultural attempts to render some exclusively feminine and some exclusively masculine.’ The ability to access this ‘full range of character traits’ and subject positions so that we read and write as ‘fully human men and women’ is the ideal that Woolf is chasing (Wright 2007: 16). This is an answer to the question whether women understand heterosexual attraction. They do not, if we are to rely on Virginia Woolf and this author’s interpretation of her writings. But why should they indeed? For Woolf the answer is given in the form of an androgynous fully human being.


In my view, says Toril Moi, if a woman’s vision of the world is strongly marked by her gender, that is surely as potentially interesting as if it is not. The whole point, after all, is to avoid laying down requirements for what a woman’s writing must be like. Every writer will have to find her own voice, and her own vision. Inevitably, a woman writer writes as a woman, not as a generic woman, but as the (highly specific and idiosyncratic) woman she is.

Gayatri Spivak suggests that whilst such labels as false, we need to continue to use them as an operational necessity.

It can be just as frustrating for a woman writer to feel that she has to
write as a generic human being, since this opens up an alienating split
between her gender and her humanity.

Klevius: And that "alienating split" is in fact the gate to real emancipation.






Klevius wrote:


Thursday, March 14, 2013

Klevius sex and gender tutorial


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’ so to include girls, 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'. And keep in mind, this has nothing to do with biological differences.

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” girls/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 or sporters 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, as it is seen here, its effects are bad in the long run.

In Durkheim’s (1984: 142) view ‘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). However, 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, behaviors and aptitudes, for example ‑ which separate 'masculine' from 'feminine' life styles (Delamont 1980: 5 in Hargreaves 1994:146).

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.Hesitating to run out through an opened door to the unknown doesn't necessarily mean that you don't want to. Nor does it mean that you have to.

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 analyze 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.

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, gender may 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 it 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 feminize 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 as feminine, 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 (Klevius in Angels of Antichrist 1996). 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, for example, 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 rights 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 worth carrying the name. 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-sex 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.


Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Which one is weirder, Klevius (the main world critic of sex segregation/apartheid*) or sex apartheid?


* Admittedly Klevius seems also still to be the only one addressing the core issue of this monumental world problem. However, this fact is no more surprising than the fact that we live in a world where every girl has to assign herself to long hair, make up, "feminine" clothing etc cultural "femininity". And if she doesn't then she has to excuse herself by labeling herself a lesbian, a transexual etc or be labeled by others as "suffering" from the invented mental pathology of "gender dysphoria".


What is sex segregation - and what is it not?


According to soft brained Wikipedia: Sex segregation is the physical, legal, and cultural separation of people according to their biological sex. This is distinct from gender segregation, which is the separation of people according to social constructions of what it means to be male versus female.

According to hard brained Klevius: Sex segregation is the physical, legal (e.g. Sharia), and cultural separation of girls/women from boys/men according to social constructions of what it means to be male versus female.

Gender segregation is an impossible term in this context because the separation of people according to social constructions of what it means to be male versus female resides inside the brain not outside the body and can therefore not be called segregation. Segregation is the action or state of setting someone apart from other people or being set apart. In other words, segregation can only be imposed on you from outside with or without your consent. You cannot segregate yourself. Moreover, segregation implies a collective, not individual, action.



According to Carmen Hamilton (apparently a soft brained lawyer):  We’re born as either male or female and, generally, are raised to look and act as our society expects men and women to look and act (sic).

If a radical (sic) approach to eliminate gender segregation were adopted, we would see the complete eradication of gender segregation in all aspects of life. There would no longer be men’s and women’s washrooms, sports, or communal change rooms.

Still, a move to eradicate systemic gender segregation, would inevitably have fallout that would need to be addressed. There are legitimate safety concerns behind some gender segregation. Physical and sexual violence suffered by women at the hands of men continues to be a sad reality. It is difficult to see how women prisoners will be adequately protected if sex segregation is eliminated in prisons.

It also begs the question about whether we can eliminate sex segregation when we have not yet achieved gender equality (sic). Would such a movement nullify the gains fought for by feminists over the last century? There was a time when it was seen as a huge win for women in trades when employers were required to provide separate washrooms for women. Further, we cannot ignore the physiological differences between men and women that put women at a disadvantage in many sports. We would likely see far fewer female Olympians.

Klevius comment: 'We are generally raised to look and act as our society expects men and women to look and act' is a meaningless tautology because 'generally' and 'our society' both have the same meaning. Moreover, Carmen Hamilton seems to be deeply confused when she uses sex segregation and gender segregation as synonyms. What do your invisible gender thoughts in your brain have to do with physical threats from men? Isn't it your biological sex (or your signaling of a female body) that is visible, not your gender.

And why a 'radical elimination of segregation'? What's that anyway?! What would radical Human Rights mean? Would it mean that there exist some moderate Human Rights according to which just a little torture is ok?!

And why can't we have female prisons, washing rooms etc?  It has nothing to do with sex segregation/apartheid. We have parking spots for disabled people but not for women. And why can't women continue running 100 m separate from men? We don't call other effects of physical sex differences sex segregation either. Carmen Hamilton seems to seriously mix apples and pears on this topic. She represents a dangerous view that blurs women's right to full Human Rights equality.

Carmen Hamilton also asks 'whether we can eliminate sex segregation when we have not yet achieved gender equality'. What a non sense! 'Gender equality' is an oxymoron in many sense but here mainly because sex segregation is the opposite to "gender equality"! In other words a catch 22.

LGBT people have "gender rights" but 11-year old football girls have none (see below).

Klevius' sex tutorial: The problem with main stream* feminism is its "equal but different" separatism

* Folks, there are two main types of 'feminism' out there: One that is academic and based on segregation/separatism/apartheid (e.g. muslim feminism), and one that could be described as folk "feminism", i.e. the erroneous belief that feminism stands for equal rights when it in fact stands for separatism.

'Heterosexual attraction' is the only analytical concept you need - yet no one seems to use it as such except Klevius


The feminist fallacy of the double failure not to recognize heterosexual attraction while simultaneously keeping up sex segregation

Heterosexual attraction is the evolutionary logarithm that underpins heterosexual reproduction.

The only heterosexual human is a heterosexual man. If you don't understand/recognize this simple fact then you, just like feminists, have no say at all in discussions about Human Rights and the adverse effect of sex segregation.

Heterosexual attraction in humans resides in the male brain as the female body. Not the other way round. As a consequence only men can have heterosexual sex.

All men and women are different but equal according to Human Rights. However, according to feminists, only men and women are different from a rights perspective. So when Moi uses some 500 pages to tell us that only women, not men, can have women's experience, we can waive her next deep thought namely that women are different from other women.

Ever thought about why Mideast happened to be the birthplace of the most disgusting of cumber stones on humanity's road to Universal Human Rights (including women)? In Demand for Resources Klevius established the root origin of "general" sex segregation as connected to the transition from hunting/gathering to investment a la the neolithic revolution.

However, pure institutionalized sexism, i.e. sex segregation as apartheid, was born out of particular secondary circumstances and effects of sex segregation in the commerce between the new forms of production. The main birthplace for true sexism was Mideast due to its geographical location.You don't have sex religions in China, Japan etc.

When men traded and therefore travelled around, women became even more segregated than they were in the farming society where they at least had a daily contact over the sex barrier. Combine this development with slavery and defense against slavery and you end up with "the chosen people" whose survival was the institutionalized Vagina gate and whose (im)morality was sanctioned by "God".



Slowing down the process of de-sex segregation at an 'all deliberate speed' while treating sex segregation symptoms with hormones and surgery


'All deliberate speed' was a phrase used in the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which declared the system of legal segregation unconstitutional. However,  the Court ordered only that the states end segregation with ‘all deliberate speed', i.e. to weigh something in the balance.

Grace Kelly Bermudez is the plaintiff in a suit, which alleges Colombia’s military service requirement is discriminatory insofar as it only considers assigned sex — typically determined at birth by the presence of absence of external sex organs — and not gender identity – a 'lived internal and individual experience'.

While the military service requirement only applies to men, there is currently no statute governing cases of transsexuals who were assigned a restricting sex at birth and due to sex segregation weren't allowed to lead their lives as they wished.

Gender, as opposed to sex, is a “lived internal and individual experience,” according to an amicus brief filed on Bermudez’s behalf.

Trans persons’ ability to 'construct their gender in a determining fashion' is an implicit part of their “individual autonomy as human beings', an interpretation the Constitutional Court agreed with, argues the brief, when it ruled that all Colombians have the right to 'freely' define their 'association with any particular gender, as well as romantic orientation toward others.'

As a consequence it is argued that the current military exemption practice violates Bermudez’s 'right to gender identity and all related rights by denying her construction of identity, leading to the violation of her privacy, personhood, and right to live free of humiliations', reads the brief.

Klevius comment: So wrong! It is sex segregation that denies the construction of an identity that partly or fully falls outside this segregation, leading to the violation of privacy, personhood, and right to live free of humiliations etc. And sex segregation is already dismissed in the 1948 Human Rights declaration. Why not simply stick to Human Rights rather than upholding a ridiculous sex apartheid.


Jeff and Hillary Whittington presented a video showing little Ryland's female-to-male transition




Klevius comment: You can't possibly be born with a 'gender'. The popularity of LGBT rhetorics is largely due to the defense of sex segregation/apartheid. So ironically, LGBT people's fight for the freedom to lead their lives as they wish simultaneously restricts the playroom for non-LGBT girls and women. Again, Klevius simple answer is to empower girls'/women's Human Right to lead their lives without restrictions because of their sex. And if people don't stop bullying them then why not criminalize such bullying as a hate crime. That would in no time make people equally cautious as they are now about saying anything about muslims, wouldn't it.


John D. Inazu, associate professor of law at Washington University School of Law, an expert on the First Amendment freedoms of speech, assembly, and religion: In less than three decades, the Supreme Court has moved from upholding the criminalizing of gay conduct to affirming gay marriage. The tone of the debates has also shifted. Views on gender and sexual conduct have flip-flopped. Thirty years ago, many people were concerned about gender equality, but few had LGBTQ equality on their radar. Today, if you ask your average 20-year-old whether it is worse for a fraternity to exclude women or for a Christian group to ask gay and lesbian members to refrain from sexual conduct, the responses would be overwhelmingly in one direction.

Luke Brinker (in Bill O'Reilly's Dangerous Parenting Advice For Transgender Kids): O'Reilly has also encouraged parents to actively force their transgender children to conform to gender stereotypes.

Klevius: So it's not a 'gender stereotype' when 'activities and clothing more commonly associated with boys' is enough to deem a girl on a path toward physiological manipulation of her body rather than give her the right to perform these activities without sex apartheid.

Jack Drescher, a member of the APA subcommittee working on the revision of DSM: 'All psychiatric diagnoses occur within a cultural context.

Klevius comment: So when DSM 15 is out, can the male to female trans get their penis back, please?

Homosexuality was diagnosed in the DSM as an illness until 1973, and conditions pertaining to homosexuality were not entirely removed until 1987.
The new term 'gender dysphoria'  implies a temporary mental state rather than an all-encompassing disorder, a change that blurs the picture even more.

Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights: 'Having a diagnosis is extremely useful in legal advocacy. We rely on it even in employment discrimination cases to explain to courts that a person is not just making some superficial choice ... that this is a very deep-seated condition recognized by the medical community.'

Klevius comment: The only deep-seated condition in this appalling symptom of sex segregation  is the medical community and money.

Mental health professionals who work with trans clients are also pushing for a revised list of symptoms, so that a diagnosis will not apply to people whose distress comes from external prejudice, adults who have transitioned, or children who simply do not meet gender stereotypes.



Why is the sex segregated bullying of girls like Moa Thambert supported when it should, in fact, be classified as a hate crime?!







Parents used to shout 'boy' at me, says now 16-year old Moa Thambert.

Moa Thambert, 16, has always had short hair cut and been tough on the football pitch.

Moa Thambert, 16: It took me hard to be called a boy. Is still in the back of my head. As a child I didn't understand why they wanted to segregate me. But now I understand that it was because I dare to take my place and that I have a certain appearance. It makes me really sad.

When Moa was six she begun playing football and immediately got comments about her "inappropriate" sex appearance. 'It's so sick because there is no difference in how kids look like. One should really be careful not to do so. It strikes very hard.It shouldn't need to be like that.






Pia Sundhage (Sweden's football lady number one and former US coach): It's appalling. In the 1960s I had to pretend to be a boy to be allowed playing in a football team.

Pia Sundhage refers to a recent Swedish football tournament (Fotbollsfesten) for kids where 11-year old girls in Glumslövs FF/Lunds BK were accused of being boys by leaders and parents from Åhus IF.

Åhus IF coaches  were so aggressive and got the whole team with them, says
Jens Lindblom, father of 11-year old Agnes.

The girls cried while the sex abuse continued.


Klevius concluding comment: I've even written a PhD thesis about exactly  this (including in depth interviews with Pia Sundhage and other important female football personalities from the 1940s and on). However. now I want to publish my findings for the general public but hesitate to do so due to the slim interest (or is it just deep ignorance) in this the biggest of global questions. Football/soccer is the sport that seems to best reveal the medieval thinking about sex segregation.

Any hints on how to make the book more popular than this blogging?

And why isn't the whole world reading Klevius?

Anyone?




Some previous reflexions on the topic:


The shameful contamination of British universities with religious fanatism




Guardian:  The University of Leicester has launched an investigation into gender segregation (sic) at a public lecture held by its student Islamic society.

    The talk, entitled Does God Exist?, featured a guest speaker Hamza Tzortzis as part of an Islamic Awareness week. Seating at the event was segregated, with different entrances into the lecture theatre for men and women. . .

    In Leicester, more than 100 students attended the segregated event, which took place last month. A photograph passed to the Guardian shows signs put up in a university building, directing the segregation.

    A message on the group’s website says: “In all our events, [the society] operate a strict policy of segregated seating between males and females.” The statement was removed after the Guardian contacted the society.


Klevius comment: Again this confused and irrational oxymoron 'gender segregation'. The sign on the wall of Leicester University clearly states 'males' and 'females'. It means biological sex, not cultural gender!



Rupert Sutton, from the campus watchdog Student Rights: There is a consistent use of segregation by student of islamic societies across the country. While this may be portrayed as voluntary by those who enforce it, the pressure put on female students to conform and obey these rules that encourage subjugation should not be underestimated.

Klevius: Although islam is by far the worst culprit when it comes to sex apartheid, there is also a consistent low level general use of sex segregation "light" across the world. While this may be portrayed as voluntary by those who enforce it, the pressure put on females (not the least by other females) to conform and obey to sex segregation that encourages subjugation should not be underestimated.




 Leicester University is one of the world's most sexist (i.e. islamized) universities. You may not believe me but the truth is (an other professor witnessed it) that a female professor, Barbara Misztal (an East European immigrant? as BBC uses to put it), when presented with criticism against islam's rejection of women's full Human Rights via Sharia, said "Why don't you want to let women lead their lives as they wish". Yes, you got it right. She saw Sharia restrictions of women's rights as a right! Why hasn't anyone taught her that impositions are not rights, and that Human Rights don't hinder muslim women from choosing to live under these impositions whereas Sharia denies them the choice to freedom. Moreover, she also blamed the messenger for not allowing women to NOT HAVE THEIR FULL RIGHTS!

Barbara Misztal's  female students need to know this, and as usual, it seems that Klevius is the only one daring to really address this ultimate and extremely disastrous and even dangerous sexism.




Sharia sex segregation or Human Rights for girls/women?


Klevius drawing from 1979 (background photo by Klevius 2012): Human Rights rather than religion

In every possible form of Sharia girls/women are forced to lead their lives in sex apartheid of varying degrees. And that includes OIC's all muslims covering Sharia law via UN. But according to Human Rights every girl/woman has the right to decide herself what kind of life she wants to lead - incl. a sex segregated life if she so wishes. So to live in a society where Sharia rules doesn't really give any fair options.

In islam women and non-muslims are all "infidels", and the only thing that really distinguishes a woman as muslim is her "duty" towards islam to reproduce (physically and/or culturally) as many new muslims as possible - and of course to have the Sharia duty to serve as a sex slave for her muslim husband.

Isn't that funny, muslims need a law to get sex while for me such compulsory sex equals rape!



Thursday, January 17, 2013

Judie Foster! Hello there! You don't have "to come out". You've been out all the time according to Human Rights!


Article 2 of the Universal Human Rights Declaration

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


Klevius' explanation to those who can't read properly: In the non-islamic free world you can marry/cohabit or have friendship ties with anyone without having hetero-sex or sex at all! It's completely up to you as an individual.

Dear Jodie, for example, we don't expect hetero-couples "to come out" telling us they have never had sex, do we?!

Read more on What's sex segregation?

"The essence of her being ("the Woman") is sex, that she is a born prostitute, and that, on becoming older, she schemes to make young women follow the same path" (Otto Weininger some 100 years ago).


Klevius help for stupid readers: By "Woman" Weininger means the cultural construction, not the individual. Also remember that when Wittgenstein was criticized for having Weininger as one of his few idols he just pointed out that one could negate everything Weininger had written and still profit on him. And if you still feel confused please do ask for more help via comments.

Wednesday, October 24, 2018

BBC thinks China is imprisoning muslims, while they are in fact protecting them from muslim jihadi


According to BBC, there's no other explanation to the "mysterious" walls, watch towers and heavy guards. Really!




Klevius: What happened in Myanmar?! Wasn't the problem started by a Saudi initiated and supported jihadi hate and terror campaign.

The continuing denial of evil islam is detrimental both against Rohyngia as well as Uyghurs.

How long will it take for BBC and politicians to distinguish between muslims who respect non-muslims and those who don't?

And yes, the reason to this bigotry and hypocrisy is to use evil islam and evil muslims when it suits certain interests and blink it when it doesn't.