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):

* Mentored by G. H. von Wright, Wittgenstein's successor at Cambridge.

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).

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

TheresaMay's racist robbing of EU citizens' Human Rights

The Saudi Fuhrer of Saudi based islamofascist OIC

BBC's compulsory fee funded propaganda for Saudi sharia islam

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".

Sayeeda Warsi like all sharia muslims is against basic Human Rights

Theresa May is for sharia and EU - but against EU's Human Rights Court which condemns sharia

Klevius is probably now the world's foremost expert on sex segregation (sad isn't it), and islam (the worst cime ever) is the foremost expression of sex segregation. By 'islam' Klevius means the same as true sharia supporting (and therefore against the most basic of Human Rights) muslims.

British muslim jihadists: Samantha Lewthwaite, Mishal Husain and Michael Adebolajo (who murdered Le

Tuesday, February 6, 2018

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

BBC's deeply bigoted and hypocritical* muslim sharia presenter Mishal Husain is a disgrace and insult to women's liberation movement.

* She doesn't fast during Ramadan and she drinks alcohol and isn't bothered by fulfilling muslim traditions and says she sees no threat to her way of living (thanks to "Western" Human Rights, reminds Klevius)  - which is a deep insult to all her suffering muslim sisters in sharia ruled countries and ghettos around the world and in England.


Why is BBC using their deeply bigoted and hypocritical muslim sharia presenter, Pakistan rooted and Saudi raised Mishal Husain spreading lies about suffrage? By defending islamic sharia, which violates women's most basic Human Rights, Mishal Husain contributes to violations against women's Human Rights.



Those very Human Rights that guarantee women equality with men, are denied by Mishal Husain's own religion via Saudi based and steered OIC's worldwide sharia declaration in UN.

Drawing (1979) and photo by Peter Klevius.

Klevius: There's no British empire anymore - so why pretend when it just hurts you and covers your beautiful side? Get rid of the racist/sexist dark forces within your team for a much better performance.


Finland was much earlier than "the British" not only in being first in the world to give women full suffrage, but has since constantly been a much more progressive and developed* country than the "country" called England (England, as you know, belongs to UK).

Klevius apologizes for his tone but wants to defend himself by referring to the pompostrous belittling "Brits" show against other countries/people. Klevius thinks the "Brits" could greatly benefit themselves by lowering their tail.

Klevius at his countryside house 1993 (with internet, computers with flight simulators and 3D games, mobile phones - NMT, ie Nordic Mobile Telephone - etc.) in with his already old communication tools - at a time when average people in England lived in a communication stone age compared to the Nordic countries (no wonder Linux was invented by a Finland-Swede and not a "Brit"). And Klevius wasn't rich - that's why he used old stuff. Btw, this was the same year Klevius published The Social State and its Daughters. Klevius already used the same car when filming in DDR and dealing with Human Rights issues in Strasbourg. The Japanese car had no problem pacing way over 200 km/h for almost a whole day in both West Germany as well as on DDR's Autobahns from the Nazi era. Only trouble being all the smelling Trabants with a top speed of at most 70 km/h. Not even The Grand Tour guys can repeat the feeling of such passing of kilometer long cues of small smelly noisy plastic cars in the right lane in their own inflicted cloud of poisonous oil smoke - usually with a smoking guy at the wheel. Luckily most of them passed each other within their own lane.


Already 1907 19 women were elected MPs in Finland. Some of them on this picture from the same year.

In Finland in 1906 both women and men were given the right to vote and stand for election. Finland was first in the world to allow women as parliamentary candidates, and the first to adopt universal suffrage. 1907 19 women were elected as members of the Finnish parliament of a total of 200 representatives. Norway granted voting rights to women in 1913 but it took a long time before they came even close to Finland in numbers of female representatives. And do note the difference between female representatives voted in under discriminatory laws (i.e. only certain upper class women) not in line with full suffrage.

Women were not eligible to be appointed to the New Zealand Legislative Council (the Upper House of Parliament) until 1941. The first two women (Mary Dreaver and Mary Anderson) were appointed in 1946.

In 1965, Queensland in Australia became the last state to remove restrictions on Indigenous voting in state elections, and as a consequence all Indigenous Australians in all states and territories had equal voting rights at all levels of government.

England (under UK*) got full sufftage 1928.

* England is dependent on UK, i.e. not fully a country on its own and much less so than EU member states who can't meddle inside their respective parliaments.

Sunday, February 4, 2018

The moral decline of England - and the darkness under the cliff edge


Are the English about to be lured onto a racist/sexist Saudi sharia path away from democracy and Human Rights?


This heroic woman from Yemen gets little attention from far right Brexiter extremists and BBC.
BBC is far more interested in muslim Uyghurs and muslim Rohingyas than muslim Yemenis. If you check BBC News "reporting" you will easily see that it's all about what is best for the islamofascist Saudi dictator family.


Is China unwittingly becoming the world's main defense for Human Rights? Who could have guessed? Not BBC, that's for sure.


China has vowed to crack down on the "three evils" of terrorism, separatism, and religious extremism. I.e. same agenda as Theresa May - except that May also includes "far right extremism". And Jacob Rees-Mogg ticks all the boxes.

Yes, there are racists in all populations, and yes, they aer easily turned on by playing the race card. But does it belong to civilized democracy? Klevius doesn't think so.

No civilized country would even dream about having a "referendum" on something unknown to be decided once and for all by two percent of a part of that country.

Klevius has always wondered how Germany could slip to fascism. However, the example of England today siding with the world's most intolerant "country" and its sharia islamofascism, seems to give a clue.

UK (aka the so called "British") is an unconstitutional undemocratical mess now utilized by dark religious Human Rightsphobic forces moving towards fullblown fascism.

No one knows what UK really means. And no wonder when there's no foundation.

EU rescued UK but what about the future?

The "Brits" (i.e. the racist nationalists without a proper nation* of themselves) say they will lead the world - but towards what - and how? Without functioning brains in the lead and without a moral foundation.

* England and Scotland are both hampered by each other as nations - only that the former has more say over the latter. And they aren't states either. The Treaty of Union was the agreement Scotland accepted 1707 under the threat of going bankruptcy that led to the creation of the strange and diffuse creature called United Kingdom. It wasn't a masterpiece of jurisprudence back then, and is now far beyond any acceptable modern frameworks of democracy. Klevius guess is that, apart from pure financial gains, what still keeps it alice is an equally outdated feeling of colonial nationalism under the more pompous name "British" - which actually goes back long before the British empire, meanaing Bretagne of France, i.e. The Isles of Bretagne. No wonder Macron smiled.

BBC's eager boosting of nostalgic nationalist "British pride" (while simultaneously wholehartedly paving the way for sharia fascism) the fighters against fascism seem themselves to mutate to what they use to fight against. How else could we possibly interpret the strange fact that a pathetic clown from the 18th century is seen as a possible Tory leader/PM?

Jacob Rees-Mogg is just the top of a far right extremist wing in the Tory party which leans towards sharia finance and therefore Saudi Arabia.
  
Klevius hint for analyzing the main tumor and its metastases. Just check who stay in the way for the spread of Saudi influence in Mideast (Russia), or alternatively, who might compete in dealing with Arab states (China), and the result is a copy of BBC's extremely biased and cherry picked "news" agenda.

Keeping the world's muslims hostage via sharia finance and a piece of a meteorite, and US hostage via threat against petro dollar. And England, who created this monster, sacrifices not only basic Human Rights (which are illegal in Saudi Arabia) but also any other moral aspect on the fact that Saudi spread sharia islamic hate mongering against "infidels", is continuously attacking people in UK.

Klevius advise pic for curing your ignorance about islam and Saudi Arabia. Learn it by heart! 



Klevius World Factbook: How did Saudi Arabia become the world's most evil moral cancer? 1. The racist/sexist origin if islam was an Arab bandit gang raiding, enslaving and taxing oasises along old slave routes, and kept together by a "religion" that was based on Jewish/Christian texts and which was then tailored to "justify" Arabic language imperialism and the declaring of non-Arab speakers (Allahu's messenger Gabriel allegedly spoke in Arabic to an other "messenger" called Mohammad who couldn't read or write but produced scores of daughters and not a single son) as "infidels" who could be slaughtered, enslaved, raped, taxed, humiliated etc..
2. UK meddling in Mideast and making of a local warlord ally a "king" and "custodian of islam's holy places". 3. US oil exploration bringing huge wealth to the Saudi war lord family. 4. The 1974 petro dollar treaty between US and Saudi Arabia. 5. The 1990 creation of the Cairo declaration (aka sharia) and bringing it into UN via a muslim voting block led by Saudi steered and based OIC. 6. US fear of loosing the petro dollar. 7. Brexit.

By demolishing the real threat of original islamic teachings in a similar way as the islamofascist Human Rightsphobic Saudi dictator family demolished any possible remains from early islam (except a small black pre-islamic meteorite stone now glued together with other pieces and kept at a huge Saudi built black building as a muslim idol), a path to reform (i.e. ending) original evil islam - i.e. so called "Westernized non-extremist islam". However, in doing so the sharia part of islam has inevitably to be replaced with those very basic Human Rights it opposes (compare OIC) and which are now considered terrorist crimes in Saudi Arabia and other muslim nations.

Btw, Iran isn't an Arabic country and islam is just a thin frail theocratic filter on the Iranians. In fact one could say that upholding/supporting an all encompassing "religion" that at its core has Arabic language imperialism, is treason.

England is fast going down the moral sewer cheered by Jacob Rees-Mogg and his racist nationalist (without a proper nation) far right Brexiter extremists.


And playing the race card against EU citizens has proven successful among racists in England. BBC: "...non UK people who live here...". This quote from BBC News really illustrates it. They of course knew that "UK people" included the strange and imprecise "Brits" but not EU citizens living in England.


BBC also doesn't miss a single opportunity to fake a story that fits Saudi sharia islamofascism, the worlds leading Human Rights violator. But BBC has no problem complaining over "lack of Human Rights" for Uyghur muslim jihadi.

However, the very fact that China isn't a monotheist theocracy, and that China so successfully has managed by peaceful manufacturing and trading to not only empower its own population but also more poor people around the world than any other nation has done so far, means that China also unwittingly protects vasic Human Rights around the world than most other countries - and certainly more than the spreaders of islamic anti Human Rights hate.

BBC using muslims in general to boost Saudi sharia islamofascists in particular - and often by referring to muslim's Human Rights, i.e. to those very right which are criminalized in Saudi Arabia.


When a derailed and mentally disturbed alcoholic who initially had planned to drive over Jeremy Corbyn, runs his van over a muslim already lying ill on the ground and allegedly dying from the injuries rather than his initial health problem, two other muslims jumped or where pushed aside by the van. However, BBC reported day after day in long sequences (do note that the opposite is true if it had neen a muslim attacker) it as "far right extremist terrorist drove over a crowd of war-shipping muslims leaving one dead and twelve injured". How come? Well, nine of them were injured while they attacked the driver and tried to kill him until an imam from a nearby mosque stopped them. And BBC also forgot to mention that it's a crime to try to kill someone who is already restrained. These muslims, most of who got very minor injuries in the attempted lynching of the mentally ill driver, will now be awarded similar compensation as the victims of the muslim terrorist attacks, instead of facing a court.


Through the unconstitutional Britisharia Brexit gate towards Human Rights violating islamofascism


England voted Brexit - UK did not.

Of course the slim Brexit vote of 2016 needs a follow up vote - by the parliament or the people.

Only England voted to leave EU. And did so with the smallest of margin. Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to stay with a much higher margin.

And EU citizens living in the UK weren't even alloved to vote about their own legally settled EU country of choice. A choice made under UK law.

However, non UK citizens from other parts of the world were alloved to vote.

Also, the very foundation for the Brexit vote was completely lacking. Klevius has never heard about a civilized European country that has voted completely in the dark on a groundbreaking matter, i.e. with no substance whatsoever. When UK voted to become a member state of EU in the 1990s they had the Maastricht treaty at hands and were already members of EEC since the 1970s.

A yes/no vote in the dark about the most important question would normally at least demand a 2/3  majority according to most civilized constitutions.

However UK lacks a constitution. And therefore UK's hastily and poorly effectuated Brexit vote comes nowhere close a civilized democratic process.



Tuesday, January 30, 2018

A Yemeni woman is suing islamofascist Saudi Arabia at ICC - and asking England to arrest Mohammad ibn Salman (the war criminal dubbed "the world's most dangerous man"). And BBC is silent.


The real reason connecting BBC's faked and propagandistic sharia islam/Saudi agenda* and the racist and Human Rightsphobic part of "British" haters of EU/EU citizens, and "love" of islamofascist Human Rights violating oil wealthy muslims. 


* and due Human Rightsphobia and war  and hate mongering against Russia which is seen as a disturbing factor in the islamofascist Mideast led by England's "close ally", the islamofascist Saudi dictator family who has repeatedly attacked England on its own soil by the help of sponsoring muslim terrorists and spreading islamic hate against Western "infidels".

This "the world's most dangerous man" and likely war criminal is welcomed to England. Why?

Germans! Do you think BBC's chat with Jacob Rees-Mogg is funny? No? Well Klevius has tried his best to make it funnier by ornamenting it with some additional details on this blog posting.

Fake and disgusting BBC News and UK's 18th century PM candidate and Human Rightsphobe (but positive to oil wealthy muslim sharia dictators such as e.g. Saudi Arabia) Jacob Rees-Mogg have a good laugh together: Germans have no sense of humor - and there has never been a chancellor able to crack a joke.



The potential Conservative leader Jacob Rees-Mogg voted to repeal the Human Rights Act in 2012. At the time, even Conservatives like Theresa May, Michael Gove and Iain Duncan Smith were absent from the vote. Rees-Mogg voted to repeal the act again in 2016.

Mr Rees-Mogg clearly agrees that there are "huge areas of collaboration" between the UK and the Arabian Gulf islamofascist sharia dictatorships and war criminals. Especially selling more arms to them.

His fanatic and racist Human Rightsphobic Brexit speeches have paid off. He topped a survey of ruling Conservative Party members as the favorite to replace the incumbent leader, Theresa May. In the survey for Conservative Home, the deeply religious homophobic Human Rightsphobe and North East Somerset MP secured 23 per cent of the vote, while the Brexit secretary David Davis with his everlasting silly empty grin came in second with 15 per cent.



Dubbed "the MP for the 18th century" thanks to his unashamedly old-fashioned views, Mr Rees-Mogg has seen a surge in popularity among those very racists whom Theresa May and the "Brexiters" by playing hard with the "race card" let lose since the UK general election in June 2017. His racist and sexist grass roots movement called “Moggmentum” was set up to celebrate his every word via social media.

Klevius wonders whether Hillary Clinton would have called them "the deplorables"?

The potential Conservative leader Jacob Rees-Mogg voted to repeal the Human Rights Act in 2012. At the time, even Conservatives like Theresa May, Michael Gove and Iain Duncan Smith were absent from the vote. Rees-Mogg voted to repeal the act again in 2016.



Friday, January 26, 2018

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


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



Pic text furthest down on this posting.

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

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

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

Here's Klevius help if it's indeed ignorance he suffers from: The individual is the basis for democracy. However, democracy is collective. Therefore the rights of the individual is the "constitution" on which democracy is based. This constitution is called (negative) Human Rights, i.e. the negative obligation to abstain from interfering with the individual. If you still have trouble understanding this, then compare it with traffic rules which are all about the individual, and with no reference to "communities", "collectives", "groups", "religion" etc. And the reason is self-evident for most people, i.e. that every individual should have the same right to proceed within the limitations the flow of traffic itself may actuate. And there are no "obligations", "duties" or restrictions dependent on sex.


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

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


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


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

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


The anti-fascist 1948 Universal Human Rights Declaration


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

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


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

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

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


There's no equality between men and Women in islam

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

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

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

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

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


Pic text

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

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

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

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

Here's Klevius help if it's indeed ignorance he suffers from: The individual is the basis for democracy. However, democracy is collective. Therefore the rights of the individual is the "constitution" on which democracy is based. This constitution is called (negative) Human Rights, i.e. the negative obligation to abstain from interfering with the individual.

   If you still have trouble understanding this, then compare it with traffic
rules which are all about the individual, and with no reference to "communities",
"collectives", "groups", "religion" etc. And the reason is self-evident for most people, i.e. that every individual should have the same right to proceed within the limitations the flow of traffic itself may actuate. And there are no "obligations", "duties" or restrictions dependent on sex.

Wednesday, January 17, 2018

In racist UK Parliament yesterday: "British people", "British people", "British people" - and go whistle Human Rights and EU citizens!


Theresa May and her Tories play the disgusting race card against EU citizens' Human Rights. Is it really any good for the "Brits"?



Constitutionally Theresa May & Co are worse than Myanmar. And no one knows what would have happened because of Theresa May's divisive and inflammatory playing of the race card 'against EU citizens if there had been similar attacks on police stations etc. as those Saudi initiated in Myanmar. Btw, why is BBC's bigoted and hypocritical sharia presenter Mishal Husain in Bangladesh propagating for Rohingyas instead of in her childhood country Saudi Arabia propagating for Yemenites? Moreover, the Bangladeshi muslims seem to be extremely hostile to what used to be their own people coming back after having been displaced by the Brits in the first place.

EU citizens in what used to be their homeland are already abused on a daily basis in England - by racist "Brits" as well as by government introduced administrative hostility and the shameful use of EU citizens as cards in trade negotiations.

"British people", echoed from the racist Tories in England's parliament debating the rights of "non-British" EU citizens who have been denied to vote on their own right to exist in what was their own land (EU) when they settled there.

However, so called "Brits" from Bangladesh, Pakistan etc. former British colonies were allowed to vote for denying EU citizens their rights in their own land.


Dominic Grieve called for the human rights detailed in the charter to be protected


The Conservative Party would send out ‘a really strange message’ if it does not incorporate the EU charter of fundamental rights into UK law after Brexit.

That’s according to senior Tory Dominic Grieve who said people view issues like LGBT rights ‘as being rights of a fundamental character’.

Ministers have previously said the human rights detailed in the charter will be protected and maintained in some form.

But the former attorney general accused the Government of giving a ‘paltry’ response to the matter.

Mr Grieve added that he hoped the House of Lords would revisit the issue when the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill makes its way to them.

He said: ‘I listen very carefully to what the prime minister says about modernising the Conservative Party, about giving it a broad appeal to younger people, about trying to ensure that we reflect current norms and standards in our country and give effect to them in the sorts of policies we develop.

‘And yet it does seem to me that in simply batting this issue away and saying don’t worry, it’s all going to be perfectly alright, without even coming up with a plan for the future about possibly adding a bill of rights clause or rights clauses to the Human Rights Act, we’re sending out a really very strange message about our attitude on this side of the House to matters which I believe many people in this country now see as being rights of a fundamental character, particularly on issues like LGBT and things of that sort.’

Mr Grieve said the Government had provided a mechanism where the rights in the charter could be invoked for three months after exit day, but not in a way which challenges primary legislation.

He added: ‘I have to say that I think that the response on this matter is, frankly, rather paltry.

‘It is a minuscule change, although I will also say this, that minuscule though it may be, it is actually a little wedge in the door, because it represents quite a major surrender or change of principle on the part of the Government towards this issue.’

Mr Grieve added that he did not think the Bill would pass through the House of Lords ‘without this issue being considered’.


Klevius comment: Theresa May has long before the Brexit vote showed her disgust against Human Rights. Why? Because Human Rights are against that very sharia she says is so "good for the Brits".

Thursday, December 21, 2017

God Jul (in Swedish) and Good Yule in the strange Swedish dialect called English



Today is the real winter Yule day - and summer Yule day for you in the south.


Monotheisms are all about locking in girls/women, one way or another. So why would you support "monotheisms" rather than Human Rights equality?

Klevius Yule greeting to metoo people: Klevius has always had at least equally much sex testosterone as any of the males you've met. However, Klevius has never left a track of sexism or sexual harassment behind him in his sexual relations with a couple of wives, many girlfriends, and some other female persons. So why is Klevius bragging about it? Simply because Klevius knows that one can be a testosterone filled man without causing the slightest problem for any woman. Moreover, Klevius has proved to himself and the women he has met that it hasn't needed any kind of effort from Klevius side not to be sexist (yet Klevius erotic starting time is close to zero when OKed by women - unless of course he doesn't like them or finds it inappropriate). 

But here comes the punch line: If Klevius has had no "metoo" problems whatsoever and if he really is the "extremely normal", that would mean that no other normal men would have a problem either.

However, if Klevius had been a believing Koran reading sharia muslim he might have acted differently, who knows.

Klevius wrote before metoo:

Tuesday, December 20, 2016

In Peter Klevius Yule* sex tutorial Geri Jewell reveals that "the denial was that the passion David had sexually I couldn't equal", and Michelle Thomson that when her friend raped her "it wasn't sexual".

* Yule is old Swedish (spelled 'jul') meaning wheel (which comes from the same word 'hjul') of the year, i.e. Vinter solstice around 21 December, and in modern times "Christmas" celebration although it has nothing to do with religion.

Klevius: All women are gay*. However, not every woman has realized it as yet...

Women, from a male point of view, have wonderful assess - just like feamale dogs from a male dog's perspective. And not only that, women have the potential to reproduce. And when women are receptive there are usually no lack of providers. So women should really not have anything to complain about in this respect. Other than, of course sex segregation/apartheid.

The sperm has to be attracted to the egg in some way. That's biological 'heterosexual attraction'. Testosterone is an important hormone in this task. However, the measurements are not easily compared between men and women because labs tend to (why?!) state the percentage of free testosterone for men, but give a measurement in pg/ml for women. Or the male measurements will be in ng/dl requiring a mathematical conversion for direct comparison to the "normal" range of the opposite sex. The level readings between men and women are so vastly different because the number represents a percentage of the TOTAL testosterone. Women naturally start with a much lower total amount, so 2.5% of 40ng/dl is going to be much less than 2.5% of 800ng/dl in a man.

However, even 20 times more Testosterone doesn't mean a man is necessitated to sex - merely that he is always potentially ready for sex (at least Klevius - the "extremely normal" - is and has always been since his adolescence). In other words, Klevius proposes that we lay to rest the old imposing "dog sex" culture and instead all treat each other as humans, not as sexual beings. However, to achieve this we need to teach young girls (and boys) about the only real difference between the sexes, namely heterosexual attraction, so it won't be confused with sexual acts (which people should of course be allowed to perform without any other restrictions than what the law says added with full and informed consent - just like most other civilized behavior. Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, we need to end the mostly male "push for sex" culture, i.e. dog behavior. Asexuality should be the default state of interaction.

And to avoid unnecessary confusion re. Klevius sex analysis, do understand that unlike physical reproduction in the female body (which is completely independent from the male one), heterosexual attraction needs both sexes although the female one is in this respect the passive one. At this point someone (especially women) might have problem reconciling this with the fact that many women do enjoy sexual acts without possessing the male type gaze for HSA. Klevius then repeats that although all women are gay, not all women do or enjoy sex, which fact should be respected equally as respecting that Klevius has never needed drugs or alcohol for being happy or having good sex, nor has he ever deliberately thrown white pepper around just for the pleasure of sneezing (rest calm, Klevius won't ever criticize you if you do).

And you, if you think this analysis is just Klevius opinion then you haven't understood it at all - read and think again. It's the same logic as 2+2=4.

1 HSA isn't sexual acts per se but a biologically inplanted interest for being attracted to having sex with females. Whereas dogs seem to be more excited by the smell of a female dog's pheromones, human males seem to be more interested in the shape of the female body. In fact, analytically there's no difference between gay sex and hetero sex if HSA isn't a factor (however, it would be enough to term it HSA sex if the male at least think about a physical woman - compare e.g. heterosexual men unknowingly being attracted to males disguised as women).

2 Males have way more potential urge for sex than women because of some 20 times more testosterone. And please, don't confuse this with what Klevius calls "rubbing sex", i.e. just stimulation of the genitals without HSA (compare the case of white pepper and sneezing).  


3  Being pregnant and having a baby has nothing to do with sex segregation at all because it's entirely a woman affair.

4 This means that all women, incl. asexual and achild ones ought to be treated equal with males. And as a consequence, this analysis also benefits men who want to get rid of their macho masculinity label as well as those who unnecessarily feel they're lacking one.
 


Peter Klevius drawing 'Woman' from 1979:

 Drawing (1979) and photo (2012) by Peter Klevius. For those Humanrightsophobes with really limited understanding (i.e. PC), do note that the DNA "ladder" has steel rivets (i.e. strong both for trapping as well as escaping).

Whereas classic sex segregation (read more Klevius to better understand the concept) is imposed by circumstances, religious/cultural sex segregation is what is imposed on girls/women even when it's no longer necessary. In the latter case women have been held back by men to an extent where incompetency outside "women's sphere" increasingly became obvious. As a consequence grown up women started internalizing this incompetency as "femininity" although the only true femininity is defined by heterosexual attraction (read Klevius because you'll find nothing anywhere else so far - sad isn't it).

Peter Klevius 1979 poem 'My Friend':

Ett synintryck
en beröring
ord som diffusa budbärare
speglar en glimt av din tanke
i chifferform redan förvrängda
förrän de blivit sagda
av mig och din förväntan
min vän

A rough translation for those poor uneducated individuals lacking Swedish, the origin of the English language (oh, perhaps you were unaware of English being a Scandinavian* language - my deepest condolences):

* The oldest Swedish is Old Nordic. To call it "old Norse" wrongly associates it with Norway and Norwegian, both of which weren't around as entities until after the Viking age. As Klevius has always said: North Germanic, and probably Germanic per se, was a late IE outcome between proto-Uralic and PIE (i.e. what Klevius use to call "old Finland-Swedish").

A perception             (see/se, track/tryck, i.e. see-in-track/synintryck)
a touch
words as diffuse messengers              (words/ord, bid-bearers/budbärare)
mirror a glimpse of your thought       (think/ing, tank/e)
in cipher form already distorted        (fore wronged/förvrängd/a)
before they've been said                     (sagda)
by me and your expectation               (fore waiting/förväntan)
my friend                                            (  min frände, min vän)

Women on sex and work


Geri Jewell (top left), Nicola Sturgeon and Michelle Thomson (below). Nicola Sturgeon says she would not have suffered her career for a child. Michelle Thomson says she didn't think her rapist (a teenage friend) had any sexual desire when he raped her a night when she was 14 and they walked home together. This she told in front of a tear filled UK Parliament (she has also recently been questioned in a pending mortgage fraud case). However, Klevius doesn't believe in rape without sexual desire - what was lacking was respect for basic Human Rights equality, i.e. that her friend had been brainwashed by sex segregation to an extent that he saw her only as an object for heterosexual attraction, not as an other human being on an equal footing.

Actress and comedian Geri Jewell, who has cerebral palsy (witch has not affected her intelligence - only motorics), reveals in a new memoir, I’m Walking As Straight As I Can (alluding to her a-heterosexuality as well as her motoric disability) how much she struggled growing up with a disability and how she wrestled with her "sexuality" (or rather lack of it), and reveals she is a "lesbian", which is a code word for not possessing male heterosexual attraction genes nor same level of testosterone.

Geri Jewell was the first disabled actor to take a lead role in a sitcom and she's gone on to challenge ideas about what is possible. She describes the pressures on her to go into a job suited to her disability and what made her rebel against such restricting expectations

Peter Klevius: Her rebellion against such restricting expectations as created by cultural sex segregation is just stunning - although her escape under an equally sex segregated cover ("lesbian", "gay" etc.) is not. Why didn't she claim her Human Rights as described in the 1948 Universal Human Rights Declaration against fascism, which gives her the right to lead her life as she wishes without having to "explain" it. Or is it because she is an American, and the US Constitution still doesn't give women full equality with men - hence necessitating labels?
US women fighting in vain for equality some 70 years after Finnish women got full equality.


Klevius wrote:

Sunday, September 20, 2015


Islam, OIC - and Eurabia

Europe's fascist past reborn via religion

As long as fascism is called good - how could we ever stop it? But Klevius, as a critical European ("islamophobe" if you like) feels extremely embarrassed in front of those true refugees escaping islam and hoping for protection under Western Human Rights. Sorry!

Tuesday, March 8, 2016


Klevius (the world's foremost authority on sex apartheid - sad isn't it) to all the world's women on women's day: Here's your main enemy exemplified as a timid "mosque mouse"!


Sharia islam is never good for your Human Rights if you are a woman. But willing whores and deceptive but off the point talks may well lure many women still.

 But the more important question is: Can you as a woman face your own sex apartheid history fully?

Drawing (1979) and photo (2012) by Peter Klevius. For those Humanrightsophobes with really limited understanding (i.e. PC), do note that the DNA "ladder" has steel rivets (i.e. strong both for trapping as well as escaping).

Update: Learn more about heterosexual attraction and sex segregation/apartheid here.

The origin of islam was plundering and raping booty jihad along Jewish slave trade routes. 

 Here's an approximate map of Judaism just before the origin of islam.



And below an approximate map of the violent muslim colonization in the foot steps of the Jewish slave trade routes.

 The above maps could be almost identical if produced with same techniques. This is no coincident but due to the "mysterious" code (the Jews) that made Arab imperialism possible and historical analysis impossible ("mysterious") if not included.  

Except for Khazaria, Jews were more business orientated than eager to waive swords compared to their copycats the Arab Bedouins. However, without wealthy and influential Jews leading the bloodthirsty and illiterate Bedouins (compare Ibn-Khaldun's description) and paving the way for the Arab looters (compare how the Jews used Turkic people in Khazaria in pretty much the same manner) the "Arab conquest" would have quickly dried out in the Arabian sand.

Dear reader. When reading Klevius analysis of the origin of islam, do always keep in mind the following important facts:

1 There was no Koran - only some Jewish/Christian text manipulations.

2  There was no Muhammad - only the old Jewish Messias (the rescuer/saver/leader) myth. Muhammad as described by muslims is a later invention snd doesn't appear in any official documents whatsoever before Malik.

3  Conventional "descriptions" of the "Arab conquest" are impossible and leave historians "amazed". Instead looting, booty, and sex slaves were the main incentives for the Bedouins. What was new was a more tight racist system of "we-and-the-other" which hindered (for a time) hindered internal divisions. On top of this was the Dhimmitude taxation system under the sword.

4 Understanding these point is also understanding that islam originated as a parasite and therefore never functioned as inspiration in itself for innovations etc. This is why every islamic colony has ended in bachwardness. Africa is an example of how a parasitic ideology was able to drain a whole continent.


Klevius will tell you much more later. Keep tuned and excited!



A little, timidly nonsense speaking Swedish "reformist" Shia muslim "professor"* who rides on the non-muslim world's longing for "nice muslims".


* Klevius uses 'professor' only re. scientific researchers. Mixing in a "god" isn't science.


Whereas few women believe in the Islamic State, some morons still believe in the oxymoron "reformed islam". To understand the impossibility of a civilized islam one only has to go to its evil origin (as Klevius has done since 9/11). And if you for some strange reason don't want to listen to the world's foremost expert on sex apartheid - and therefore also islam -just take a closer lookj to what BBC and others don't want to talk about.




And you may laugh this Saudi billionaire hoodlum away as a Saudi joke but then you miss the very point, namely that:

1 OIC's sharia includes both the Saudi sharia as well as any other sharia that fulfills the lofty definition of the Cairo declaration.

2 The main reason (except for protecting the Saudi and other muslim nations medieval systems) for OIC's sharia declaration was that the 1948 Universal* Human Rights Declaration gives women full equality with men, which fact made it impossible for islam in whatever sharia form.

* There's a dumb view presented for even dumber people that the UN declaration was "Western made" and therefore biased. Nothing could be more wrong. The paper and the pen may have been "Western made" but the content is from scratch made deliberately "non-Western" i.e. universal. Educate yourself!

Unlike many other forms of sexism, muslim sexism is pure racism: Muslim women in every single variant of possible sharia islam are always treated as "the other".


A Shia muslim that is on the extreme fringe of Shia muslims and not even considered a muslim by the majority of the world's Sunni muslims, incl, most muslim so called "scholars".


A pathetic and disgusting Human Rights denier who "accuses" basic and universal Human Rights for being bad "because they came out of the West". Ok, cars etc. also came out of the West and yes, he could blame them for some pollution etc. and call it "post-colonialism". But how on earth could you possibly deny the logic of the negative (basic) Human Rights, or deny them because they "came out of the West". Well the reason "they came out of the West" is that the islam contaminated parts of the world didn't give them a chance to come out there.


So is he an outright lier trying to camouflage islam's incompatibility with the most basic of Human Rights- or is he, like so many muslims, incredibly dumb/ignorant/brainwashed?

Mohammad Fazlhashemi, professor in islamism (aka "islamic theology") and filosophy (sic)* at Uppsala University in Sweden: There are some essential norms in the Koran that can be used to protect human dignity in different ways depending on time and cisrumstances.

* As Wittgenstein already pointed out, philosophy is a difficult discipline even without trying to squeeze in a God scheme in it. And even more so when the "God" is totally out of reach and only exists as differing human "interpretations".


Klevius: "Protecting" women from having access to full Human Rights? And "human dignity" should be read "muslim male dignity" added by the important "who is interpreted as being a true muslim" which could, as we all know, vary quite a lot among muslims. Moreover, what about the dignity of non-muslims? Either you let muslims "interpret" it or you skip islam alltogether, because here lies the real difference between Human Rights that gives every Atheist or whatever person (even muslims) equal rights, and sharia islam which openly violates these rights, as can be seen, for example, in Saudi based and steered OIC's (all muslim's main world organization) official abandoning of Human Rights in UN. Mohammad Fazlhashemi, professor in islamism (aka "islamic theology") and racist/sexist "muslimn filosophy" can't possibly be unaware of OIC, the muslim world's biggest and most important institution, can he!

Mohammad Fazlhashemi: That islam is good can be proved by comparing it to the illiterate Arab speaking bedouins.

Klevius: Is that really a good enough standard as reference?

Mohammad Fazlhashemi: There's no logical connection between a muslim's belief and a muslim's rights.

Klevius: Apart from the fact that most muslims completely disagree with you, why do you then keep asking for muslim's rights? Why should muslim's have special rights because of their "beliefs"?


And here's this small minded muslim reformist's Shia source:

Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari: I do not call for a separation of politics and religion. Of course there should be cooperation between them.

Klevius: Cooperation between Human Rights violating sharia and politicians representing Human Rights doesn't sound very reformist, does it.

From an interview with Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari (spiced with Klevius comments): The way of life in Medina and Mecca was quite simple. But what took place then cannot be a model for today's world. Nowadays, Muslims live in intelligent social systems, in which there is a wide diversity of institutions. This requires us to develop a proper plan with the aid of reason. This is not something that can be derived from the Koran.

Klevius: At least he seems to admit that the slaughtering of all the Jews in Medina wasn't a good "model". Or did he mean something else? The muslim booty and sex jihad?

"During its Golden Age, Islam was known for highly controversial and pluralistic debates. Today, the reality in many Muslim countries is quite different. There is little freedom of thought.. What can be done to promote more freedom of thought in Muslim countries?"

Klevius: The "golden age" was just the same as today, i.e. muslims sponging on resources they haven't themselves created. Slaves back then - oil and Western welfare today. More than 90% of the economy in Andalus was based on slavery - fully in line with islam's original enslavement formula: "Infidels" (i.e. non-muslims and women) could be enslaved because Muhammad had heard Allah (via an angel though) saying so.

Shabestari: Freedom of expression all depends on whether a people has politically developed to such an extent that it understands what freedom is. Then it will demand freedom of expression. Even now there is a great tendency towards freedom in Islamic countries. Yet, why it hasn't truly developed is another question. This has to do with political hurdles and the system of government in these countries. It is more of a cultural difficulty than a difficulty related to Islam or religion in general. Unfortunately, this is a retrograde cultural reality.

Klevius: Admittedly Hillary Clinton's sharia campaign against freedom of expression represents "a retrograde cultural reality". However, how could it possibly not be directly connected to islam itself when she works for the world's biggest and most fundamental islam representing organization, the Saudi based and steered OIC?!

"The Arab protest movements are associated by many people, both within these countries and also abroad, with the hope for democracy. Others (muslims) say that Islam fundamentally forbids democracy."

Klevius: Yet it's all islam and muslims - no matter what it stands for. As a consequence it encompasses both the most evil of muslims as well as those "muslims" who can't be distinguished from non-muslims other than by name. And this state of affairs is of course most handy for the most evil of muslims.

Friday, December 8, 2017

UK citizens in EU protected by Human Rights - EU citizens in UK robbed of their Human Rights

 

The new "deal" guarantees UK citizens living in EU all of EU's Human Rights protection, while denying all these rights* for EU citizens living in UK. Why?

* Even within the proposed eight year period when UK courts "could be advised" by The European Court of Justice, there's no guarantee whatsoever. 



Klevius citizenship tutorial:


European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has stated that muslim sharia isn't compatible with Human Rights. That's a problem for Britisharia, so to avoid it Theresa May had to eliminate The European Court of Justice from any involvement in UK's sharia future. However, at the same time she said UK should remain with ECHR - without mentioning how or to what extent. So how does this make sense?

It's very simple. As Klevius noted already in 1991, 1993, 1994 and 1996 (see e.g. Angels of Antichrist) ECHR applies a so called 'margin of appreciation' to its rulings, which means a "pre-judgement" whether a state party to the European Convention on Human Rights should be sanctioned for derogations. The threshold varies but is certainly much higher for a country outside EU.

The European Court of Justice - whose judgments are based on the value foundation of ECHR -  is the main channel for legal issues in EU and therefore the root cause to why Theresa May so vehemently opposed it.

EU citizens can't take British citizenship without abandoning their EU citizenship.


Why? Because if you don't abandon your EU citizenship then you can be deported from UK equally easy as if you were still an EU citizen. In fact, you could be even worse off. Meaning you don't have the same rights as other citizens in England and you would no longer be even "morally" connected to the "deal".

 UK - the open security hole for islamofascism


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

Sharia finance is locked to islamofascism against Human Rights

Sharia finance is locked to islamofascism against Human Rights

UK's security pact with the Devil himself

UK's security pact with the Devil himself

Saudi muslim war criminal and Human-rightsophobe is loved by BBC

Saudi muslim war criminal and Human-rightsophobe is loved by BBC



Thursday, August 24, 2017

Mrs Theresa May thinks Saudi sharia islamofascism is "good for the Brits" - but what about non-muslim EU residents in England?! Not to mention non sharia muslim Brits.


Mrs May hates Human Rights because they stand in the way of Saudi islamofascism and sharia. Will EU residents in the future be ruled by sharia rather than Human Rights?


By getting rid of European Court of Justice (ECJ) she can rob EU residents of more rights than any other group of people in England. Not surprising keeping in mind that London is a muslim city steered by a muslim mayor notorious for defending islamofascists, and that Theresa May is totally under the foot of the islamofascist Saudi dictator family.  


This is why Mrs May used to be so keen on getting rid of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) - which has ruled (2002) that islamic sharia is against Human Rights - that she (together with Cameron) used fringe exeples out of context to make the people in England believe Human Rights was something bad (compare e.g. that she blamed ECHR for not deporting Abu Qatada etc.). But not a word about the dangers of sharia that Human Rights could protect the English people from.


Mrs May now wants to get rid of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for the purpose of robbing EU residents of their most basic Human Rights.

This would mean robbing EU residents in England from their most basic Human Rights under which they were originally promised to be able to live in England - while English citizens residential in EU would still have their Human nRights protected by ECJ which sorts Human Rights issues in accordance with ECHR.

And for those who naively think that England would still belong to ECHR Klevius wants to remind of what he already in the 1990s wrote about and worked with
namely ECHR's "margin of appreciation" (see e.g. Klevius groundbreaking article Angles of Antichrist, or the cases Klevius as a solicitor brought to ECHR)) which means that ECHR avoids national laws to a certain extent within EU - and much more so with countries outside EU.

Ron Jones who was tortured by the islamofascist Saudi dictator family: "I have had little support from the UK government. It has shown itself to be more interested in maintaining good trade relations with Saudi Arabia."



Klevius: So English courts chose to defend Saudi islamofascism while ECHR let them do it because of the margin of appreciation.
.