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).

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

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

Is UK turning into a militaristic unconstitutional islamofascist rogue state?

Is UK turning into a militaristic unconstitutional islamofascist rogue state?

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

Klevius CV

Are you or your representative(s) for or against basic Human Rights equality?

Peter Klevius global morality can only be challenged by violating the most basic of Human Rights.

Everything Peter Klevius writes (or has written) is guided by the anti-sexist. anti-racist, and anti-fascist Universal* Human Rights declaration of 1948. In other words, what is declared immoral and evil is so done as measured against the most basic of Human Rights (the so called "negative" rights - i.e. the rights of the individual not to be unnecessarily targeted with restrictions and impositions). Unlike the 1948 Universal Human Rights (UHR) declaration, islam denies Human Rights equality to women and non-muslims. And violation of such basic Human Rights can't be tolerated just by referring to "freedom of religion".

* This means accepting everyone - without exception due to e.g. sex, religion, lack of religion, "security" etc. - as equal in Human Rights. The individual is protected by negative Human Rights, but of course not against substantiated legal accusations - as long as these are not produced as a means that violates the basic Human Rights (compare "not necessary in a free, democratic country"). The legislator may not produce laws that seek to undermine some individuals rights. This also includes e.g. "freedom of religion", i.e. that this freedom doesn't give the right to unfree others, or cause others to be in an inferior rights position. If by islam you mean something that fully adheres to basic Human Rights equality, then you aren't targeted by Peter Klevius islam criticism. However, if you mean islam accepts violations of the most basic of Human Rights, then you may also call Peter Klevius an "islamophobe" - and he will be proud of it. And when it comes to "security" it can't mean "offending" opponents to basic Human Rights.

This is why any effort to twist or accuse the writings of Peter Klevius as "islamophobia" etc. can only be made from a standpoint against these basic Human Rights. As a consequence, no body of authority can therefore accuse, hinder etc. Peter Klevius without simultaneously revealing its own disrespect for these Human Rights. Conversely, Peter Klevius can not accuse anyone who agrees on these rights - i.e. this leaves e.g. "islamophobia" etc. accusations against Peter Klevius without merit.

Every effort against these basic Human Rights is treason against a country calling itself free and democratic.

Some basic facts to consider about Klevius* (except that he is super intelligent - which fact, of course, would not put you off if you're really interested in these questions):

* The son of one of Sweden's best chess-players and an even more intelligent Finnish mother. He was mentored by G. H. von Wright, Wittgensteins's successor at Cambridge. However, G H v Wright sadly didn't fully realize back then (1991) the true power of the last chapter, Khoi, San and Bantu, in Klevius book. Today, if still alive, he would surely see it.

1 Klevius' analysis of consciousness is the only one that fits what we know - after having eliminated our "pride" bias of being humans (which non-human would we impress, anyway?). Its starting point is described and exemplified in a commentary to Jurgen Habermas in Klevius book Demand for Resources (1992:30-33, ISBN 9173288411, based on an article by Klevius from 1981), and is further explained in a commentary to Francis Crick's book The Astonishing Hypothesis under the title The Even More Astonishing Hypothesis (EMAH), which can be found in Stalk's archive and which has been on line since 2003 for anyone to access/assess.

2 Klevius out of island/mainland fluctuating Southeast Asia Denisovans up to big skulled Siberians as the birth of much more intelligent modern humans who then spread all over the world, is the only analysis that fits both genetic reality as well as tool and art sophistication seen in e.g. the Denisova cave (no dude, Blombos etc. don’t come even close).

3 Klevius criticism of Human Rights violating sharia islamofascism (e.g. OIC) which is called "islamophobia" by islamofascists and their supporters who don't care about the most basic of Human Rights (e.g. re. women). Klevius' "islamophobia" has two roots: 1) UN's 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration, which, contrary to any form of muslim sharia, doesn't, for example, allow sex to be an excuse for robbing females of their full Human Rights equality, and 2) the history of the origin of islam ( e.g. Hugh Kennedy, Robert G. Hoyland, K. S. Lal etc.) which reveals a murderous, pillaging, robbing, enslaving and raping racist/sexist supremacist ideology that exactly follows precisely those basic islamic tenets which are now called "unislamic" but still survive today (as sharia approved sex slavery, sharia approved "liberation” jihad, academic jihad etc.) behind the sharia cover which is made even more impenetrable via the spread of islamic finance, mainly steered from the islamofascist Saudi dictator family.


4 Klevius analysis of sex segregation/apartheid (now deceptively called “gender segregation”) and heterosexual attraction - see e.g. Demand for Resources (1981/1992), Daughters of the Social State (1993), Angels of Antichrist (1996), Pathological Symbiosis (2003), or Klevius PhD research on heterosexual attraction/sex segregation and opposition to female footballers (published in book form soon).

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

Racist UK Government and BBC

Racist UK Government and BBC

Warning for a muslim robot!

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

Sunday, October 29, 2017

The Robot, the Quren and the Saudi woman - in that order


A robot made in Hong Kong has been awarded Saudi citizenship. Klevius says 'good' but wonders when Saudi women will get full citizenship?


Do they have to wait until there is no islamofascist Saudi dictatorship anymore? Of couse, because their situation is equally tied to islam as is their male masters situation. Without islam the islamofascist Saudi dictator family is just a dirty leaking oil tank.


England, the former Finland/Swedish colony which became the world's biggest colonizer.


The English* Queen ('Kven' as in the Finland/Swedish Kvenland, 'kvinnoland/women land' and 'kvinna' in modern Swedish - see Klevius etymology) lacks citizenship in England but has multiple other citizenships from the colonial commonwealth realm which now consists of completely and utterly separate entities. Those aren't "subjects" anymore. This leaves the queen in a rather odd legal position, holding a status reliant on the old feudal system in a world where that is considered both obsolete and disgusting. In this respect the system has something in common with England's, to quote May, "close and important ally" (an "ally" that keeps attacking the English people all over the world incl. on the streets of London) the islamofascist Saudi dictator family whose medieval "monarchy" has no other correspondence in the civilized world of today.

* "British" is an obsolete and meaningless (other than for racist nationalist propaganda purpose) word that originally meant Bretagne (in France) and the "islands of Bretagne"). The original name of the so called British islands was the "land of the Picts" (the 'painted ones') and Pictish was a North European language allied to Old Nordic and therefore to Old English, the predecessor to the Scots language.

Her Saudi sister, however, still hasn7t the right to drive and possesses a passport that is useless unless approved by someone with a Penis.

"We can do it - we can drive - almost"


Here's what Klevius wrote about Japanese high tech and islamic low moral 2005 when a Japanese robot visited the islamofascist "custodians of islam":


Thursday, December 22, 2005


Shinto meets Islam - Civilization vs "killing & raping fields"

Update January 9, 2006 (American Daily): "Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Shintoism, and Confucianism are all religions of the world. Islam says it is a religion among world religions. It is not. It is a killing cult, nothing more. Islam demands that those who do not convert to Islam be slain or taken as slaves. There is no third option. With the genuine world religions, they tolerate those who do not agree with their tenets. They do not declare that those who do not agree with their dogmas be slain or taken as slaves."

HDTV-video of Honda's Asimo robot running etc.
How come that Honda is so much superior compared to BMW?
Out of Africa as "Pygmies" and back as global "Mongoloids"
Linda 13, sexually abused to death by a "school gang" & Swedish school policy & sex segregation.





Klevius comment: Look at those pathetic males (pathetic if they are racist/sexist pan-Arabic Islamist mosque-building oil-billionaires who trade in Islamic darkness in mosques, schools, universities, youth organizations etc?)! Too busy spending oil-money on technical wonders their own slave & oil-fuelled pan-Arabic/Islamic culture is uncapable of producing? Whereas Shinto (the world's oldest* religion) created the world's best high tech, Islam (the world's youngest "religion") created terror and Koran-brainwashed suicide-killers in the service of fascist and sexist pan-Arabism (i.e. true Islam)! For a better world in Darfur and elsewhere - bury Islam! Islam has caused more suffering than any other ideology (incl. Hitler's & Stalin's socialism/communism), yet it has always been excused (and surprisingly often by its own victims, i.e. the opposite compared to the "black"/"white" situation)!

Arabic racism in Africa: "They (Arabs) are the most racist people on earth" Klevius' comment: Isn't it logical then that their "religion" not only share the same feature, but also makes it essential?

While hypocritical Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc Arab Islamist nations dislike Islamic terrorism at home they continue to support it abroad. The further away the better! After all Islam is, from scratch, deliberatedly construed for limitless violent conquest and submission!

* i.e. ancestor warship - compare P. Klevius' Vagina gate in the atom of kinship.

Swedish white collar fascists want to stop external criticism against totalitarian Islam (i.e. against an ideology that forbids internal criticism)! Also see Klevius' Definition of Religion (usually top-rated on MSN)!

Update: When Göran Lambertz, chancellor of justice in Sweden who has been very busy working even outside his job profile, e.g. by protecting a famous individual against (non-socialist) media accusations of drug problems etc (a man who previously had been charged for DUI), was asked why no one, incl. himself, had done anything against Radio Islam (a Swedish web site from the 1990's and still on, denying the Holocaust and preaching utmost hatred against Jews and applauded by Iranian Islamofascists) his revealing answer was: "I don't really know"! Also see the horryfying WMD-link between Sweden and Iran and the statement by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: "Islam must prepare to rule the world"!

Violent Islam paves the way for "moderate" Islam when Arabic language and Islamic education are naively supported in the vain hope of combating Islam's combatants:

The Spain Herald: Gavilan referred to a study by the European Social Fund warning of the risk that the second generation of Muslim immigrants doesn't integrate in Europe "because of its lack of a labor impulse. That is, they're lazy and don't want to work. They have high expectations, they want brand-name clothing, luxury cars, to go to discos, but they don't have any income and they can't satisfy these expectations, so they get frustrated and look for radical religious options established in Europe."

For those preaching that Islam's radicals are so few: According to British YouGov's survey 2005 one in four (abt half a million) British Muslims sympathises with motives of Islamic terrorists- more than 100.000 British Muslims are ready to actually support Islamic terrorists- about 16,000 British Muslims declare themselves willing, possibly even eager, to embrace Islamic violence (For the worldwide spreading of Islam, and to conquer the non-Islamic world?!).

By the way - why on earth are Islam's historcal and contemporary "raping & killing fields" sometimes called "a civilization"?! An ideology based on force, submission and rape (direct or institutionalized in Koran and Sharia) for the ultimate purpose of conquest!

Wednesday, October 11, 2017

Klevius to all the world's girls on the International Girl's Day: Learn more about heterosexual attraction and Human Rights - and about the problem with sex segregation/apartheid and islamic sharia.


Acknowledgement: Please, don't confuse private religion with mob religion. Although Klevius himself has no understanding of this "private religion", he doesn't bother about it either as long as it's kept private. Klevius' "islamophobia" is only concerned with islam's (e.g. via OIC) violations of the most basic of Human Rights in the anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948.


When we get rid of religious rapetivism* then other forms of rapetivism will be much easier to challenge - because as it stands now, religious rapetivism can hide behind "freedom of religion".

* 'Rapetivism' is a concept introduced by Klevius in the early 2000.

Klevius sex education for girls. And why aren't girls  (and boys) offered proper sex educationb at school?


Islamic Sharia restricts Human Rights and promotes supremacism (drawing 1979 and photo 2012 by P. Klevius).


Normal heterosexual attraction* (female bodies as possible and potential eroticizers for males) is comparable with being extremely beautiful or ugly. It causes attention. And although it might feel like an extra power, do realize that heterosexual attraction is only in the male eye. 

However, according to the anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration - agreed on 1948 after WW2 had ended national-socialist fascism -  sex should not in any sense infringe on your Human Rights equality.

Moreover, due to a break in religious brain-washing in the "West", the "developed world" managed to modernize its view on women to an extent that made it possible for women to show off their bodies in public. Moreover, and most importantly, this development also revealed that the absolute majority of healthy men had no problem whatsoever with it. Men can - if you just stop trying to eat the cake while still having it!

However, even the progressive West has been too slow to adapt to full equality between the sexes. And a main tool for this has been religion. And of all religions it is now sharia islam that is the worst threat when it comes to full Human Rights for girls/women.

Interestingly, now a mainly Atheist country, China, asks for more sex segregation to "cure effeminacy" in the form of encouraging more "masculinity" among Chinese boys to better compete with Silicon Valley and Wall Street. Klevius wonders whether that would imply that lack of religion made Chinese men more "effeminate" than their religious counterparts in the "West"?


Bigoted and deeply hypocritical (or just racist and Human Righsphobic) muslim sharia women enjoy the West's Human Rights freedom while islam ravages their sisters in muslim countries and muslim sharia ghettos in the West.

When women say they "enjoy sex"* they don't mean the same as men - because of sex segregation

* Either as pure "rub sex" or "romantic sex" which isn't really about sex at all.

Klevius remembers how he as a teenager got aware of the depth of segregation between the sexes when he managed to get the interest of the "beauty queen" at a club and much later that same night heard her saying that it had been such a good time for her to be with someone who didn't try to push her in bed.

* Male dogs don't bother about "romantic relations", fore play etc. - that's why we call it "dog sex". However, due to sex segregation, i.e. that girls and boys are alienated from each other, heterosexual attraction has become a main means for girls/women to get attention from boys/men - and for boys/men to excuse (and be excused about) promisquous sexism. This alienation occurs despite boys and girls intermingle.


Six bio/logical facts about sex

1  Heterosexual attraction isn't sex per se.
2  Heterosexual men can have sex without heterosexual attraction.
3  Homosexual men can have both homosex and heterosex.
4  There are no heterosexual women.
5  "Rub sex" is "dog sex" for both males and females.
6  The only reason for "changing sex" is sex segregation.

Klevius will explain these crucial points more in detail later.


Men can actually treat women as human beings - but can all women handle that?


Klevius knows because he's a man with at the least average amount of male hormones and with a history that lacks 1) rapetivist behavior and 2) lacks any occasion of "failure" when being invited by women into sexual acting (not even his wives/girlfriends can complain about that)*. Moreover, for Klevius the problem has rather been the very opposite, namely that women seem to expect being treated as "women", while Klevius insists on treating them as equal human beings.

* These strange remarks by Klevius are made just to avoid readers who don't know Klevius to dismiss him as someone living in celibacy (or something else) and therefore being less informed in these issues.

In the early 1990s Klevius wrote an academic thesis called Gender Apartheid at the Socialanthropology department of Stockholm University. It was however dismissed (and Klevius refused to change it) with the following words: "You are very intelligent, logical and coherent in your writing and in your use of citations. However, the thesis is not written in a way that is expected on this institution" (an approximate translation from Swedish).


Klevius wrote:

Friday, April 18, 2014

Gender schizophrenia


Covering up the world's biggest problem (sex segregation/apartheid) in gender babble - but when will the bubble burst?

 Oxford Dictionaries definition of 'gender': The state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).

However this kind of non sense use of 'gender' is more and more common:


Of course there are no 'gender-bending' insects. If a female insect possesses an organ that can pick up semen from a cavity in a male insect, that has nothing to do with gender at all.



Klevius clarification for his dear but sometimes mildly confused readers:

John Money introduced the distinction between biological sex and gender in 1955. Before his work, it was uncommon to use the word gender to refer to anything but grammatical categories. However. In the 1970s feminists embraced the concept as a distinction between biological sex and the social construct of gender. Today, the distinction is strictly followed in some contexts, especially the social sciences and documents written by the WHO. In many other contexts, however, even in some areas of social sciences, the meaning of gender has undergone a usage shift to include sex or even to replace it. This gradual change in the meaning of gender can be traced to the 1980s. The APA's psychoanalytically contaminated Diagnostic and Statistical Manual first described the condition in the third publication ("DSM-III") in 1980 and this was then followec by the so called 'glamour feminism' which has ever since trapped girls/women in a continuing web of cultural 'femininity' that functions as a barrier against those ("tomboys") who dare to try to escape it - leaving no other options than either to conform or to become a so called "transsexual". Why do people have to alter their biology when we have Human Rights that should give everyone the right to live as s/he wishes without restrictions imposed because of one's sex?

It's also noteworthy that the pathological pathologizing of a girl's wish to be free from sex related constrains (a freedom guaranteed adult women in the Human Rights declaration) is a violation of Human Rights but is made possible because minors (and their parents/custodians other than the state) have no legal say (compare what is said in Klevius' thesis Pathological Symbiosis).

It's still an open question how much this disastrous and monstrous sex apartheid has helped islam (the worst crime ever against humanity) to exist among civilized people (compare what Klevius wrote in Rapetivism from Freud to bin Laden more than a decade ago). Evil and Human Rights violating islamic tenets that would have been completely unthinkable two decades ago are now defended!


 Thanks to a scholarship in 1885, Freud visited his main idol, Jean Charcot, "the Napoleon of Neuroses" and known as "the greatest neurologist of his time" (H. Ellenberger 1970:89), here giving a fake lecture on "hysteria in women" at his institute.(a former poor house for women) in Paris where he attempted to establish a medical monopoly over hypnosis based on contemporary ideas on sex segregation. When Freud returned to Vienna he made his living by "treating" wealthy "hysteric" women. (see Klevius' Psycho Timeline). It is an irony that most of the women performing "hysteria" at Charcot's institute were from the lower classes, in sharp contrast to those women who then became treated by his former students. Who are the great fakes of our time?Psychotimeline revealing Freud's misogyny

 

This is the Saudi islamofascist Iyad Madani who is now the Fuhrer over all the world's muslims' world organization, Saudi based OIC and its Human Rights violating Sharia. 



and his disciples

 
 Klevius feels really privileged to be the only one (so far) truly addressing the world's biggest question. However, Klevius is also disturbingly aware of the fact that his time as the world's foremost expert on sex segregation (due to no competition) may be over in no time at all when the global female prison finally opens its gates.

Tuesday, October 3, 2017

Klevius teenage son says capitalism is dead - tomorrow.


Klevius teenage son proposes removing money all together and make everything free. AI/robotics will make this inevitable anyway - and Klevius doesn't know what to say. Do you?


A world where everything is free - and protected by the anti-fascist negative* Human Rights.

* Read Klevius definition of the negative Human Rights, i.e. the very basic rights in the anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration from 1948 on which United Nations was supposed to stand on and for.

Already at the mature age of 12 he replaced Dad with Richard Stallman as his main hero after having been pissed off by the behavior of Apple and Microsoft and their use of the patent-license-copyright* system.

* Do note that much of the "secret" of Japanese high tech production quality stems from a system that historically has been the very opposite to the American one. Much of the US economy today relies on lawyers sucking out whatever there is to get money from patents/copyrights/licenses while thereby also counteracting the interest of the consumers.  

As a model for his idea about a free world he used Ubuntu, a free software based on the American, Richard Stallman's GNU project and the Finland-Swede Linus Torvald's invention LINUX (which now runs all the world's fastest supercomputers).

Free software is free as in freedom - not as in free beer - and isn't locked down by a proprietor - meaning freedom to use, modify and share.

We live in a much faster moving world today due to globalization and automation. This means e.g. that politicians may have problem keeping up.

Here the example of globalization/technologization of Africa.

How technology is freeing Africa from 1,400 years of islamic enslavement and genocides.


Poor education, over population and corruption have cursed Africa due to imposed religious abuse.

However, in almost no-time in the 1990s Finland (Nokia) and Sweden (L M Ericson) participated with Africans who freed themselves from the costly task of building an all covering land-line infra-structure. Today China is participating with Africans in a way that is fast making the continent no different from other continents. Only problem being religion/sex apartheid which causes half of the population being busy producing too many children. However, even this will stop in the long run when all African girls get rid of their sex segregated hand cuffs.

This shows have technology can transform and adapt in ways that are both more cost efficient and far more quicker than conventional low grade automation.

In the late 1970s Klevius wrote an article called Automation and basic income. Although it was never approved of being published (still wonder why) it foresaw that automation (digitalization) of processes would anyway inevitably lead to a point where no person was needed for production and administration.

However, what Klevius missed was what a young fresh mind today could see, namely that automation would also make capitalism redundant. Is this what Xi Jinping is at? State controlled freedom during a transitional stage led by heavily supported AI/robotics Rn'D. A state steered dagger given to capitalism for the purpose of committing suicide.

Japanese robots manufactured robots already in the 1980s. And when Klevius used his laptop 18 years ago in San Francisco for making phone calls for free via Skype (thanks to a young Swedish inventor) and to sell and buy shares online, he realized that the robots had already taken over.

We know that everything can be automated just as our brain/Thalamus automates our dealings with our internal and external worlds - see Klevius groundbreaking  EMAH theory (1992/1994 and on the web 2004)) which exactly explains what "consciousness" is - and is not.

AI/robotics or automation, call it what you like, can easily produce better CEO's than the existing ones - not to mention board members.

However, they can therefore also produce usefulness within sustainable profit margins.

A new financial/productive system is born - and we need only to keep the vultures away from it during a transition time.

And then capitalism is dead.

Negative rights for a positive future


Sharia restricts Human Rights and promotes supremacism (drawing 1979 and photo 2012 by P. Klevius).

A free world can only exist under so called negative Human Rights, i.e. rights without content* and therefore immunized against impositional** (positive) "rights". Freedom rights instead of so called "Stalin rights", as some of the agreed rights came to be called when they emanated from the USSR system.

Negative rights can be exemplified with traffic rules. Every participant has exactly the same rights - no matter what s/he drives or if s/he doesn't drive at all.

And limitations necessary to keep it going affect everyone equally.

* I.e. a protected sphere that the individual may fill with whatever - as long as it doesn't clash with the rights of others.

** In traffic as in democracy limitations should only be accepted if necessary in a free system.