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.

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

Sharia finance is locked to islamofascism against Human Rights

UK's security pact with the Devil himself

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.
.

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

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

Theresa May wants to strip the Charter of Fundamental Rights from the UK statue book when Britain leaves the EU.

Individual rights to privacy, equality, freedom of expression, fair working conditions, a fair trial, access to a lawyer and the protection of personal data are all in potential jeopardy. However, the most importantissue is that removing the charter means paving the way for islamofascist sharia.

Here some reasons Theresa May doesn't like Human Rights

Parliamentary questions
16 March 2012   
E-001065/2012

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

1. As the Commission has pointed out in its reply to Question E‑9450/2011(1), ‘sharia’ is a general concept that encompasses several legal aspects and is subject to varying interpretations both in the countries where it is applied and among specialists. The Commission is committed to ensuring that any EU legislation as well as the Member States, when implementing Union law, respect the rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In areas beyond EC law, it is for Member States alone to safeguard the respect of fundamental rights, in accordance with their national laws and international obligations.

2. Private international law rules in force in the Member States, including those based on EC law, may lead to the application of a foreign law which is based on sharia law. However, these private international law rules in general provide for a possibility not to apply a provision of the designated foreign law which is manifestly incompatible with the public policy of the Member State concerned.

3. Freedom of association is a basic principle of EC law and national laws as well. The Commission does not have the power under the Treaties to prohibit that sharia court like organisations exercise cultural, social and other activities. Nevertheless, the ‘decisions’ of these organisations cannot be considered as arbitration awards, do not have a judicial character and can be recognised and enforced only on the basis of national laws.

4-5. There are safeguards in place in EC law (Rome I Regulation, Rome II Regulation and the draft Rome III Regulation). Consequently, those parts of sharia law which are not compatible with EU fundamental rights standards will not be applied, and those foreign judicial decisions, which are based on provisions of sharia law that are incompatible with these standards will not be recognised and enforced in the EU.

Luzius Wildhaber, President of the European Court of Human Rights:

Paradoxically, although most people profess their commitment to democracy, it is in many ways an imprecise notion with an apparent weakness that is capable of causing it to
buckle under pressure and even, as history shows, to do away with itself. The reason for this is that, by definition, democracy seeks to satisfy the aspirations of the greatest number. Such aspirations are, however, often changeable and even contradictory, a factor which in turn leads to a growing number of compromises and increasingly complex mediation,
whose impact on the system itself will not always be measurable. The former President of the German Constitutional Court recently noted in this connection that democracy is
subjected to constant pressure, as its divergent forces interact to create an unstable equilibrium. This, undoubtedly, is especially true at times of crisis, when democracy gives
the impression of struggling to meet the rush of challenges posed by globalisation,recession and terrorism.

It is in this domain that the Court, aided by the pan-European consensus provided by the Convention, has a role to play in identifying the constituent elements of democracy and in
reminding everyone of the minimum essential requirements of a political system if human rights within the meaning of the Convention are to be protected. It has in the past applied
itself to establishing the basic principles of the rule of law, the role of political parties, and the limits on freedom of political expression and parliamentary immunity. In Refah Partisi, it carried out a thorough examination of the relationship between the Convention, democracy, political parties and religion, and found that a sharia-based regime was
incompatible with the Convention, in particular, as regards the rules of criminal law and procedure, the place given to women in the legal order and its interference in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.

That said, a truly democratic society can also be recognised by the attention it gives to the weakest and poorest of its members, as the preamble to the draft Constitution of the
European Union helpfully reminds us. It is in this context that the Court’s judgments dealing with the plight of ordinary people rather than universal principles come into their
own. The second of the cases mentioned above, that of Mr Jakupovic, provides a striking illustration of this type of judgment through its discreet testimony to the despair of the
victims of the war in the Balkans, a genuine collective tragedy in present-day Europe.

The case concerned a young national of Bosnia and Herzegovina who, when war broke out and at the age of 11, travelled with his brother to join their mother, who was living in
Austria. Once there, he became involved in petty crime for which he was given two suspended prison sentences and banned from Austria for ten years. At the age of 16, he was
deported alone to the war-torn country of his birth where he no longer had any close relatives, his father having been officially declared missing since the end of the armed
conflict. An all-too-common story when all is said and done, but one which the Court found by four votes to three amounted to a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

This review of the past year would not be complete, however, without a reference to the worrying increase in the Court’s backlog, which puts the survival of the entire Convention
system at risk. The figures, which are reproduced in the pages dealing with the Court’s statistics, could hardly be more eloquent. This well-known phenomenon has various causes,
arising as they do at all the stages through which each case passes, from recourse to domestic remedies to the execution of the Court’s judgments. For this reason, the draft
proposals for the reform of the system currently under review by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe contain recommendations for appropriate remedial
action at each stage.

Leaving aside the specifics of the proposed solutions, the important point, however, is that, as the Council of Ministers stated in May 2003, “the European Convention on Human
Rights [remains] the essential reference point for the protection of human rights in Europe”. Only the Convention offers a truly pan-European understanding, free of regionalism and particularism, of the fundamental rights of every human being. It is a priceless asset.

Peter Klevius' 1986 experimental* zero budget refugee film/video about Vietnamese refugees in cooperation with a local Finnish amateur band.

* Although this was a failure it had some spirit built in. However, like so many other of Klevius failures it was anachronistic, i.e. Klevius' mental impairment (i.e. extremely high IQ) makes it sometimes difficult (and fun) to live in a now that is felt almost medievel in Klevius mind (see e.g. 'inside Klevius mind' on Klevius' web-museum that isn't touched upon in 15 years).

The Vietnamese refugees were a result of Communism vs Capitalism. However, the muslim refugees is a result of islam (Saudi) vs islam (Iran).

Saudi islam sits on "the holy places" it has buried under concrete and mosques, it sits on lots of oil/gas, it speaks Arabic as its muslim neighbors, and the Saudis are protected by by US and other Western powers, whereas Iran is a much lesser threat and could act as a balancing peaceful power if offered some opportunities. The Iranian people are less fanatic and more "normal" than the Saudis who are dependent on a medieval dictatorship - now steered by what is often described by analysts as "the world's most dangerous man".

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family is the cause of most muslim refugees. So when will the most dangerous nation on the planet be treated as they deserve to be by BBC?!

BBC is all about muslim refugees and "refugees" from the world's biggest single nation (the muslim Umma). BBC also keeps describing muslims as "minorities" when in fact the muslim Umma's population exceeds that of China. In this respect there's not a single country where muslims are in minority because they are always backed by the Umma (e.g. via Saudi based  and steered OIC) plus, in the majority of cases, the ruling class in the country they happen to be. This feeds into muslim supremacism racism and sexism, and makes integration and respect for Human Rights equality less likely.

So here's an alternative refugee video to the ones BBC feeds you with.

A mid 1980s nostalgia trip

Nights in Saigon

Someone has uploaded a poor quality VHS copy version of an experimental music video that should have been buried equally well as the non-existing islamic "holy places"*. It was written, directed, filmed, edited and screwed up by Peter Klevius - with most of the "footwork" done by those in the video (the band and some Vietnamese refugees). It was originally made on high resolution 16 mm film with an old handheld Canon Scoopic without sound syncronization. The total raw film to edit from was less than 9 minutes, i.e. half of the final product. The "actors" were themselves both refugees and amateurs and no other money (except a small sum to the refugees) was spent on the video except for a few small rolls of film. So no room for additional takes/directing or fancy editing. All scenes were just filmed once. It was a technical challenge that failed - but a goodwill gesture to true refugees. Some of the band members were initially slightly chocked about Klevius manuscript, cause they seemed to have had a different story in mind.

Plot: A Vietnamese family tries to escape but a helicopter has already spotted them. They decide to take different paths so the woman and the child go by boat while the man gets caught by a soldier whom we see taking drugs and watching a photo of his little son. The film turns from b/w to color and we now see the grown up son with his guitar and a sign in the background reading "make love, not war". The little refugee girl has now matured and is seen on the balcony of a tower block. The guitarist arrives in a helicopter and is seen driving away in a Finnish made Saab Cabriolet Turbo (considered fancy back then). The band is then showed playing at a place where the Vietnamese girl is among the crowd. When the guitarist jumps forward for his solo performance she is chocked to see a similar face as the one that killed her father. She runs out.

Klevius takes credit for most of the many flaws but some of the attires and pics in the video are concessions to wishes of the band and do not necessarily always comply with Klevius view.

But the "cast" and the band did a great job and the guitarist acted well in his double role as the addicted Vietnam veteran from the 1970s and his guitar playing son a generation later. Same guy also filmed the creek shot from the helicopter his army friend kindly let him enter.

Everything was filmed in Borgå (Porvoo), a Viking** town in Southern Finland.

* The islamofascist Saudi dictator family has deliberately buried Mohammad's and his associates "graves" etc. well knowing that they didn't exist in the first place. And to do this they used enormous amount of concrete to cover it up and then "sealed" it by building "holy mosques" on top of them. Moreover, in this respect they claimed islam as a "religion" against "idolatry" although islam is the ideology most keen on idolatry, e.g. Meca bowing, Kaba circulation, Mina stonings, etc. etc. 

** It's said that the Viking Helsing gave name to Helsingfors (Helsinki in Finnish), Sibbe to Sibbo east of Helsingfors, and Borg to Borgå (Porvoo in Finnish). 'Fors' means stream or waterfall, and 'å' (or 'o' in Sibbo) means creek. Read Origin of the Vikings.

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family and Theresa May demand worldwide criminalizing of criticism of islamofascism.

"Moderate" medieval dictator and likely war criminal Mohammad bin Salman bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud - or whatever, and Theresa May want to criminalize criticism/questioning of sharia islamofascism

The fire of Saudi islamofascism is spreading over the world faster than Human Rights firefighters manage to limit its disastrous effects. This means prolonging of the suffering of sharia islam's victims.

Brexitsharia turning England into the Saudis islamofascist world hub.

Brexitsharia is all about Saudi islamofascism and muslims - for the purpose of islamofascist sharia finance and trade deals with muslim dictators and war criminals.

Every step Theresa May now takes is one step away from Human Rights and towards Human Rights violating Saudi sharia.

Check it out! No matter if it's about Russia or Iran - it's always in line with Saudi wishes.

The new world fascism coming out from

Theresa May's rhetoric is in an eerie synchronization with that of the Saudi islamofascists.


According to Erdogan and others there's only one islam.

So Klevius asks: If you have a bucket full of ideologies streching from benign to evil, and you want to criminalize criticism of whatever is in the bucket - then which ideologies do you think will benefit the most from your move - the benign or the evil ones?

Klevius, who believes in Universal Human Rights equality, is deeply offended by anti Human Rights sharia muslims and Theresa May's support of Saudi islamofascism. What about you???


When an Iranian citizen is accused by Iran of illegal activities in Iran, then the English parliament and BBC show off everything they can. However, when an Englishman is tortured in Saudi Arabia he gets no help whatsoever.

Klevius wrote:

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.

Brexisharia trouble with back-doors, back-benches - and a close muslim madman ally.

Cliffhanger Theresa May's "important ally" in Mideast, is playing with the islamofascist fuse at the point where she had planned to land. 

The islamofascist Saudi "prince" seems more than ready to throw more fuel on the already heavy fire in Mideast. However, instead of backing this madman West should negotiate the Israel issue with Iran and thereby balance out the  "custodian of islam"'s disastrous campaign in the region and beyond.
  

No dude, it's not Fawlty Towers - it's Fawlty Tory

No wonder she looks worried.

But perhaps this jolly good fellow could cheer her up.

Theresa May wants to leave EU -  while also leaving the Irish back door open - to EU. Brexit means...?

Klevius suggestion to Theresa May: As you are such a friend of sharia islam - why not introduce sharia sex segregation in your cabinet - and fill it with (muslim?) women only.

Who is a muslim? Human Rights violating sharia muslims or "muslims" who respect non-muslims as truly equals?

No matter how nice a muslim, s/he will erode your Human Rihgts if s/he, consciously or unconsciously, supports Saudi OIC and its world sharia which always takes precedence over Human Rights - because the worst crime in sharia islam is to leave islam, meaning sharia islam is a one way reproductive road that can only grow -  at the expense of your Human Rights - making you a second class citizen. Only "Western" secularism and Human Rights can make it possible for born-muslims to free themselves from these Human Rights violating shackles. At the cost of being labeled by the "muslim community" and their families/relatives etc.

And if you are a woman and convert to sharia islam you immediately loose your most basic Human Rights and face disaster if you want to leave. This is what "freedom of religion" means in sharia islam. What every non-sharia "muslim" need to do is to openly dismiss Human Rights violating sharia.

Who is a "Brit"? Based on Theresa May's approach a "Brit" seems to be someone who loves sharia but hates EU citizens

A government colluding with the worst scum on Earth ought to be called 'extremist', right?

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family has been the core tumor of the cancer spreading from Mideast.

The act of labeling a person, group or action as extremist is sometimes claimed to be a technique to further a political goal—especially by governments seeking to defend the status quo. It's also claimed that the term extremist cannot be regarded as value-neutral. However, Human Rights equality as outlined in the 1948 anti-fascist Human Rights declaration, does fulfill the criterion of being value-free, precisely because it excludes values as a means for imposing limitations of rights or imposing 'duties' and 'responsibilities' on some people (e.g. women, "infidels" etc).

Is it a dream or do we really now in 2017 live in a climate where the worst Human Rights abusers are not only protected by the devil's lawyers abusing Human Rights but also representing them?!

And the hate and war crimes spreading islamofascist Saudi dictator family sits in United Nations Human Rights departments!

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family is "investigating" its own war crimes!

Saudi Ambassador in Geneva Abdulaziz Al-Wasil said that time was not right to form an independent commission of inquiry into human rights violations in Yemen. He added that the Houthis and forces loyal to ousted President Ali Abdullah Saleh were also committing war crimes.

.

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!

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

The Veil Trap

 

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.