Every country - and especially UK - needs decoupling, or at least de-risking from $-embezzler (1971-) US, which gets more dangerous and desperate at the pace of China's accelerating R&D superiority! To continue its criminal abuse of its dollar and military against even its "allies" US has not only full monopolistic hegemony over the dollar but also over ALL www (incl. access to ALL personal data), which it will no doubt weaponize against the world instead of making bankruptcy when the trust in dollar stops (because at some point China won't accept the dollar anymore in exchange for world leading products). Trust bias free Peter Klevius who sadly doesn't know* a single Chinese and has never visited the country - which is a problem for US evil tentacles. Decoupling from US until it gets its criminal record fixed, is in the best interest of the world (incl. most US people). * As of Oct 2024. And the real problem is that in the many countries Peter Klevius has the right to stay, you never know if a Chinese is "approved" (i.e. in effect anti-China) or a "suspected spy for CCP", i.e. whatever except anti-China. Some 100 million Chinese are party members (i.e. actively supporting the democratic meritocracy that has proven superior in China's gigantic success), so knowing a Chinese who happens to know some family member or friend of a meritocrat, might be enough for "suspicion". Peter Klevius wonders how hard is it to understand that we in the West now are ruled by a US dictated neo-fascism using the old but empty slogan of anti-Communism - which in WW2 caused the majority of Holocaust victims to be Communists (incl. many Jewish Commnists).

China is by far the best for consumers. That’s why $-freeloader (1971-) US wants to block it so to prolong US stolen $-hegemony. China has no reason to harm its trade – US has! Google, Facebook etc. are now directly connected to US military and spy organizations – i.e what US wrongly accuses Tik Tok for. Forget everything you’ve heard about China through US controlled/influenced media (incl. BBC which, before Tianamen 35 anniversary, sent senseless anti-China hate ranting lies in 10 acts). Sadly, it’s almost impossible to get balanced info about China in the West. This blog - which is almost invisible on Google but visible on duckduckgo - is deliberately on Google precisely to show 1) that US "freedom of expression" is a farse*, and 2) to leave a historical track of US criminal behavior and extreme censorship and falsification of the truth, which chokes the minds with steered ignorance in ordinary busy people who don't have a chance to really check it out. After all, whom do you trust, an anonyme blogger like Peter Klevius, or US, "the mighty defender of freedom, Western values, and the rules based world order". Simply by declaring what Klaus Schwab calls “a model country” a “threat”, US dictates its “allies” to do the same – in the face of tho people who want more Chinese tech and less hate against Chinese people. Moreover, Peter Klevius wonders whether China really would have been better off with the "democracy" protesters in China 1989 asked for, than the meritocratic high tech and on controlled capitalism resting post-Mao China we see today? And if so, then how would $-embezzler (1971-) US have reacted when "undemocratic"* China is already now seen as a "threat" against US stolen $-hegemony? According to research Chinese meritocracy reaches the will of the people much better than US "democracy"! * Google has to pretend being "fair", yet cunningly uses its algorithms and censoring power to suppress what its real master, the US militant oligarchy doesn't like - no matter how logically or morally correct and Human Right it is.

Peter Klevius religion tutorial: The racist/sexist curse of "monotheism" has as many "gods" as "believers". Even though the seed for Zoroastrianism and Ahura Mazda (the intelligent deity) originally came from China (e.g. the Yellow Emperor), it got distorted into the "chosen people" policy where Jews slaughtered the Canaanites, and Christians and muslims slaughtered Jews. So although Judaism came from Iranians and islam from Arabs, US 1971 $-embezzlement led to US supporting both Zionism and the islamist Saudi dictator family (petrodollar). Because of the evil and illogical origin of "monotheisms", PC West tries to blur the concept of 'religion' by 1) including non-monotheist "religions", while 2) still pushing for "monotheism" as the supremacist religion, so to fit US anti-China agenda. But all other s.c. "religions" are Atheist because they lack the "monogod" mantra - which shouldn't of course be conflated with supreme "deities", "forces", "spirits" etc. concepts residing inside our existencecentrism. Most people have always understood that humans aren't almighty (P. Klevius 1992:21). However, "monotheists" "believe" they somehow belong to something "outside" our existencecentrism, which is impossible. Whatever you believe resides inside your existencecentrism while having no access out of it. You may call the world the "observable universe" where you can "observe" whatever "belief" you come up with. Chinese Taoism understood this long before the "monotheism" fallacy came about. And while our existencecentrism is a mess of changes, it's nonsense to think of a "way out". Islam underscores this and, unlike Moses (who even "wrestled" with "god"), therefore Muhammad wasn't allowed to meet with "Allah" but only with his (yes, "his") messenger Gabriel. "God willing" is a handy reflection of the impossibility to talk about "god" because then you don't need to explain why "god" treated his good servants badly. Our existencecentrism limits us from the "external world" to which we can never have access. So trying to imagine or believe something beyond one's existencecentrism just bounces back. The wildest made up fantasies are no different from "believing in something beyond human understanding" because this is just an other internal concept. But to admit our existencecentrism by saying 'there's nothing outside it' is not a statement about the unknown which, of course, cannot be talked about, not even with the word 'nothing', which that can only be defined and used internally. However, "smart" "monotheists" avoid "god" and make up alleged "positives", but by doing so just keep fueling the orthodoxy they tried to avoid. It's not "free world vs CCP" but US militant theocracy vs Atheist super tech. US more than any other country subsidies everything with Feds stolen (since the world's biggest embezzlement started 1971) fiat money. US authoritarian military kleptocracy blocks US people from buying their dreams. The desperate* dictatorship puts 100% tax on those cars etc. people are most likely to want to buy. * Peter Klevius has nothing against US people but is worried about how US antidemocratic, rules making and breaking order, and desperate fear of losing its hegemony will negatively continue to affect the world. This is why Google (linked to Washington) suppresses Peter Klevius on the webb. Can't even find him despite 20 years of thousands of postings and pics on Blogger!

Trying to understand the polarizing and warmongering without incl. the consequences of US 1971 $-theft - which are now coming home to roost because of China's superior R&D - is an equation without an x. From a pro-war politician's mouth always comes a copy of the original in US. US inflamed the existing racial tensions in Ukraine for the purpose of getting US nukes and US anti-nuke missiles on Russia's border, so to protect itself in its planned war against China - because only by creating a similar chaos as in WW2 on the Eurasian continent would US be able to continue its stolen dollar hegemony.

From US "exorbitant dollar privilege" (financial abuse of vulnerable countries - but the dollar still connected to gold) 1944-, to US financial fraud 1971- (US self-indulgent disconnection of the dollar value from gold after having spent too much on wars and space race etc.). US' "China threat" demonizing is now code for US own threat, i.e. US masking its own desperation when losing its 1971- stolen dollar hegemony because of China's growing high tech superiority. How many understand this simple truth - and how many blink it?! Before 1971 there was only one world-dollar (since Bretton Woods 1944). After the "Nixon chock" 1971 there were two: One for US dictated by US (Feds), and an other for the rest of the world, also dictated by US. And the difference was that the US-dollar made it possible for US to prosper despite trade deficit, because the rest of the world has paid the difference. Also do recognize that Roosewelt's similar move 1933 happened before the Bretton Woods agreement.

Forget about Nature! Here you get your by far most qualified and least biased (not steered by peer "reviews" or PC editors, but by super high IQ not corrupted by religion, politics or money) scientific overall understanding of evolution (1981), human evolution (1992-), consciousness (1992-94) and AI (1979-), and Human Rights (1979- incl. sex segregation). In his topics of scientific interest Peter Klevius has got highest possible recommendations from world leading professors on the topics. And no, the author has never been caught with mental problems, abuse or criminality, and has successfully fostered all of his children. So why presenting himself like this?! Simply because his best services to science can't get properly through via other media, and here it's often dismissed as "just a blogger's opinion" - which is quite rich when considering much peer reviewed nonsense PC "science" allowed on Nature! And non-scientific posts here of course utilize the same brain power.

Why is a meritocratic, capitalism and trade supporting, Chinese president, with more than 2/3 approval rating, called a "dictator", while a wild capitalism and protectionism and anti-China sanctions and smearing supporting, militaristic warmongering US president with 1/3 of indirect votes on electors who were chosing among candidates chosen by the big money, is called "democratic"?! It seems that "Christian democracy" is a similarly empty but magic wording as is "the Atheist Communist dictatorship".

Atheist (like the overwhelming majority of Brits) Peter Klevius (whose genetist declared him an Anglo-Saxon) to figurehead King (but not at all absolute monarch) Charles 3: Please celebrate the year 1948 when you and the Universal Human Rights Declaration were born, by asking for forgiveness for all the atrocities England has done on the British Isles and around the world - especially the less talked about, e.g. like the opium wars, and how England was an accomplice to the islamic slave trade which is the worst ideologically based crime against humanity ever. Also please mention all the Communists and other people who constituted more than the Jews in the Holocaust but whose suffering and death is sadly not talked about at all. And do apologize for the British horrifying firebombings against civilians in the end of World War 2 whila Russia was fighting the Maxi army. And why not also apologize for stealing the Chagos Island from the Chagossians, then deporting them from their own land, and renting it out as a military base for rogue state US! Also don't forget evil British meddling and militarism consuming from foreign aid and starving and freezing Brits. And don't forget to criticize BBC which has no problem with the invitation of the islamofascist muslim terrorism supporting Saudi dictator family (a real absolute kingdom which, unlike China, doesn't accept Human Rights) but never stops its unfounded racist Sinophobic spitting on China and its extremely balanced Hong Kong policy against seditious British backed terrorism against the "one nation two systems" incl. the attacks against Hong Kong governmental and parliamentary buildings even worse than the Capitol demonstration in US which BBC paints in exactly the opposite way. Or UK's senseless "genocide" against muslims accusation against China despite the world's largest muslim organization OIC praised China for its good treatment of muslims in Xinjiang and elsewhere. Wheras BBC cherry picked jihadist stories and some random incidents not approved by the Chinese government, OIC sent a big delegation to inspect the allegations and talked with the non-jihadi muslim community! Charles! You talk about indigenous voices - did you include e.g. the Chagossians - held crucial messages about preservation of the land, respecting community and shared values, resolving conflict, and recognizing and making good on past iniquities, right! Don't worry about demonstrations and stupidities. And if you're curious about the biggest scientific questions as you say you are, then welcome to my blogs - however, Google may ask you to sign in because truth and Human Rights are "sensitive"! Read how climate change made human evolution possible in SE Asian volatile archipelago - not on a continent like Africa. And read how two craniopagus twins born 2006 solved the "greatest mystery in science" - and proved Peter Klevius theory from 1992-94 100% correct. And much more!

How did US become the devil of the world? The seed was planted 1971 when US chose the criminal path by stealing the dollar! And today US lures, abuses, corrupts and threatens the rest of the West through its stolen dollar hegemony which it uses for demonizing, warmongering, and militarization against modern China - a country that in every aspect beats US and could stand as a model for the confused West, and which success means that even Taiwan starts leaning towards mainland China (to which it belongs and even US itself admits it does) because it promises a better future (just see how much wealthier Hong Kong is already per capita compared to Taiwan). Moreover, some half of the Taiwanese don't share the ruling party's anti-China policy - which fact scum media BBC never tells its compulsory fee paying brainwashed listeners about. So evil US wants war against China before China-Taiwan relations become even better.

20230314 US drone wasn't protected by "freedom of navigation" because it participated in the Ukraine war before taken down by Russian fighter jet. Everyone who has followed me knows that I am, and always have been, anti-Maoist - but modern China is something else entirely. First, the U.S. declares modern China a "threat" and then militarizes against this contrived threat. Sinophobic demonization of modern China is inspired by US/CIA propaganda and its own prejudices. And the warmongers of Brexit UK submit to the US and go against the people suffering from US dollar hegemony inflation. Take away the racist glasses and Xi&Co almost comes across as a Jesus, and as far from "dictatorship" as you can get compared to the dictatorship of the United States and how the West's politicians go against the will of the people regarding, for example, NATO and militaristic warmongering. Modern capitalist China has nothing in common with Mao's China, but uses the word 'communism' partly to imply continuity, but above all to refer to something to which all countries even in the West refer, i.e. fairer distribution. Nor has China historically ever engaged in the same kind of colonialist and imperialist expansion as the West. This makes modern China credible as it claims to support all countries' right to self-government and free from interference. Xi has no power of his own, but only reflects the absolute majority of the will of the people and was therefore 100% unanimously re-elected - only an idiot would propose an inferior leader, just look at Xi's track record. China's "Communist Party" has a better functioning meritocratic democracy than the West ever had because China's leadership since Mao's death, has been about doing what Mao used as a floundering but never allowed in practice, i.e. "the dictatorship of the people". Take the example of Covid where the modern "Communist Party" was forced to submit to the people's age-old Confucian respect for the elderly, i.e. protect them from contagion - and then again because of the will of the people (with a little "help" from the CIA) to open up when Omicron turned out to be mild. We should all be afraid of the US - not be against China. The Silicon Valley bank could be the beginning of the end for the rotten United States — and hopefully the beginning of a better and more peaceful United States! The current direction only leads to regression and perhaps war. In the West, politicians try to brainwash voters with the help of US-controlled or influenced media, while in China it is exactly the opposite, that is, the leadership is constantly (not only in elections as in the West) sensitive to the will of the people. And why is the US/CIA/West on the side of the Islamists - in the same way that they are on NATO's side by constantly spitting CIA lies about China?! China is the opposite of threat compared to the US/NATO/West. But the U.S. has since the dollar theft in 1971, painted itself into a corner - which modern China's R&D frms have laid bare to anyone (who wants) that sUSA should be put out of business and pay for its dollar theft in 1971-, but instead allows the US's so-called "allies" to deceive themselves as useful idiots under the US criminal dollar hegemony. OIC has checked the senseless alleged "genocide" against muslims in China and not only found any evidence but instead even praised China's leadership for its good treatment of muslims. Islamism supporting USA and its Western "allies" behave exactly as the most conservative Taliban, i.e. not letting the women out in education and work. And the Western lies about Hong Kong and democracy is just against democracy, because the West tries to support a tiny (CIA influenced?) anti-China movement - which is exactly the opposite to the agreed "one country, two systems" principle - which clearly excludes the possibility of Hong Kong not belonging to China. And Taiwan is less wealthy per capita than Hong Kong and a huge part of the Taiwanese actually want to belong to mainland China.

The ultimate U.S. hypocrisy against China: When all muslims' world organization O.I.C. visits Xinjiang etc. and thanks Beijing for its good treatment of muslims - then US cherry picks CIA and BBC fake "reports" based on interviews with jihadist families or cases of prison or police abuse (which happen in every country - and especially in US). It's appalling that the West supports OIC's sharia which violates the most basic of Universal Human Rights, but doesn't listen to OIC when it comes to China!

$-freeloader U.S. is the worst threat to the world!

Warning, don't invest in US because it's going down! How? It's not the debt ceiling nor the dollar per se but simply because US can't keep up with China's R&D, which fact will become inevitably apparent for consumers globally. US makes its own rules and imposes them globally. China makes its own rules and lets others do their own (the Global Security Initiative). US' dollar theft from 1971- is coming to an end when people realize that after China's rise US is no longer an asset but a risk - then US bonds will be worthless. So to keep floating US abuses its weaker "allies" while calling China "enemy". Don't let a declining and dangerous U.S. take over your country! U.S. tries in vain to contain China so to be able to continue its criminal dollar hegemony by sucking money and blood from the rest of the world in the wake of its massive dollar theft beginning in 1971 when U.S. betrayed its promise to keep the dollar fixed to gold. The undemocratic U.S. Fed then in effect became the world's financial dictator. U.S. dollar theft means a general decrease in purchasing power outside U.S., i.e. the price the world has to pay for U.S. stolen wealth. U.S. is the only country in the world that despite trade deficit and massive national debt, via its criminal dollar hegemony can force the rest of the world to pay for it. You need a super computer to exactly calculate U.S. debt to the world. However the suffering caused by U.S. fraud and militarism is even beyond a super computer. Let the world vote about whether U.S. should be defaulted and prosecuted! Western politicians - seduced by the popular Old Nordic dialect (or creole) called English - seem to reason that by being "allied" with $-freeloader U.S. ("the greater U.S.") they will benefit technologically and financially. But the reality (1971-) is just the opposite. Only Japan and Korea can compete with China when it comes to homogenity, general IQ, education amd R&D - except that they are ten times smaller, and their cooperation with the extortionist parasite U.S. will inevitably weaken them. In a very short future not only Wall Street and some tech geeks, but people in general will start understanding they took the wrong train going in the wrong direction on a faulty track into the arms of an armed blood sucking dying giant.

We live in a world in which an authoritarian state, $-freeloader narcissistic U.S., controls the digital infrastructure, enjoys the dominant position in the world's technology platforms, controls the means of production for critical technologies, and harnesses a new wave of general purpose technologies, like biotech and new energy technologies, to transform the world society, economy and military, to continue feeding U.S.' parasitic needs. However, the really funny thing is that US smears China for exactly what US itself is.

China is now not only outperforming the West technologically but also the capitalist country that has come the furthest in balancing greed for the good of the people. In contrast to communist dictatorships such as the Soviets, Mao's China, North Korea and others, modern China is more democratic than most Western countries. This is because, via a meritocratic system, political career is built from the bottom up, i.e. local politicians must show results in order to move forward, while together they later form a political communication link between Beijing and the people, which means that unlike dictatorships, it is the top that is most sensitive to grassroots dissatisfaction. And this is proven in several Western research projects which unilaterally show a popular support that is sky-high above, for example, the US. Peter Klevius art analysis: When kings possessed antidemocratic total power (as the Saudi islamofascist murderer and terrorist war criminal "king" still today), they could deliberately show off their personhood. However, when kingdom became art - not to say sign post - then a "good" king or queen became someone who like Elizabeth had to shut up and instead be filled with the content of "the eye of the beholder" - just like art, which is always excluded from its artist. My guess is that she could only really trust her husband - 'husband' is Swedish meaning 'hus' (house) and 'band' means ties like in 'bond'. However, her son Charles has an extremely poor record at that - which may be entertaining, especially for republicans.

US should be the "enemy" rather than modern China

When will Liz Truss declare the islamofascist "custodians of islam", the Saudi dictator family - who has murdered, tortured, terrorized and committed war crimes - an enemy? And what about US? With the U.S. dollar as the world's main reserve currency - since 1971 criminally disconnected from its promised gold connection - and with the U.S. controlling global financial and monetary flow U.S. has raised massive debt while printing money - not "out of thin air" but out of the world. The U.S. economy hence rests on financial colonialism and imperialism, i.e. forcibly robbing its value from other countries. And when excess liquidity drives up global inflation, and the Fed raises interest rates and tightens monetary policy, it also widens its interest rate gap with other countries, while attracting international capital to the otherwise empty (and doomed) U.S. dollar. The Brits should blame US, the militant financial $-freeloader (since 1971) - not modern China, the peaceful tech and wealth building rescuer at home and around the world! Bank of England is a helpless pawn against the feds. At the very moment when especially UK but also the rest of the world needs China the most, then dangerous and militant (CIA steered?) Liz Truss declares China an "enemy". Hello! It's US that 2014 ignited the low scale Ukrainian civil war to a fullblown deadly genocide against Russians, and 2022 to a real proxy war via NATO threatening Russia for the ultimate purpose of attacking China. And it is the US' antidemokratic (decoupled from democratic institutions) Federal Reserve that is behind inflation and the fall of the pound and other financial problems outside US. US is the only country in the world that can survive heavy deficit by counterfeiting money. It's US that is the root of high inflation, energy costs, supply shortages etc. (because of modern China). The feds has since 1913 been the factual dictator of US, and when US became bankrupt after a costly Vietnam war and space (incl. military) program it 1971 unscrupulously cheated with the promised dollar connection to gold. US hence started a fullblown robbing of the world with the dollar as the world currency and now culminating in an untenable money printing that together with China's economic and tech rise threatens US criminal $-freeloading. US is a theocracy if measured by how much "in god we trust" is involved in policy and politics, and that the Supreme Court is 100% religious, in stark contrast to the huge number of Atheist people in US. This has also led to US using islamists against China.

Why trust Peter Klevius instead of BBC and other trolls? Because 1. Peter Klevius has a much higher IQ (beware of IQ-phobia) than most professors or world leaders 2. Peter Klevius has a long and clean life record when it comes to women, children, crimes, drugs etc. 3. Peter Klevius has no finacial or career ties to anything he writes about 3) Peter Klevius doesn't (sadly) know (20220326) a single Russian or Chinese, and has never visited the countries nor having any other connections 4) Peter Klevius groundbreaking scientific achievements (e.g. about evolution, consciousness, sex segregation, sociology, psychoanalysis etc.) can all be dated to publications, theses (and after 1998 also on the web) or correspondence with professors considered top of their game. Possibly all of them may also qualify as first of its kind - or at the very least certainly not copied from others - as others seem to do with Peter Klevius' works, without even giving him credit. 5. Peter Klevius had the most unprivileged start of life and adulthood - but also the most privileged when it comes to brain power, dopamin-serotonin balance and psychological stability - to an extent that he can't possibly believe in the psychological non sense excuse that "we're all a little mad".

US has already sunk below the surface but abuses the "West" as its snorkel. What most people don't realize is that by following US you step downwards in future development compared to China. Little Japan already showed the world how to beat the West in technology. China is more than ten times bigger. And when people - sooner or later - realize the difference, the backlash will be harsh. Peter Klevius asks: Which war (post WW2) has NOT been instigated by rogue state $-freeloader US? Korea, Vietnam, Serbia, Iraq, Georgia, Ukraine, Libya, Yemen, Syria etc.. US, which has also used nukes, biological wepons, and torture, tops by far the list of war criminals - and US allies are gravely complicit!

20220221: BBC main news hour at 13:00 today for the first time didn't mention Ukraine and Putin at all - while the worst shelling against Russian populated parts of Ukraine significantly escalated, leading to a peak of over 50,000 refugees fleeing to Russia to escape the genocide the $-freeloader (and now desperate because of China's growth and success) US iniitiated, agitated and assisted with weapons (together with its coerced, or just stupid/evil Western puppets) - while continuing spitting on Putin/Russia.

Peter Klevius wonders if you can spot the difference between the People's republic of China, the Congress' republic of US, and the Parliament's/government's "democracy" of UK. Hint, the clue is in the word 'people' and the fact that Chinese are more satisfied with their democracy than US and UK people. Moreover, can you spot the difference between modern China and Stalin's, Mao's, Castro's, Pol Pot's etc. Communist countries? And when it comes to unjust sentencing, spying, surveilling, detaining/torturing/killing people, US is definitely worse than China. Not to mention US global meddling, militarism and dictatorial fiat $-freeloading. A US that can't manufacture its own chips but tries to hinder China from it. And if you aren't on US sponsored IS-Uyghurs side - why spit on China?! And if you aren't on US sponsored IS-Uyghurs side - why spit on China?! Why is US calling anti-islamism "human rights violation"?! And when will US stop dealing with Saudi, NATO (e.g. Turkey) etc. Human Rights violators?!Btw, Peter Klevius suggests buying Chinese property stocks now. After all, there are more rural Chinese than the entire US population, waiting for getting urban after this temporary slow down.

Why doesn't Peter Klevius publish his groundbreaking science in Nature? Because he has no peers! Peer review, according to Google, is the evaluation of work by people with similar competence. Peter Klevius healthy mind and total lack of institutional/financial/political/career bias combined with extra high intelligence is unique in science - and it's precisely therefore his best scientific achievments can't be evaluated by peer-biased people but need a blog to be presented because 1) they would never be peer approved in Nature 2) they would never be produced in a "proper" form with painstaking efforts to squeeze in citations/references etc. that contribute nothing. Whom should Peter Klevius quote about EMAH/consciousness, out-of SE Asia, or about hetersosexual attraction and sex segregation? When I made my phd on sex segregated resistance against female football I was asked to quote feminists. I did, and after every quote I had to negate it. Alternatively it would have silenced the women's voices in my in-depth interviews re. thair experience about resistance. After all, it was feminists behind the 1921 ban against women's football in England, and it was the most powerful feminists in Sweden who for a decade opposed girls and women playing football after the Swedish FA had included it. So instead of me testing Nature, you test me - before "anti-feminism", "anti-out-of-Africa" and "anti-religion" are criminalized as "hate speech"! - In anthropology fossils usually get all kinds of nicknames before scientifically "baptized". However, precisely because Homo floresiensis (the definite proof that humans evolved in SE Asia) was the "missing link" that afropologists wanted to find in Africa (how could an allround mover and allround eater ever evolve on a continent?!) they needed to dismiss it at every level incl. continue calling it a "hobbit". And when it comes to EMAH/consciousness it's extremely simple - yet not "simplistic" at all. However, the culprit is what humans are most proud about, i.e. language. By giving something one doesn't comprehend but wants to put in a package, a name, will continue to contain its blurred definition. This is why EMAH only deals with 'now' and the body of past this now lands on. Of course this leads to everything having "consciousness". A brick "remembers" a stain of paint as long as it's there - and with some "therapeutical" investgation in a laboratory perhaps even longer. And a stain of paint on your skin is exactly the same. However, unlike the the brick you've also got a brain that may also be affected by the stain. This could be compared with a hollow brick where the paint has vanished from the outside but submerged so that when cutting the brick it "remembers" it and tells the cutting blade about it. And for more "sophistication" just add millions of differect colors unevenly spread. Our brain is no different from the rest of the body. If Frankenstein with tomorrow's tech had created an adult human body, then that body wouldn't be able to walk or talk etc. because it lacked the body program we've been programmed with by living.

The US-led climate hoax against China: $-freeloader US uses its hegemony to cover up the worst global threat, i.e. itself. And targets China which challenges its hegemony. A sustained and coordinated campaign aimed at undermining the credibility of China. China is already way more democratic than US - especially when considering that its infrastructure today is already where it inevitably will be tomorrow in a technologically lagging US. In other words, technology itself puts ever more distinction on our behavior - compare e.g. the shift from unmarked cash to marked card/online payments. And as an extra bonus China has extremely low criminality, better privacy law, and incredible record of improving poverty and welfare both home and abroad compared to US. Just consider how US has painted itself into a corner by the 1971 cheating that disconnected the dollar from US' own means, hence creating a situation with no other return than lowering its standard (i.e. stopping printing dollar that the rest of the world have had to pay for due to US' global financial empire tentacles) or a new war (which US is already brewing). Where US uses CIA meddling, sanctions and militarism, China has risen with honest manufacturing and trade.

$-freeloader US is the main driver of dangerous global militarism and state terror. It's also a many times bigger per capita polluter than China. Why is BBC repeating the lie that "China is the biggest polluter" when in fact it's one of the smallest?! And the only reason to not use per capita would be that China, unlike e.g. similar size Africa, has a single government. But even then China shines as the by far best led country. China is the technological future that we all have to walk - not led by the Chinese, but by technology. And because of US's desperation as its dollar-thieving (since 1971) is now threatened by China irresistibly passing them technologically and economically, China actually serves as a protected "soft landing model" for the future AI world (China's new privacy law, tech crackdown etc.) is exactly what most people want), while aggressive U.S. is a threat to peace and prosperity. Google is precisely the state link Chinese companies are accused of being, and US's "alliance" with "colored" and muslims is basically Sinophobia, i.e. the fear of losing control of those whom it has abused - it simply divides the world into good colored/religious and evil Chinese/Atheists (and evil whites who disagree). US-led "anti-communism" is not about communism or any belief that China would attack the rest of the world (as the US has done, after all). Almost everyone understands that today's China has nothing in common with Cuba, the Soviet Union, Pol Pot, and Mao's China.

Peter Klevius has collected US Google News China headlines for years and never seen them (algorithms) so extremely anti-China as now. US' (+its puppets) Taiwan lies in perspective: UN Resolution 2758 which was approved on October 25, 1971 states that "The representatives of the Government of the People's Republic of China are the only lawful representatives of China to the United Nations" and "decides to expel forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek (i.e. Taiwan) from the place which they unlawfully occupy at the United Nations and in all the organizations related to it." Again, U.S.-linked disinformation campaign against China is made up as it goes along. So how much of US' "anti-Communism" rant is actually Sinophobia spized with greed and fear of losing its parasitic world sucking position? Btw, the worst polluters on measure of culpability as weighted annual per capita greenhouse gas pollution taking relative per capita income into account include the Anglosphere countries US, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Ireland. Isn't it shameful that these hypocrites point finger at China?! And why is BBC so silent about the volcanic catastrophe on La Palma that not only keeps continuing but also is getting more vicious by the day?! Volcanos can at any moment start an abrupt iceage - and we are anyway already overdue to the next statistical iceage.

What's not to like about China?! Best privacy law: least crimes: best high tech: best tech control: best poverty extermination: best manufacturer: best meritocratic democracy happiness: best trust in leadership, applauded by OIC for treatment of muslims, etc. And badly behaving $-freeloader and financial (and militaristic) global dictator U.S. jailed Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou in a foreign country for her normal business in an other foreign country (whose prsidential candidate was murdered by US in a third foreign country) that US didn't happen to like as it didn't like the success of Chinese Huawei.

How $-freeloader U.S. has robbed the world since 1971 (see video above).. - China hating bigoted and hypocritical West (i.e. US+puppets) - which strangly calls itself "the international community" - worries about Taliban sharia while West's close ally, the islamofascist Saudi dictator family (behind 9/11 and most other islamic terror) has the most medieval form of sharia of any muslim country! Btw, most feminists are sharia muslims - and feminism ticks most fascism boxes. Peter Klevius to his readers: Never forget that fascism emerged in the very midst of what is now in anti-China rhetoric called "the international community" or the West. And the roots of Western fascism has never been treated but live on. Ask yourself, what if China had behaved like the murderous terror rogue state $-freeloader U.S.?!

The main threat against Taiwan is U.S. starting a war. But China just has to wait until the Taiwanese anyway want to rejoin because of Cnina's fast growing superior R&D, high tech, infrastructure, privacy law, economy etc.. For U.S. it's just the opposite. And West's hollow rant about "liberty" and "party-democracy" echoes back against China's democracy where the Chinese vote for truly merited individuals and against corruption. And Chinese hightech will, after some political delay come near you anyway - while in the meantime being called "assertive threat from CCP". And there's no more "Communism" in China's progress than there is Christianity in U.S' militaristic war mongering, criminal sanctions, $-freeloading, extrajudicial murders, unfair justice, torture, spying on everyone, use of islamists etc.. U.S. "Americans"! Payback time! When Peter Klevius bought his Japan made Citizen Eco Drive chronograph watch it cost ~ $240 in US and ~ $340 in EU. Those ~ $100 is what "American" (i.e. U.S. people - not all Americans) $-freeloaders owe to the rest of the world because of benefitting locally by money printing and pricing the main global reserve currency - but the end is near. $100 trillions - or more?!

Apoorva Mandavilli (New York Times): "Someday we will stop talking about the lab leak theory and maybe even admit its racist roots. But alas, that day is not yet here." Peter Klevius wonders what made her later delete it?! Fiat-money-world-$-freeloader-US' intention is not at all to clarify anything but instead to keep up hate against China. Would Fiat-money-world-$-freeloader-US and its UK puppet let Chinese inspect Fort Detrick and over 200 US bio-labs all over the world and UK's notorious military research at Porton Down, Salisbury. So while Chinese and "Chinese" looking people now are the most harrassed, BBC gives it no real attention while filling its news with BLM and "worries about islamophobia". Btw, if you poke any s.c. "free speech debate" you'll always find islamic efforts for "blasphemy" laws - and never laws against real blasphemy against basic negative Human Rights of 1948. The West has abandoned Human Rights for the sake of sharia islam and is again becoming what it fought against - itself. Communistphobia led (an "autoimmune" reaction now boosted by US' collapse and due aggression) to Fascism, Nazism and WW2. Why do the worst (per capita and consumption) militant polluters and hypocrites (Fiat $-freeloader US, UK, Australia etc.) lie about China. the world's best source for cleaner tech?! Fiat $-freeloader US' influence behind Sinophobic attacks against China, the world's by far largest economy and future of tech, privacy law and Human Rights, and with less assaults, rapes and murders etc. than e.g. US and EU, while the "democratic West" turns sharia theocratic and militant. And why is islamism called "religion" and Confuzianism "propaganda"?! Peter Klevius: Why would religious precepts and Human Rights denial be more worthy of protection than political ones? After all, Human Rights are there to guide legislators and the Chinese trust their politicians much more than Westerners trust theirs. So there's a case to be made against anti-China hate propaganda which harmfully affects Chinese and "Chinese" looking people. The senseless flaw of monotheism: The pompous self-delusion of oneself as "god's" chosen individual while projecting one's "beliefs" on "god's" chosen "community" - which in turn projects a collectivist "belief" on its individuals. Freedom of thought doesn't mean freedom from law - and freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from Human Rights. The only "ideology" that flawlessly fits negative Human Rights is Atheism (not believeing in any supremacist "god"). Lod/Lydda in Israel should be a warning that convinces anyone about the necessity to abandon racist and sexist monotheist religions and instead support the basic negative Human Rights of 1948 to guide legislation and behavior for a positive human future for all. When should islam pay for 1400 years of genocides?

20210503: The world needs urgently a tougher stance on US and its aggressive hypocrisy and criminal behavior! Every anti-China rant Western politicians puke is licking a sick US ass and boosted by populist Sinophobic Western nationalism. New Zealand is now blamed for not spying and hating China enough while the criminal Saudi dictator family is a close ally and OIC's violations of Human Rights is ok.

20210416: US' puppet sidekick UK cowardly runs away when it cannot hide in the master's shadow anymore - leaving Afghanistan's women without protection against islamic evil.

US declares Turkish murder and islamization of more than a million Armenians a genocide while UK declares China's de-islamization and education of backward Chinese Uyghurs a "genocide".

Joe Biden's threat: "China will not become the leading country in the world, the wealthiest country in the world, and the most powerful country in the world on my watch!” And history proves US is the dangerous one that wants to dictate and bully the world to keep its $-freeloader hegemony.
Xi Jinping: "China will never seek hegemony, no matter how strong it becomes." And he has the longest civilization to back it up with.

Peter Klevius warns the Brits about the danger posed by spy master Jeremy Fleming's delusional, dangerous and Sinophobic China "analysis" which, if followed, may lead to stagnation and even US initiated war. It's all about UK either chosing a dangerous puppet status under US decline and stagnation by supported US' populist riding on pre-existing anti-Chinese (and anti-mongoloid racism, compare e.g. footballer Son Heung-Min and BBC lacking to report hate crimes against Chinese etc) sentiments - or simply benefitting from China's success through cooperation. The "danger" of new Chibese surveillance tech becomes ok later on in the West. However, China has now better privacy protection than the West, and China's meritocratic political representation combined with the world's toughest anti-corruption, makes West look bleak in comparison. And unlike UK, China has a real written constituion that gives women the same rights as men without exeption - someting US is still lacking, as are UK's sharia courts.

Don't respect islam as long as islam doesn't respect Human Rights! And if you don't trust Peter Klevius (2001-) on this, then trust Council of Europe's (2019) basically similar criticism of islam's main worldly (except Gabriel) representative, Saudi based and steered OIC's Human Rights violating sharia declaration CDHRI! Moreover, the most pious muslims seem to be the ones furthest distancing themselves from Human Rights.

Peter Klevius to the women of Greenham Common: Aren't the Saudi allied and posturing "in cheat and global nUKes we trust" right wing Sinophobic Brexiters a bigger threat than Iran?

BBC is the world's main spreader of anti-Sinoist hate speech and populist Sinophobic propaganda on an industrial scale and therefore guilty of inciting crimes against humanity!

First spitting on China and when China reacts using it as an excuse for more spitting.

The original (negative) Human Rights (1948) means the individual is not to be imposed an action of another individual, group, government, religion etc. Negative Human Rights hence function as the guidance and guardian against unneccessarily restricting legislation. Sharia islam, i.e. in praxis Saudi based and steered OIC's notorious* sharia declaration, is the very opposite. However, UK and BBC seem to approve of islam's Human Rights violations while calling China's efforts to stifle them "human rights abuse".

* Similarly criticized by Peter Klevius and the Council of Europe. Are both "islamophobes"?!

Global China for peace and wealth vs. "global UK" for more hate incitement, lies, threats, nukes, warmonger and miltarism under the shield of the militaristic world dictator and $-freeloader US. Compare this to UN's Resident Coordinator in China, Siddharth Chatterjee, who says "we stand in a unique position to cooperate with the Government of China and apply its successes of lifting hundreds of million people out of poverty globally. China has shown its firm belief in the principles of multilateralism. As I witnessed in Kenya, China's donations of personal protective equipment and other supplies played a critical role during the disruption in global supply chains in March 2020. And every day I am in China, I am inspired by what I see around me, what China has achieved and can achieve as a country."

But US/UK do their utmost to stop "assertive Chinese influence". And a Sinophobic parliament shouts "genocide" when China protects women's Human Rights.

Without a fair reason UK declares Chinese a "threat" while Brits and other "infidels" are constantly threatened by Human Rights violating islamism.

20210320: The world's master fake news troll farm BBC today still uses conspiracy theorist, warmonger and China hater Pompeo to smear China and spread anti-Sinoism - but nothing about islamist Human Rights violating atrocities (e.g. 50 children beheaded by islamists in Mocambique etc.), !? Btw, UK abducts proportionally many more children than China - and expose them to islamist child abuse. Peter Klevius feels truly ashamed of looking like a Westerner. Btw, how can you excuse US criminal behavior: First benefitting from monopolizing global web tech and then using this monopoly as a weapon against competitors?!

$-freeloader US and its UK puppet don't care about the wellbeing of Chinese but want only to damage China's success. Sinophobic UK parliament should just shut up talking about China and democracy. People living legally in their own state EU were robbed of their democracy by UK! And even UK nationals are just subjects, not citizens.

BBC, the world's worst war mongering and hate spreading propaganda troll farm, uses Chinese "Guantanamo"* prisoner fotage out of context as "evidence" of how "truthful" BBC is! * US detained muslim terrorist suspects outside US! BBC stereotypes whatever to fit "genocide" in China but doesn't mind US-UK-Australian torture and murder of civilians. Where China stands for tech and wealth development $-freeloader US + UK-Australia stand for spreadinng lies and militarist tensions. And why so silent about UK torture of Assange while declaring an Iranian spy suspect as "innocent" simply because she says so (Iran, like US, doesn't approve of double citizenship).

Uncritical democracy with islam inevitably means the death of Human Rights. Peter Klevius probably has some half of muslims on his side in saying so.

BBC welcomes Jo Johnson when he now says "China is authoritarian, almost neo-totalitarian regime". Peter Klevius wonders how that fits with a country which leadership is much more approved of than Western ones?! Even an idiot (but not BBC) can see that China's modern Communism has nothing to do with Maoism or Soviet Communism. The only criticism left the West can come up with is name calling. The welfare, progress and out of poverty success for Chinese people has nothing in common with "conventional Communism". On the contrary, it delivers exactly where s.c. "democracies" (one might even argue that China is closer to democracy than the West) often fail. "Democracies" are anyway one party states supported by at the most some half of the population compared to China's qualified majority. So China's "authoritarian" Communist "dictatorship" is as far you can get from the West's beloved Sunni islamist theocracy, steered by the murderous and war crimes committing Saudi dictator family. So why is China declared an enemy while Saudi is an ally! Moreover, China's new privacy law will protect the individual much better than any similar laws in in the West. Why? Because China's leadership thinks the individual's privacy is too important to fiddle with (read the draft). Something the West has given up (to US). And who was it that started smearing, lying, spreading rumours and conspiracy theories, military threats etc. against China in the forst place? Sinophobic racism from the West for the purpose of aiding the US $-freeloader.

Peter Klevius: Every muslim is responsible for muslims racism and sexism. So stop shouting "you're not a muslim" to a muslim who believes and knows the Koran by heart! Immigration is ok - if you criminalize anti-Human Rights sharia muslims (and their accompllices)!

In cheat we trust: UK decreases aid to Yemen while increasing weapons sale to the muslim Saudi dictator family and spending more on militarism. And BBC is more concerned about Uyghurs than Yemenites. And worries more about Buddhists who don't like to be attacked, raped, murdered etc. than about their radicalized muslim attackers.

Lord Palmerston, UK PM who supported the Confederacy in the US civil war, hoping a dissolution of the Union would weaken the US: "The Chinese are uncivilized and the British must attack China to show up their superiority as well as to demonstrate what a civilized nation could do."

US is now the worst global threat that only cooperating with China could mitigate - instead of being US' puppets. Peter Klevius: Why is US ordering 600 new nukes - i.e. the double of China's total?
Why is China the only NPT state to give an unqualified negative security assurance with its "no first use"?
Why isn't UK's parliament more interested in the real genocide in Yemen than the made up "genocide" in Xinjiang?!
Why is UK applauding the conviction of Syrian soldiers while UK soldiers go free from similar crimes against humanity.
Why isn't the real genocide that muslim Uyghurs have committed against non-muslim Uyghurs talked about?! When Dominic Raab visited Saudi Arabia he failed to raise the question of Saudi Human Rights abuses.However, in UN he lied about "China's industrial scale Human Rights abuses". He deliberately conflated unchecked BBC "reports" by East Turkestan jihadis with China's out of poverty and de-radicalization programs. And of course forgot to say sterilization was offered after three (3) children and with economical and educational incentives for muslim women tied at home by sharia.

The militant $-freeloader US' spread of misinfo about China has made Chinese the most hated ethnicity while sharia muslims are the most protected - and US' puppet UK's Dominic Raab keeps spitting Sinophobia while supporting anti-Human Rights islamism.

UK, which illegally still colonizes Chagos (but complains about China), in a secret ballot 'arranged' (helped by OIC) a sharia islamist to become leader of the International Criminal Court - i.e. someone who doesn't respect basic Human Rights! Should ICC now change to ICT (In Cheat we Trust)?

Peter Klevius (like e.g. most really intelligent Jews is an Atheist, not confined with "faith", politics, career, finance etc.): While the West accepts OIC's Human Rights violating sharia islamism, China defends Human Rights against islamism. And unlike US' constitution, China's constitution is fully aligned with women's rights in the 1948 Human Rights declaration. So to avoid the West turning into a full muslim theocracy (OIC sharia) fractioned in infighting, we better become Sinophils instead of Sinophobes! "Anti-democratic ommunism" is now the only (empty - the only difference is that MPs in China are under harder scrutiny) argument the West still swings.

Peter Klevius: SE Asia was the evolutionary laboratory that made human evolution possible. Africa doesn't tick a single box

20210127, BBC (fake) News: "We are memorizing 6 million Jews in Holocaust." Peter Klevius: So why not include the more than 6 million non-Jews?! See BBC's diabolically wild lies about Uighurs!

Many Afgan women's dream is to be treated like Uighur women in China. However, the criminal militaristic war mongering rogue state U.S. abandons them and instead declares islamist Uighur terrorists not terrorists anymore and accuses China's emancipation efforts for "genocide" and "human rights violation".

The biggest scandal in anthropology: Afropologist John Hawks and faith creationists dismiss the hereto most important "missing link" in human evolution. How many have they brainwashed and kept misinformed?!

1990 islam officially and globally (via UN) rejected Human Rights (the Saudi based and steered OIC's sharia declaration witch gravely violates the most basic of Human Rights)!

If Atheist Chinese had reproduced like muslims, there'd be more s.c. "Mongoloids" than the whole world population today.

BBC is the world's biggest lying and faking propaganda troll - BBC's agenda has absolutely nothing to do with journalistic principles but is a mix of US pressure spiced with the worst of "Britishness" (UK cuts foreign aid from 0.7-0.5% and adds the same money to militarism) meeting in Saudi/OIC islamofascist sharia against basic Human Rights. BBC: UK has to aid Saudi war crimes and genocides cause else Russia and China would do it. UK's future is as a militaristic puppet for US (compare BBC's campaign against Johnson and Corbyn). Peter Klevius to BBC's Sinophobic muslim presenters in their ivory minaret: How many muslim women are detained in UK's sharia camps?

US secretary of state, Pompeo declares Islamic State Uighur jihadi not terrorists - so they can attack China and get support from US (as in Syria).

Peter Klevius defends basic Human Rights equality - and if it offends you, then you're racist and/or sexist.

Peter Klevius to Chinese people: I'm not a racist Sinophobe - although I certainly look like one.

Btw, when will US women get the same rights as Chinese women - ERA is still lacking from US constitution? Chinese constitution, Article 2: Women shall enjoy equal rights with men in all aspects of political, economic, cultural, social and family life. It's an irony that China now seems to offer the only defense of those very Human Rights it's accused of not following - while US and its puppets support islamism that violates those Human Rights (compare Saudi based and steered OIC's global sharia declaration against Human Rights). Moreover, apostasy (i.e. leaving islam, which is the worst crime in islam) and the fact that the muslim man determines the faith for the children no matter who is the mother, together have to be added to any estimation of muslim population growth.

Islamophilia feeds islamofascism - "islamophobia" feeds Human Rights equality. The West's entanglement with anti-Human Rights islam has eroded "Western values" beyond recognition. And behind every "Chinese aggression" you'll find US aggression - because US doesn't want to lose its global freeloader position.

Islam, because of its origin (in which it's stuck by Muhammed, sharia and apostasy ban) inevitably paves the way for islamist extremism and due road to medieval backwardness. However, possibly more than half of s.c. "muslims" don't want this anti-Human Rights sharia, but sadly, islam has put all muslims under an apostasy ban, and Western idiots don't give freedom loving "muslims" a helping hand but instead help sharia islamists by calling sound criticism against islam "islamophobia". However, US is the real problem - wherever you see islamist uprising (e.g. near China or its belt-and-road) - check for US/CIA meddling.

Nation of Islam: Black lives matter more than other races! Black is original! Peter Klevius: Aka supremacist racism! No, black is adaptive and isn't "original" at all because there's no "black gene". The darkest skin in the world is as far from Africa you can get - and the darkest African skin developed quite recently. And black skin is doomed to vanish anyway. And the Homo lineage was light skinned until 1.2 Myr when they were already all over the old world. And the oldest modern humans are light skinned mongoloids.

The "out of Africa" hoax is worse than the Piltdown hoax - and much bigger and more worrisome.

Big Afropological words from a big (on the web) "Piltdown man" - with a PC dwarfed brain? John Hawks' "explanation" to how Homo floresiensis "travelled from Africa to Flores" wouldn't impress a 3-year old.

Why Africa was impossible for human evolution - and why SE Asia was perfect.

John Hawks unwittingly asks the question that disproves "out of Africa" - and proves how important Peter Klevius* anti bias definition of science is

The Even More Astonishing Hypothesis (EMAH explaining your brain and AI and what you thought was "consciousness".

Why were tall men from the south dumber than tall men from the north?

Peter Klevius sex tutorial and suggestion for DSM-6. An analysis of sex segregation and heterosexual attraction.

Why do Sinophobic BBC and UK parliament call it "deradicalization" in UK, US and Saudi Arabia, but "genocide" in China?! And why wasn't one-child policy against Atheist Han Chinese called "genocide" while Uighur muslims were allowed to have many children?! Btw, e.g. Sweden abducts many more children than China does in Xinjiang - and for extremely questionable reasons (read Peter Klevius' thesis Pathological Symbiosis and ask yourself why Sweden gets away with its Human Rights violations). Answer: It's all about U.S. being a lousy loser and therefore behaving appalingly badly with smear, threats, illegal sanctions, militaristic aggression etc! Btw, China is already number one in economy and most technology - and accelerating compared to US. So you stupid US puppets - take note!

Shame on everyone who blinks Saudi based and steered OIC's anti-human rights sharia for all the world's muslims while spitting on China!

US is rottening fast and should therefore go for peace and cooperation! Despite using $-freeloading, sanctions, breaking treaties, murdering officials and politicians in other countries during state visits etc., hindering the use of tech previously used to monopolize US companies globally etc., US now wants to destroy Huawei and other Chinese companies, not for security but because US is inevitably losing the tech race. And no, it isn't the Chinese state support any more than US uses state support for force-feeding Apple, Google etc. and backed up by US state militaristic interventions, spying, interference, threats etc. globally. And China was the first to recognize the danger of Covid-19 - not "delaying" anything" but quite the contrary (see below)!
BBC News' deliberately misleading and dangerous anti-China rant 20200706: "China ought to be our enemy! We can't do any business with China because of Hong Kong, and the sterilization of Uyghur muslims which some people (BBC and its cherry picked guests?!) think amounts to genocide". Peter Kleius: That Chinese muslims should follow the same laws as other Chinese, and that China uses similar deradicalization programmes proposed in the West, BBC thinks is "suppression". And volontary sterilization in the West BBC calls "genocide" in China. And Hong Kong's security law is similar to those in the West - and not as bad as US - and are definitely neccessary to keep "one nation" together under the immense pressure from US and its puppet regimes.

2020 4th of July: Peter Klevius wonders when US women will get the same rights as Chinese women - ERA is still lacking from US constitution? Article 2, Chinese constitution: Women shall enjoy equal rights with men in all aspects of political, economic, cultural, social and family life. Peter Klevius also wonders why aggressive and assertive US attacks peaceful China (every schism has US fingerprints) while siding with the war crimes committing murdeous islamofascist Saudi dictator family whose OIC sharia clearly denies eqaulity for women?! China is doing more good to more people than any other country today. Is this the reason?!

20200701: BBC News asks for war against China but complains "we have only two aircraft carriers". Peter Klevius wonders how sick BBC has become?!

20200618: Why is the most cemtral witness, Inge Morelius (later aka Mårelius) in the Swedish PM Palme's murder case, deleted by Google's search engine from Peter Klevius revealing murder analysis?!

20200616: When China discovers Covid-19 with a European DNA profile on a cutting board for Norwegian salmon, the BBC thinks it's the communist party.

Why is BBC so quiet about Churchill's secret (until 2018) pact with Stalin in 1939 which would have divided Scandinavia between Russia and UK?! And US' NATO puppet Jens Stoltenberg repeats like a parrot his master's voice against China - while a civil war is going on inside NATO between Greece and Turkey.

African Pygmy lives matter! Colonized and enslaved for more than 3,500 years by the Eurasian Bantu etc. intruders we now call Africans. It's a senseless irony that "Africans" (Bantus etc. newcomers) who enslaved and mixed with original Africans (Khoisan and especially Pygmies from whom they got their phenotype) and later were enslaved by muslim Arabs and their "African" collaborators now get a brain drop at the West African ports where islam exported slaves. Any old African genes come from Khoisan and Pygmies - and ultimately out of Asia - not Africa. "Out-of-Africa" and BLM are created by white idiots and only feed supremacism. Read "out-of-Africa" more dangerous than the Piltdown hoax.

Peter Klevius 20200604: What if Floyd had been white or Chinese?! And the officers members of Nation of Islam? And how do we even know that any racism was involved? And what about a fair trial? All human lives matter!

20200603: UK's Sinophobic right wing anti-EU migration Brexiters now want to import 3 million Chinese from Hong Kong!?

20200529: In its everyday Sinophobia rant BBC today managed in one sentence to accuse Chinese, China and Xi separately - and even missing the stock smear, i.e. the "communist party". However in a very near future China will develop and export a world leading ecosystem of non-US software, hardware, fintech, social media, telecom infrastructure etc. that everyone will long for. Stubborn and dumb stiff lipped Sinophobes will become Neanderthals in no time. Sadly few politicians understand how powerful Chinese tech development is. Japan did the same but wasn't hampered by Maoist communism and was ten times smaller. High IQ and an Atheist culture they both have in common.

The pro-Saudi and anti-China "party-within" UK's governing party is committing long term criminal harm to UK. China is the future and US is rottening with accelerating speed (the desperate sanctions against China tell it all). Only tech cooperation with China will benefit Brits and Americans. So why are UK politicians and BBC so eager to shoot their own PM and the Brits in the foot by being dictated by Pompeo, Trump and the Saudi dictator family, and boosted by a general Sinophobia racism? The "communist" scare mongering has no relevance because in practice China behaves in no way different than US - but is under constant smear and subversion attacks. And China's surveillance has actually developed less fast than that of US. US is a rogue state that murders and surveils in other countries (e.g. murdered top politician in Iran and surveilled Merkel - and you). And who likes ISIS and al-Qaeda etc. Uyghur jihadi terrorists anyway? Pompeo, Erdogan and Saudi steered islamofascists.

20200522: BBC and some right wing MPs call it a "draconian move" when China wants to stop foreign interference and people using Molotov cocktails. Really! So what about in UK?!

20200518: BBC again repeated the anti-China lie about "a silenced doctor" by inviting the former right wing and pro-Saudi (anti-)EU Research Group - now (anti-)China Research Group. How bad a journalist isn't Sarah Montague then when she didn't even try to question it - or is she muffled?! Eye dr. Li Wenliang wrongly spread out it could be SARS. It wasn't and just one hour later - and long before any police etc. had contacted him - he corrected his mistake (see fact check below).

$-freeloader US provoking China with war ships while simultaneously "leaking" "classified" rumours. Why?! Its Sinophobia is all about trying to stop China's success as the foremost spreader of wealth and high tech both in China and the world. It's not the leadership but China's success that US can't stand.

BBC sides with whoever Sinophobes - and would probably even have used Goebbels against China if he was still around. UK universities etc. are littered with dangerous Saudi (OIC) anti-Human Rights sharia jihad propaganda (incl. supprt of IS Utghur jihadi) - yet China has always been aggressively smeared all the way since UK's opium war attacks on China when it was declared "inferior" and "uncivilized". Today the problem seems to be that China is too superior and too civilized - but thankfully they have a "communist" party to blame, although the leadership has behaved better than most in the West. And when BBC talks about the "West" against China it actually means US spy organization Five Eyes (with the puppet states Australia, UK, Canada and NZ) and whoever other Sinophobes it can find elsewhere - like the Israel supporting and anti-muslim right wing Axel Springer, Europe's largest media (practically a monpoly) which is accused of e.g. censorship and interference in other countries (just like state media BBC).

Should China sue BBC and UK (not to mention US) and the far-right, anti-China and anti-muslim UK "think tank" the Jackson Society (with associated Sinophobic MPs and lords) - whose Sinophobia (disguised as "against communism" etc.) complements leftist and pro-sharia jihad muslims BBC which now so eagerly gives it a platform, as well as the closely connected US spy organization Five Eyes which has demonized China for years long before Huawei or Covid-19? The lies about China they have spread are indistinguishable from those of Pompeo and Trump. Is this baseless (compared to US/UK) hate mongering really conducive to the welfare of UK? And when China reacts to this massive Sinophobia campaign then BBC calls it "aggressive Chinese propaganda".

US "warns" about China "stealing" vaccine info because US knows that China now produces much better research than US.

BBC anti-China fake 20200506: "Hundreds if not thousands of people were likely to have been infected in Wuhan, at a time when Chinese officials said there were only a few dozen cases." Peter Klevius fact check: BBC deliberately conflates real time confirmed knowledge with calculations in retrospect.

US has made all the mistakes it accuses China for. Here's one from the top of the iceberg: Whistleblower Dr. Rick Bright, the director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, pressed for urgent access to funding, personnel and clinical specimens, including viruses, which he emphasized were all critically necessary to begin development of lifesaving medicines needed in the likely event that the virus spread outside of SE Asia. He was then cut out of critical meetings for raising early alarm about the virus and ousted from his position.

Chinese 5G much more reliable than US' Five Eyes, the world's most dangerous misinfo and conspiracy spreading US spy and smear organization (together with its puppet states UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) which "leaked" a 15-page dossier alleging "probing the possibility" the virus came from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. As Peter Klevius has said before, it didn't come from bats to humans but from some other host animal. Fake news and anti-China propaganda videos are making false and unfounded claims about "delays" and "late" human to human transmission report. Again, it was only in retrospect anyone could have known the nature of early cases. Many weren't even connectded to the wet market and many weren't affected at all despite intimate contact. Moreover, the wrong early SARS diagnosis was corrected the very same day but spread by a "whistleblower" eye doctor (see fact check below). And despite being first affected China acted better than US etc. countries. 5eyes equals Nazi Goebbels in propaganda misinfo. Every single accusation so far has built on deliberate distortion of facts. And possble improvements in retrospect would have been exactly the same in even the best of Western countroes.

Peter Klevius to Chinese people: I'm not a racist - although I certainly look like one.

Origin of Sinophobia: The 19th century Opium Wars were triggered by UK's imposition of the opium trade upon China. Lord Palmerston regarded the Chinese as uncivilized and suggested that the British must attack China to show up their superiority as well as to demonstrate what a "civilized" nation could do. The resulting concession of Hong Kong compromised China's territorial sovereignty. There's also the background to South China Sea.

"God", "Allah", or whichever "monotheistic" idol is a pathetic fallacy and "monotheism" is a ridiculous and dangerous self-delusion because your "god" is used to defend the undefendable. There are equally many "gods" as there are individuals - and the collective "god" only functions as cherry picked confirmation of the individual's "god". However, the collective "god" may combine individual evil - never individual good, because that can only be achieved by (negative) Human Rights. After all, as Peter Klevius always has said, the only way of being fully human is to allow others full humanhood (what else could possibly unite all humans) - without religious impositions/exclusions.

Also check out Peter Klevius theory (1992) on "consciousness"/Thalamus - the only one that fits empirical evidence. And don't miss Anthropologist Peter Klevius vs. Afropologist John Hawks - and how the British Piltdown hoax moved to Africa .

Peter Klevius asks for an independent international inquiry on BBC's racist Sinophobia and its support of sharia islamism - incl. how many victims and suffering it has caused because of its worldwide propaganda influence.

In the early 1990's US accused Japan of selling superior cars in US without buying crappy cars from US. And a congress woman warned for tech theft if selling US planes to Japan - but was told that those planes wouldn't even fly without Japanese high tech. At the same time EU was created to build a trade wall against Japanese products. However, Japan is more than ten times smaller than China - and isn't at the hotbed of different coronaviruses in SE Asia.

Dear reader, if you think Peter Klevius has a problem with self-assertion you're very wrong. Apart from it being connected to Peter Klevius criticism of citation cartels (see Demand for Resources, 1992:40-44) Peter Klevius main problem is your self-assertion.

Sinophobic BBC working hard for a Coup d'état together with Saudi loving and China hating MPs against PM Boris Johnson.

Peter Klevius wonders why Sinophobic state media BBC (with Tom Tugendhat etc.) goes against the state (PM, MI6 etc.) in being so extremely worried about unfounded claims about China while having no problem with the threats posed by the worst of the worst, the islamofascist Saudi dictator family's influence over UK - and BBC?!

20200417: BBC's Sinophobic muslim Razia Iqbal together with Tom Tugendhat arrange a pathetic propaganda theatre of BBC's 22:00 news hour for the most senseless and even childish smearing of China. And how can this clown (just listen to his laughter etc.!) be a leader of UK's foreign affairs committee?! Moreover, Razia Iqbal even uses Trump as an expert! Desperate...!

20200416: State media BBC's Sinophobic Uganda rooted muslim Razia Iqbal lies about Chinese "racism" against Ugandans without telling that it was a local matter that was caused by some Africans linked to a cluster of cases in the Nigerian community in Guangzhou at a time when China had already curbed Covid-19. At least eight people diagnosed with the illness had spent time in the city's Yuexiu district, known as "Little Africa". Five were Nigerian nationals who faced widespread anger - not for being Africans but because of reports that they had broken a mandatory quarantine and been to eight restaurants and other public places instead of staying home. As a result, nearly 2,000 people they came into contact with had to be tested for Covid-19 or undergo quarantine. Guangzhou had confirmed 114 imported coronavirus cases – 16 of which were Africans. The rest were returning Chinese nationals.

20200412: The reason the Chinese government wanted extra control of DNA results was the previous failed report (see below) which wrongly indicated SARS. However, British media (BBC etc.) blatantly lie about it and first accused Shi Zhengli's lab for spreading infected bats, while some weeks later making her a hero and accusing the government. And no, it didn't spread from bats - but possibly from civet cats. Suspected animals are now forbidden from the market.

SINOPHOBIA RACISM. US tries to pull you away from Chinese high tech superiority so US can keep feeding you with its outdated tech and influence - just as it used to do with cars and wars. Your pick: US militarism with Saudi led islamofascism - or highspeed Chinatech towards Chinese democracy and global wealth. China is the very opposite to Cuba - and already, in practise, almost identical to Western governments. Excluding China only prolongs the democratic process - and even speeds up China's high tech inside its 1.4 billion market.

UK/Matt Hancock (20200402): "We will work (against Covid19) with our friends and allies." Peter Klevius: That excludes the best, i.e. China, which you, on order from US, have declared an "unfriendly enemy"!

Peter Klevius fact check: "COVID-19 has a natural origin and there is no evidence that the virus was made in a laboratory or otherwise engineered" (Nature). China swiftly sequenced and shared the genome worldwide. China's remarkable response on all stages was praised by WHO (but not BBC) and is in line with its superior tech advances (Mao's China would never have made it). There isn't a trace of an alleged (by BBC etc. fakes) Chinese Covid19 reporting "delay" that wouldn't have been bigger in the West. And the reason is that for China good reputation is all that matters - now when it has already won the tech competition. China's defense against West's smear campaign is called "propaganda" - in the West. Dear US, it's time to behave! You lost the tech war to little Japan long ago. Now you've lost it against big China. Get over it. So Peter Klevius advises: Do as Wall Street, shake hands instead of producing unfounded Sinophobic smear propaganda!

Covid19 timeline

17 November 2019: A retrospectively confirmed case.
1 December 2019: The first known patient started experiencing symptoms but had not been to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. No epidemiological link could be found between this case and later cases.
8–18 December 2019: Seven cases later diagnosed as COVID19 were documented; only two of them were linked with the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market.
18-29 December 2019: Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BAL) that will eventually be used for viral genome sequencing is collected from patients.
25 December 2019: Wuhan Fifth Hospital gastroenterology director Lu Xiaohong reported suspected infection by hospital staff.
26 December 2019: Zhang Jixian identified a CT scan that showed a different pattern from other viral pneumonia.
27 December 2019: She reported to Jianghan district CCDC with four cases. During the following two days, the hospital received three similar cases, who all came from Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. The hospital reported to the provincial and city CDC directly which initiated a field investigation with a retrospective search for pneumonia patients potentially linked to the market. They found additional such patients and on 30 December, health authorities from Hubei Province reported this cluster to CCDC who immediately sent experts to Wuhan to support the investigation. Samples from these patients were obtained for laboratory analyses.
30 December 2019: Wuhan Municipal Health Committee informed WHO, Weibo etc. about an "urgent notice on the treatment of pneumonia of unknown cause". There had been "a successive series of patients with unexplained pneumonia recently." However, a DNA report inaccurately indicated SARS on one patient. Late same day (17:43) ophthalmologist Li Wenliang WeChatted "There were 7 confirmed cases of SARS at Huanan Seafood Market." He included a patient's CT scan. At 18:42, he admitted that it wasn't proven SARS.
31 December 2019: US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were alerted by China of an unexplained "cluster of 27 cases of pneumonia” in Wuhan.

US worst nightmare is a democratic China - which wouldn't change China but make it even more like one-party "democracies" in the West - because that would mean losing US only argument. US deliberately seeks Sinophobic confrontational aggression against China - which hampers the development and peace of the world.

Something sinister is behind when Sinophobic far right extremist politicians so desperately risk future development in UK with false accusations of "possible risks in the future", skewed presentations, and unfounded demonization of Chinese high tech. And while Klevius is posting this, all in his machine is spied on and sent to US. And why is BBC constantly only hosting Sinophobic guests who also happen to be supporters of the islamofascist Saudi dictator family and happy to allow US spying on you via US companies? The only risk Huawei poses is that the Chinese state gets fed up and makes it illegal to sell Chinese top tech to UK. China is the future of high tech, so stepping off the bus means retardation. Btw, the two main accusations against China could easily be made against US/UK as well. China wants to trade and therefore doesn't want to risk reputation. US doesn't bother about its reputation. And when it comes to clean up muslim "communities" from islamofascist extremists there's really no other difference than in numbers. Moreover, NATO/Turkey uses extremist Uyghurs against civilians in e.g. Idlib - and hypocritically accuse China when these jihadi return.

Klevius to women: NATO makes a deal with the Taliban to continue sharia oppression of women, and NATO+IS=true because NATO is the main culprit behind the suffering in Idlib. Without the support from NATO the worst muslim terrorist group would never have survived. Like IS, NATO ally Hayat Tahrir al-Sham wants to create an islamic state. Turkey/NATO backs SNA well knowing that it's together with HTS. I.e. a NATO member state invades its neighbor, sides with terrorists and gets full support from NATO when its soldiers get killed while helping the terrorists. And what about Yemen?! It's truly pathetic that muslims seem more worried about islamofascism than the West!

Peter Klevius to climatists: Sinophobia is a threat to the environment, because China has the slowest population growth and is the the least per capita polluter of main economies (see table below) and the main producer of alternative and conventional super high tech! Moreover, China lacks the same proportion of natural resources as e.g. Sweden, Norway etc. (e.g. hydropower) but instead has to deal with the dust smog blowing from the Gobi desert and the extreme cold from the north. And China bears the manufacturing pollution for products other countries then consume and profit on.

NATO (Turkey supported by US/UK) is siding with the worst muslim terrorist organization Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (some 10,000 IS jihadi) against the people of Idlib while BBC News spreads misinfo propaganda against Syria, Russia and Iran - and nothing about the Saudi dictator family.

BBC (20200217) wants to stop Chinese tech because China opposes islamofascist Uyghurs. Klevius suggests the world should stop dealing with US/UK because of involvement in war crimes and genoscides against Shia muslims.

Why is Wikipedia allowed to spread polemical, tendentious and deliberately misleading info about islam? And not a word about islam's original supremacist enslavement, booty and humiliation ideology?! This misinfo is the most harmful of all!

From a true (negative) Human Rights, as well as from a historical perspective, original islam may rather be seen as original fascism. The oldest Koranic texts and the historically verified beginning of islam both emphasize supremacism as the main tenet (blamed/excused on "Allah"). Islam conserves racism, sexism and supremacism as pointed out by true muslims (aka "fundamentalists") reinforced through sharia (e.g. by Saudi based and steered OIC's world sharia which is heavily criticized both by Klevius and the Council of Europe etc.). Islamic (and therefore muslim) supremacism is easily distinguished as it doesn't approve of Human Rights equality.

And why does Wikipedia deliberately conflate the history of islam with the fairy tales of believers in islam?!

Sinophobia is racism but "islamophobia" is criticism of an ideology. "Islamophobia" shouters are directly responsible for islamic hate crimes based on Koranic texts and hitting children of "infidels".

BBC's bigoted and hypocritical Pakistan rooted, Saudi raised and Cambridge schooled "muslim" (no veil, no Ramadan fasting, but yes to alcohol etc.) presenter Mishal Husain, like many Saudi/OIC supporters, represents the "security risk" between islam's "core" (OIC sharia) and "periphery" (e.g. "Euro-islam", "cultural islam" etc.).

Peter Klevius suggests cooperation instead of unfounded incl. religious) hate!

Klevius is ashamed over hateful, racist Western Sinophobia - and support of hateful sharia jihad. BBC's sharia supporting (?) muslim Mishal Husain now eagerly sides with Sinophobic extreme right wing politicians who support Saudi islamofascism but demonize China and Chinese (except if critcical of China). Sinophobes would treat China exactly the same if it copied US "democracy".

BBC today (20200129) forgot to tell about China already having isolated the virus for vaccine (and helped Australians to do so). However, BBC repeatedly lied that the death rate is 20%. Common flu and the new corona virus deaths (~2%) are extremely rare outside very vulnerable groups - who don't travel much.

BBC, who otherwise don't hesitate to spit on Trump, has no problem using his advisor when it comes to racist Sinophobia against Huawei. US is blackmailing UK so to hinder China's tech success and the "security issue" is actually US itself.

Why is BBC only talking about Jewish victims - and why is BBC silent about the fact that most "anti-semites" (i.e. anti-Jews) are muslims? Holocaust: 6 million Jews and 11 million "others" were murdered by the German government for various discriminatory practices due to their ethnicity, Atheism, or LGBT+.
Hitler: "All character training must be derived from faith." Himmler: ""We believe in a God Almighty who stands above us; he has created the earth, the Fatherland, and he has sent us the Führer. Any human being who does not believe in God should be considered arrogant, megalomaniacal, and stupid." Klevius (the Atheist "other"): That's a description of me by most Americans and muslims. Btw, why are muslim sex predators (compare Koran and sex slaves) from Pakistan called "Asians"?! And why have they been protected while Klevius has been muffled?!

Islam trumps LGBT rights in English schools - and hateful sexist and racist muslim supremacism defending BBC is silent as usual (e.g. about Parkfield Community School 2020).

Klevius: Do you really support US/UK/BBC's disgusting racist Sinophobia madness - and their support and use of anti-Human Rights muslim islamism?! Wikipedia: In the Xinjiang riots Turkic speaking Uyghur muslims shouted/posted "kill the Han (Chinese) and Hui (Chinese speaking muslims)"!

Why is BBC so silent about Iran Air Flight 655 that was recklessly shot down by US over Iran territory killing 290 incl. 66 children?! Is it the new US puppet empire agenda? Did US aggression also cause the latest plane crash?

When BBC announces "the threats of 2020" the murders, terrorism and war crimes committing Saudi dictator family isn't included. As isn't US/UK militaristic meddling and proxy wars in Syria, Yemen, Iraq etc. However, China's peaceful trade and high tech manufacturing is!?

Saudi based and steered Human Rights violator OIC is the main legal guidance for the world's sharia muslims. BBC eagerly supports it by neglecting to criticize it while spitting on those who do. OIC's Cairo Declaration on "Human Rights" in Islam (CDHRI) is against freedom of religion - but abuses real Human Rights for the promotion of anti-Human Rights sharia islam. The CDHRI concludes in Articles 24 and 25 that all rights and freedoms mentioned are subject to the Islamic sharia, which is the declaration's sole source. OIC hence keeps the gate open for continued islamofascism in the "muslim world" - and as a convenient tool for meddling in "hostile states".

BBC calls critics in Russia and terrorists in Hong Kong "opponents" but similar people "security risk" if in UK. And has no problem with a real freedom fighter like Assagne to rotten in a UK jail and to be extradited to possibly 175 years in prison in the US.

You believer in "islamophobia"! Doesn't it scare you that if Peter Klevius is right about islam but wouldn't say anything, then who would when you're doomed on the market if you do? If Marx had been called a "messenger" then Marxism would have been protected by freedom of religion, and critics called "Marxophobes". All "monotheist" religions make excuses not to fully accept Human Rights equality, but islam is by far the worst - not the least due to its origin and the fact that it's protected, unlike other threats to Human Rights. Whereas totalitarian Marxism used to be the enemy of the West, today US is on the totalitarian islamofascist side using it for Saudi gains against declared "enemies". It's truly a grim irony when BBC protects islamofascist terrorist groups by telling you that the suffering in Syria is due to the Syrian government and Russia. US could stop the muslim terrorist groups at any time - but doesn't because it wants the war and suffering to continue.

Peter Klevius fact/fake check: Why does Google (and BBC) lie and fake straight up your face about China?! When searching for 'world's biggest per capita polluters' China comes up with extra big letters despite being one of the least polluting of major economies (47th on a reliable polluters list). Moreover, China is not only the world leader for alternative technologies, but its pollution number also includes the biggest production of products exported and consumed all over the world outside China. Source: EDGAR and incl. all human activities leading to climate relevant emissions, except biomass/biofuel combustion (short-cycle carbon).

Peter Klevius Christmas greeting to BBC and Tesco: Ever thought about the possibility that muslim islamists don't like making Christmas cards but are encouraged by US/UK/BBC etc. to smear China. "We are foreign prisoners (muslims?) in Shanghai Qingpu prison China. Forced to work against our will (islamic Christophobia?). Please help us and notify human rights (ultimate bigotry if sharia muslims ask for HR) organisation (Saudi based and steered OIC?!)."

US/UK (NATO) don't accept muslims like Uighur islamists (other than as proxy soldiers) - but demand China to accept them. NATO's Sinophobia is a threat to world peace, environment and prosperity. NATO is all about US monopolizing space for its own militarism and to block China's success? In 1990s Russia was proposed as a member of NATO but is now demonized by US/UK (and BBC) as the "main enemy" together with "the challenge from China" (sic). But NATO members are guilty of offensive wars, occupations, annexations, use of chemical weapons, use of islamist terrorists, foreign interventions, extrajudicial murderings in other countries - and use of similar muslim "re-education" camps as China (why not just criminalize original evil islam?!). NATO (US) threatens the free flow of tech and wealth, and provokes hate and defensive attitudes among Chinese - hence forcing China (world leader in tech) using its financial muscles more for defense (China can't be starved like USSR in 1980s) than environment. Btw, Chinese per capita GDP is 1/3 of US, and total GDP much bigger than US - and faster growing. A fraction of the effort given to demonize "islamophobic" islam criticim, would do wonders to reduce Sinophobic racism against Chinese. And stop using the "Communist threat". China is now a capitalist country similar to Western powers - except technologically much better (and the West copies everything China does in surveillance). Do you really think much would change if China would be fully democratic - except chaos caused by NATO? NATO (US/UK) would be equally Sinophobic. In fact, what is called "democracy" in the West functions quite similarly as the leadership in China. Media propaganda, lying politicians and empty promises combined with silencing the real issues (compare BBC's fake "news") - and therefore a truly democratic vote. Moreover, the only reason capitalist China has a non-democratic leadership for the moment is precisely its justified fear for leaving it vulnerable for what happened in the past when UK and US meddled and attacked with great suffering for the Chinese people. NATO should turn against the real evil, the islamofascist Saudi dictator family.

England voted (for the second time) against Merkel’s islam import from Turkey.

Can islam be rehabilitated from its evil origin and deeds - and can unrehabilitated islam be allowed in public and private spheres?

Why is Saudi based and steered OIC's Islamic State of Gambia accusing Aung San Suu Kyi for the consequences of islamofascism OIC's sharia protects - and why isn't the murderous islamofascist war criminal and genocide committing Saudi dictator "prince" accused of anything? And why is BBC's leading muslim extremist propaganda presenter Mishal Husain allowed to "present" an absolutely one-sided pro islamist picture for BBC's compulsory fee paying listeners?

"British" nationalist hypocrisy: Get back control - and meddle, influence, intervene, spy and control all over the world.

More than half of muslims in UK are "islamophobes" (against sharia) - just like Peter Klevius, Council of Europe etc. - but opposite to BBC and many UK politicians (source: A survey of UK’s muslim communities by Martyn Frampton, David Goodhart and Khalid Mahmood MP).

BBC awards a white man who plays an odd sport few are interested in the title of "sports personality of the year 2019". Why?! Because cricket is a "british" colonial sports and also fits BBC's special interest in "asians" - but couldn't find a "british asian" good enough.

Is BBC killing UK democracy and paving the way for islamofascism?
DEMOCRACY DENIED: WARNING TO UK VOTERS ABOUT BBC's HUMANRIGHTSPHOBIA! WHO's RIGHT ON ISLAM - BBC OR THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE?
BBC undermines your most basic Human Rights. BBC's "islamophobia" propaganda machine (incl. Sayeeda Warsi) boosts OIC islam while neglecting Council of Europe's sharp ("islamophobic") criticism of OIC's world sharia (Cairo declaration). SO HOW COME THAT BBC IS ALLOWED TO MEDDLE IN THE VOTING PROCESS BY ATTACKING AND SMEARING THOSE CANDIDATES WHO SHARE THE VIEW OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE - not to mention the anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948?! And how come that racism against e.g. Polish and other EU people in UK is of no interest for BBC while the "problem" of "islamophobia" fills all BBC "news"?

How Merkel paved the way for Brexit (Erdogan deal) and aided jihad in EU. NATO (US) with former fascist state Germany now sides with islamofascism - especially Erdogan's Ottoman aspirations - and supports Uyghur jihadism in hope of placing NATO (i.e. US) nukes between Russia and China. Peter Klevius wonders whether this ill-directed jihad propaganda will promote peace and safety?

The world bully U.S. thinks it owns and rules the world after having colonized it via dollar manipulation, infiltration, spying, meddling, sanctions and the unscrupulous use of militants and militarism.

Thanks to the global dollar scam, Americans have been freeloaders on the rest of the world, the biggest per capita polluters and the U.S. by far the biggest threat to world peace via weapons built with money it stole from the world. Said by Peter Klevius who has been an anti-socialist all his life. Btw. the world's industrial revolution didn's start in England but in Sweden already in the late 17th century by inventor Christopher Polhem and capitalist Gabriel Stierncrona. Without Polhem's automation to get the rich Swedish iron ore from the mains, England had no chance to start real industrial production.

A nun's gear doesn't sign other women as "whores". However, what about a woman in an islamic "chastity" gear?

K.S. Lal (a giant among historians): Mahmud of Ghazni had marched into Hindustan again and again to wage jihad and spread the Muhammadan religion, to lay hold of its wealth, to destroy its temples, to enslave its people, sell them abroad and thereby earn profit, and to add to muslim numbers by converting the captives.

Is BBC 100% steered by muslims? Not only can you ever hear anything critical about islam and muslims - but all main channels are also occupied by sharia (OIC) supporting (i.e. against basic Human Rights equality) muslims. Nazir Afzal ('Moral maze', news, culture etc.), Mishal Husain (news, culture etc.), Samira Ahmed (news, culture etc.), Razia Iqbal (news, culture etc.). And they all keep cheating the public about it and instead pointing finger to "dumb and hateful xenophobes". Not a word about e.g. Council of Europe's harsh critcism (see below) of muslims biggest sharia organization, the Saudi based and steered OIC. Foreigners isn't the peoblem - sharia islam is!

BBC's muslims and their PC supporters also meddle in UK election by demonizing "islamophobia", i.e. trying to stop critcs of islamofascism.

Muslim child/youth fascism induced by an islam interpretation from family and strengthened by PC media, politicians etc.

BBC's evil meddling

Peter Klevius: Everyone - incl. every muslim who respects Human Rights - ought to make sure to vote for an "islamophobe"! BBC and Sayeeda Warsi will make their utmost to stop critics of islamofascism in the election. Don't be robbed of your democratic right. And of course you know that the only real problem with migration is islamofascism.

BBC's "man in Hong Kong" asked street terror leader Joshua Wong if they could possibly escalate violence. And they could. One day later they put a Chinese on fire in a murder attempt.

Breakit instead of Brexit because what's the point of leaving one EU while still staying in an other called UK? England voted leave.

However, unfortunately BBC demonizes China on behalf of UK's relying on militarist meddling, weapons sales and islamofascist sharia finance. So you see the solution: Cut off sharia etc. islamofascist ties and open up for prospering with China - not the over-selfish game of spying and dying of US.

BBC boosts stupid nationalist "Britishness" with peculiar "sports" like cricket and rugby because the world has already "colonized" football and the English language is a global property.

Nigel Farage is like BBC against "islamophobia" and pro-Saudi - but Boris Johnson doesn't like letter boxes and was criticized by Theresa May for being critical against the Saudis while serving as her foreign minister.

China (laws against sharia islamofascism) and EU (Human Rights against sharia islamofascism) are now the only ones protecting basic (negative*) Human Rights.

* Religious people and socialists don't like negative Human Rights simply because they prefer collectives ("communities") rather than individuals. That's why the web is full of misinfo about these rights. Read Peter Klevius definition instead if you want a deep view - or listen to Lauren Chen starting from 7:11 if you want it light

The Saudi "custodian of islam" has some 1.5 billion "citizens" in the muslim world Ummah nation - and demands the world to bow them no matter what (as long they aren't Shia or so, of course). China, on the other hand, keeps its citizens and laws within its own borders. IS islam IS fascism and islam (even the archbishop agrees). So why is sharia fascism not separated from an "islam" that submits to basic Human Rights? As it stands now Saudi based and steered OIC's sharia (the 1990 Cairo declaration) still stands as the basic Human Rights violation via sharia muslims all over the world. And whereas China actively tries to erase sharia islamofascism, EU keeps promoting import of it while judicially telling us it's not right, yet doing nothing to stop it.

Unlike the West, China hasn't aggressively meddled militaristically in other countries around the world, but rather being the world's foremost spreader of new technology and wealth. And whereas the West has eagerly supported Mohammed's totalitarian aims, China has, in practise, implemented in law most of the Human Rights advices that The Council of Europe has directed against OIC. Against this background West's Saudi backing and China smearing is deeply bigoted and hypocritical.

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

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

UK's Brexit business model: Sharia finance, weapons sale and militaristic meddling?UK Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (sic) and Global Neo-Imperialist and Militarist Meddling, Jeremy Hunt, 15 Oct. 2019: It's wrong to accuse Donald Trump - it's Americans isolationism because American taxpayers don't want to pay between 1/2 and 2/3 of the defense of Europe. And Turkey is very skilled at finding wedges and gaps between allies. UK should be EU's bridge to US.
Peter Klevius: No, EU should take care of its own defense - against whom? The Saudi dictator family who is the world's no 1 spender on weapons and islamic terror incitement and who hates EU's anti-sharia legislation? And UK taxpayers should not have to pay more for dangerous militarism. Militaristic meddling is a bad and dangerous business idea.

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

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

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

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

Sinophobe Tom Tugendhat, chair of UK's Foreign Affairs Committee (who has studied islam and Arabic in Mideast) suggests that English speaking universities should consider banning Chinese students because "they might be used as leverage like Huawei". Peter Klevius wonders if one could be any more racist than this, and if he doesn't see any islamofascist sharia supremacist "leverage" at all? Btw, there are more than 50,000 Chinese muslims in Hong Kong. Peter Klevius wonders how many of them are "radical" ones and participate in BBC's lengthy anti-China propaganda "news" - while the world doesn't suffer from Chinese but from muslim violence and Human Rights violations?

US/UK destroyed the lives of millions of Chinese during some hundred years of evil militaristic meddling. BBC is now busy smearing China all the time while supporting Saudi islamofascism and violent Hong Kong demonstrators - but neglecting the mass of peaceful pro-China demonstrators. BBC also "worries" about Chinese "surveillance state" while the truth is China's technological superiority. US is much more insidious in its surveillance policies but lacks the techno - can't even produce a working 5G so far. US/UK follow exactly China but utilize the meantime to smears it. And who is really behind the Hong Kong riots? Someone who can't take China's success? But the Syria tactics won't work. US (and its UK puppet) wants to be able to meddle militarily near China - therefore its interest in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Korea, Tibet, Myanmar, Uyghur extremist muslims etc.

As Greta Thunberg is allegedly reported to the Swedish social authorities, Peter Klevius suggests that her parents read his thesis Pathological Symbiosis in LVU, Relevance, and Sex Segregated Emergence. Keeping in mind that Peter Klevius daughter was only 15 when she entered university and at 16 made her graduate paper about women in ancient times, it shouldn't be considered too sensitive for Greta either. Also read the attached email correspondence which clearly shows how democracy is manipulated. And why not consider Angels of Antichrist, the Social State vs the People (P. Klevius 1996). And last but not least, Peter Klevius 1981/1992 Demand for Resources (original titel Resursbegär).

Peter Klevius and the Council of Europe share exactly the same "islamophobia".

Council of Europe. Resolution 2253 (2019), Sharia, Saudi based and steered OIC's Cairo Declaration and the European Convention on Human Rights: Human Rights protect the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion as enshrined in Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The right to manifest one’s religion, however, is a qualified right whose exercise, under Article 17 of the Convention, may not aim at the destruction of other Convention rights or freedoms.

People in UK-land (especially women) will loose their Human Rights after Brexit - while sharia prevails in UK, and UK citizens in EU are protected by the European Court of Human Rights.

Brexit was meant to protect UK from muslim invasion via Turkey's proposed visa free deal with Merkel. Even the possibility of temporary membership in ECHR (in case of a deal) isn't enough - especially considering UK will be out of reach of the European Court of Justice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So how do you vote for someone critical of islam's Human Rights violations if parties don't allow "islamophobia"? Is it democracy?

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

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

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

Is the Saudi "custodian of islam" a muslim - and is the very question "islamophobic", "muslimophobic" or "Saudiphobic"?

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

Musim double standard.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No true muslim can be fully human.

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

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

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

Ultimate bigotry and hypocrisy – spying and meddling 5 Eyes instead of true 5G?

Saudi hate spreading antennas (Salafi/Wahhabi mosques etc.) or Chinese world leading 5G tech? No one knows the amount of street etc. victims of Saudi hate because when the haters are muslims their attacks are not recorded as hate crimes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The best explanation to the surge in knife crimes since 2015 is the Islamic State's exhortation to street jihad. However, the police don't record hate crimes as muslim - other than if directed against muslims. And do consider that IS and the Saudi dictator family both rest on the same Salafi islam that most young true muslims in the West follow. Following Salafism (etc. true muslimhood) involves distinguishing muslims from others, to show that one only belongs to islam and that true muslims ought to be strangers to the "infidels". When Klevius sees a muslim woman in burqa, veil etc. he thinks that's a supremacist and rapist attitude towards other women. And certainly contempt of Human Rights.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article 24 of the Saudi based and steered OIC's sharia declaration (CDHRI) states: "All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia." Article 19 says: "There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Sharia." CDHRI also fails to guarantee freedom of religion, in particular the right of each and every individual to abandon their religion, as a "fundamental and non-derogable right".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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).

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).

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".

Tuesday, June 20, 2023

Alternative to feminism - and chauvinism

All feminism is reactionary and actually variants of essentialist feminism because the basic idea is always based on perceived difference due to biological sex.

Acknowledgement: This article, which Peter Klevius published 20 years ago, seems to be even more relevant today. Also consider Peter Klevius' distinction of the confused use of "gender": Whereas e.g. a color (or a tone) has a distinct quality of its own while lacking an anchor in a distinct object, "gender" is the very opposite, lacking any rigid quality of its own but always anchored in biological sex via its interpretation of what that means. And the only way to distinguish oneself as "non-gender" is to have some sort of interpretaion of what it means to a "gender" which is culturally anchored in the perceived meaning of living with a biological sex.

Klevius 1979: Human Rights rather than religion

Drawing (1979) by Peter Klevius. For those Humanrightsophobes with really limited understanding or blinded with prejudice, do note that the DNA "ladder" has steel rivets (i.e. strong both for trapping as well as for escaping), and that the female curvature shadows transgress from below over painful flames into a crown of liberty.

Perpetua (203 AD): 'I saw a ladder of tremendous height made of bronze, reaching all the way to the heavens, but it was so narrow that only one person could climb up at a time. To the sides of the ladder were attached all sorts of metal weapons: there were swords, spears, hooks, daggers, and spikes; so that if anyone tried to climb up carelessly or without paying attention, he would be mangled and his flesh would adhere to the weapons.' Perpetua realized she would have to do battle not merely with wild beasts, but with the Devil himself. Perpetua writes: They stripped me, and I became a man'.

Peter Klevius: They stripped Perpetua of her femininity and she became a human!

The whole LGBTQ+ carousel is completely insane when considering that the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) art. 2 gives everyone, no matter of sex, the right to live as they want without having to "change their sex". So the only reason for the madness is the stupidly stubborn cultural sex segregation which, like religious dictatorship, stipulates what behavior and appearance are "right" for a biological sex. And in the West, it is very much about licking islam, which refuses to conform to the basic (negative) rights in the UDHR, and instead created its own sharia declaration (CDHRI) in 1990 ("reformed" 2020 with blurring wording - but with the same basic Human Rights violating sharia issues still remaining). The UDHR allows women to voluntarily live according to sharia but sharia does not allow muslim women to live freely according to the UDHR. And culturally ending sex segregation does not mean that biological sex needs to be "changed." Learn more under 'Peter Klevius sex tutorials' which should be compulsory sex education for everyone - incl. people with ambiguous biological sex! The LGBTQ+ movement is a desperate effort to uphold outdated sex segregation. And while some old-fashioned trans people use it for this purpose, many youngsters (especially girls) follow it because they feel trapped in limiting sex segregation.

Pascalidou's unusually naive and gender-confused column can be seen as a cry for help for the girls/women caught in the "femininity" trap. My own, petite daughter went through this period when, as a 7-9 year old in the 1990s, she played ice hockey with the boys and had it explained to herself that she will not be as strong as the "boys" but that not all "boys" will be either, while some girls may become it depending on genetic profile and environment, etc.

After this, she has been able to completely let go of sex segregation in her own life (but replaced later due to social pressure - my comment 2023), but of course experiences a certain limitation when it comes to choosing activities and areas of conversation with "girly girls".

Pascalidou comes from an extremely sex-segregated culture but grew up in a time when it was much more common than now during the golden age of "essentialist feminism" with the derogative notion of "Tomboys" - what an idiotic reactionary term. Also, it seems that she never received the much needed adult guidance and support that could have explained the situation to her. And even if she herself thinks she was "boyish" and cocky, she must, because of sex segregation, missed millions of small technical/motor experiences that the boys were not eliminated from because they had the "right" sex for these activities.

It's not enough to play hockey or be cocky. Where a single mother's boy learns from the other boys, the corresponding girl is not given a chance to embrace the scientific techno world. After all, Pascalidou grew up in Greece, i.e. one of the western world's perhaps most sex-segregated systems where there are almost watertight walls between the sexes when it really matters. The exceptions prove the rule. This was shown, among other things, in Karin Sandqvist's Swedish Dad project, where she demonstrated how girls with more father and/or brother contact became more independent and interested in science.

Sure, it's a pity for girls and women who, due to the feminized upbringing of their mothers and the welfare state, have been left in a pink chamber without technology etc., but it's also a bit foolish to deliberately lock innocent girl children in this chamber. Replace the feminist word patriarchy with the concept sexS segregation and the world is seen in a completely different light.

I myself have absolutely no idea about my own "masculinity" possibly with the exception of the fact that I find women more attractive than men and I enjoy it very much. Being able to talk and act with people without constantly keeping track of what I or they have in their pants actually feels very liberating.

Release the "femininity" and the "masculinity" ASAP so we can all move forward together! The world out there has actually abolished sex segregation (UDHR 1948 yes but not OIC's CDHRI 1990) a long time ago and that is precisely why it is certainly understandable but at the same time idiotic to cling to it. Emphasis on perceived sex differencesS is like nationalism - the less real the more constructed.

Peter Klevius

Publiched on sourze.se 15 Mar 2003
http://sourze.se/2003/03/15/alternativ-till-feminism__78142

Original Swedish text:

Alternativ till feminism

All feminism är reaktionär och egentligen varianter av särartsfeminism eftersom grundtanken utgår från olikhet på grund av just kön.

Pascalidous ovanligt naiva och genusförvirrade kolumn kan ses som ett rop på hjälp för de flickor/kvinnor som fastnat i "kvinnlighetens" fälla. Min egen, småväxta dotter gick igenom denna period då hon som 7-9 åring på 90-talet spelade hockey med killarna och fick förklarat för sig att hon inte kommer att bli lika stark som "pojkarna" men att alla "pojkar" inte heller blir det samtidigt som vissa tjejer kan bli det beroende på genetisk profil och miljö, etc.

Efter detta har hon kunnat släppa könssegregeringen totalt i sitt eget liv men upplever förstås en viss begränsning då det gäller att välja aktiviteter och samtalsiområden med "flickflickor".

Pascalidou kommer från en extremt könssegregerad kultur men växte upp under en tid då det var mycket vanligare än nu under "särartsfeminismens" gyllene epok med "pojkflickor" vilken idiotiskt reaktionär term. Dessutom verkar det som om hon aldrig fick den välbehövliga vuxna vägledning som hade kunnat förklara situationen för henne. Och även om hon själv tycker hon var "pojkaktig" och kaxig så missade hon säkert på grund av sin könstillhörighet, miljontals små tekniska/motoriska upplevelser och erfarenheter som pojkarna inte eliminerats från eftersom de haft "rätt" kön.

Det räcker inte med att spela hockey eller vara kaxig. Där en ensamstående mammas pojke lär sig av de andra pojkarna ges motsvarande flicka inte en chans att ta till sig den naturvetenskapliga teknovärlden. Hon växer ju upp i ett av västvärldens kanske mest könssegregerade system där det finns nästan vattetäta skott mellan könen då det verkligen gäller. Undantagen bekräftar regeln. Detta visade sig bland annat i Karin Sandqvists Pappa-projekt där hon påvisade hur tjejer med mer pappa- och/eller bror-kontakt blev mer självständiga och naturvetenskapligt intresserade.

Javisst, det är synd om flickor och kvinnor som på grund av mammas och socialstatens feminiserade uppfostran lämnats kvar i en rosa kammare utan teknologi etc, men det är också lite korkat att med berått mod stänga in oskyldiga flickebarn i denna kammare. Byt ut det feministiska ordet patriarkat mot könssegregering så syns världen i ett helt annat ljus.

Själv har jag absolut ingen aning om min egen "manlighet" möjligen med undantag av att jag finner tjejer mer attraktiva än män och jag trivs jättebra med det. Att kunna prata och agera med folk utan att hela tiden hålla koll på vad jag eller de har i brallorna känns faktiskt väldigt befriande.

Släpp "kvinnligheten" och "manligheten" med det snaraste så vi alla kan gå vidare tillsammans! Världen därute har faktiskt för länge sen avskaffat könssegregeringen och just därför är det visserligen förståeligt men samtidigt idiotiskt att klamra sig fast vid den. Könstillhörighet är som nationalism - ju mindre verklig sådan desto mer konstruerad.

Peter Klevius
Publicerad: 15 mar 2003 12:02
http://sourze.se/2003/03/15/alternativ-till-feminism__78142

Peter Klevius wrote:

Heterosexual attraction and Human Rights

March 31, 2023

Read how climate change made human evolution possible in SE Asian volatile archipelago - not on a continent like Africa.
Read how two craniopagus twins born 2006 solved the "greatest mystery in science" - and proved Peter Klevius theory from 1992-94 100% correct.

Peter Klevius, the world's foremost expert on sex segregation (sad, isn't it) to Linda Bengtzing and other sex-confused women:

Yes, you, like all women are "gay", i.e. "bisexual" - but not heterosexual (like "bisexual" male gays are), because you, like all women, lack a biological counterpart to "the male gaze", i.e. heterosexual attraction (HSA), much like men lack reproductive capability.

And when you said that you got so many opportunities to have sex (with men apparently) that's precisely because men are heterosexual and biologically attracted to women's bodies. Do realize the distinction between sexual performance (i.e. rubbing genitals) which anyone can do, alone or together with others, and heterosexual attraction. The term 'homosexual attraction' would be superfluous because it's outside the relation between the sexes, and also lacks evolutionary reproductive meaning. Heterosexual attraction isn't per se sexual performance but rather an evolutionary implanted biological "strategy" for making heterosexual reproduction possible by "arranging" for the sperm to get to the egg. Only those animals survived which had some sort of heterosexual attraction at play. Moreover, among other apes, what we consider rape is often the rule and perhaps also the reason for sexual dimorphism. However, if we want to call us civilized we need to accept the integrity of all humans no matter of sex. For this purpose Art. 2 in the Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948 comes handy:

'Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.'

And when you say that 'as young and not destroyed one may love whomever but as an adult one gets awfully limited', this reflects the underlying problem, i.e. the dinosaur of cultural sex segregation - a historical/religious fossil from the past that ought to be put in a museum asap.

'I got so many chances to have sex'. Since the introduction of heterosexual reproduction HSA has always satisfied the need for sperm delivery - to an extent that sometimes may feel uncomfortable unless we respect each other over the sex borders as equals as humans.

But why, Linda, did you lock yourself in a closet in the first place?!

'I've been aroused by women, but never had the possibility to fall in low at the same time.'
"Romantic love" is a late invention, and often conflated with sexual love. However, although both women and men can feel "Romantic love", there's a night and day difference in how the sexes get aroused by each other - due to HSA.

Linda says she repents that she didn't explore her sexuality more.

That's called sexual taboo.

Linda says she loved a same sex human being but never had sex with her. So why, in retrospect, was it important to have sex with her?!

However, then Linda fell in love with a man and now they have two daughters. Peter Klevius presumes they both fell in "romantic love" as well as sexual love, right.

Peter Klevius wrote 1981:

Evolution* has two basic features opposing devolution: Upholding complexity and enforcing complexity.

* Evolution is an emotionally charged word, so feel free to use it as you like as long you also consider its opposite, i.e. devolution.

The solid state of existence is motion/change. Movement consists of occurences. The causality of occurences is a complex of evolution and devolution. Evolution, hence, is the deterministic outcome of variables of causality over time that enforces the complexity in previous structures (P. Klevius 1981, 1992). Evolution does not "think" but rather constitutes recognizable historical results in an un-recognizable chaos..The problem of human evolution is especially characterized by our limited understanding of how speciation/hybridization has affected it.

Peter Klevius wrote 2003:

Erotisized heterosexual genes and non-sex gametes fusioned by hetero-sexual attraction.

Basically there are no "sexes" but only hetero-sexual attraction (HSA). Gametes do not have sexes. So when, in Japan 2004, the first ever mammal (a mouse) to be reproduced without the assistance of a male but by two females, it was wrongly considered a partenogenesis, i.e. developed from an unfertilized egg. Why? Obviously just because we are so used to sex-segregation that we miss the simple fact that a new individual needs two bio-parents, but not necessarily a father and a mother. By hampering and switching off one single gene (H19) the "father" was eliminated. And without a "father/male" there can hardly exist a "mother/female" because of the mutual inter-dependency of these terms. But note that HSA (Hetero-Sexual Attraction was indeed involved in the process, i.e. in the form of the researchers and their apparatus). In the end then the totality of our enormous sex-dichtomy is in a "blocking gene" that now has been decoded and released. Biology was faster than culture, what else! In 'Warning for feminism', published in 2000, I actually predicted the possibility of an "asexual" reproduction like the one now in Japan. So why do I mention this? Because some genetists who have commented on the topic obviously did not believe in the possibility before! And this fact, I think, reflects an underlying, sex-segregated and rather human prejudice hampering experts at work.

Something like an RNA in a wrinkled protein shell was probably an early stage of "life". A virus within a prion-like shell. This simple wrapping evolved into a more complex package consisting of DNA – a longer chain of RNA (where thymine repalaced uracil) - in the nucleus aided by several RNA protein builders in the surrounding cytoplasm. In this new system RNA thus continued to produce protein but now by taking orders directly from the master controller DNA.

The division of the cell at this stage was simple. After some time or depending on the environment, the cell divided itself into two identical pieces where the chain of DNA was simply cut off. This method of reproduction was in the beginning the only available and is still popular today, for example all the cells – except sex cells – in our bodies.

But in a dangerous environment such as early Earth, which was even more exposed for solar and space radiation than today, DNA structures were often subject to mutations as well as other damages. If we then suppose the existence of mutated and split DNA cells, we have the ingredients ready for a more sophisticated and evolutionary more effective system of achieving advanced and complex living structures by the help of biological sex-segregation.

When the first proto-sex-cells. searched for a partner to complete their split DNA damage they simultaneously created the first biological incest taboo. This was because they could no longer re-emerge with a split DNA cell identical to their own "species". The mutation in their DNA made them incomplete for such a purpose. So they continued searching for a partner with a defect, not similar but completing the damage of their own. Voilá – a new species was born and its success was a matter of “survival of the fittest”.

Peter Klevius wrote:

Sunday, September 20, 2020

Peter Klevius*, the world's foremost expert on sex segregation (sad isn't it), obituary over a Jewish female patriarch.

* Why is it that a man seems to be the world's foremost defender of women's rights? The answer is threefold:

1 Only a man can understand biological heterosexual attraction (HSA), i.e. the only thing that essentially segregates the sexes (see below).

2 Only a man feels safe from inferiority complex as long as sex segregation prevails.

3 Only a man can feel a coming inferiority complex in a de-sex segregated world.

Therefore men have all reason to stick to Human Rights equality. As Peter Klevius has always said since his teens: Negative (as opposed to the positive s.c. "Stalin rights") Human Rights for a positive human future.

Do realize the difference between folk feminism which is anti segragation and true feminism which is the very opposite - already from the beginning when resisting the vote etc.

And do realize that while Mills wanted emancipation and Freud didn't. No wonder psychoanalysis became so popular among feminists.

And no feminist seems to be interested in Mary Woolstonecraft's advice on how to not foster daughters to "follies". And the s.c. "glamour feminism" did just that.

In the last chapter in Demand for Resources (1992) called Khoi, San and Bantu, Peter Klevius notes that hunter-gathering societies where the least sexist. With civilization came what Peter Klevius calls classical sex segregation, and with "monotheisms" came religious sexism on top of the classical.

US Supreme Court needs to replace at least half* of its 100% religious members with Atheists so to democratically represent the people

* Even most Jews are Atheists, although orthodox Jew Ruth Bader Ginsburg was certainly not..

Klevius 1979: Human Rights rather than religion

Peter Klevius 'Woman' from 1979

Does the Human Right to 'freedom of religion' really mean freedom to violate Human Rights as e.g. islamic sharia (OIC) does?!

Anna-Karin Wyndham is a Swedish example of the female patriarchy 2020

From a headline February 11, 2020

Precisly because Peter Klevius is a defender of the most basic of Human Right, he is called an "islamophobe" because islam can't stand Human Rights equality.
Peter Klevius is offended by muslims' extreme injustice (sharia), and asks for more fairness.

Islam's schizophrenia

Islam resides between the roof of the Saudi dictator family/OIC, and the floor of Muslim Brotherhood. And the "house of Saud" wants to broom the floor, while MB wants to take down the roof.

Muslims have an overwhelming problem if they want to follow islam while living in a civilized society based on Human
rights equality.

Peter Klevius, the world's foremost expert on sex segregation (sad isn't it), asks for your help because he doesn't see any other biological difference between men and women than the onesided evolutionary heterosexual attraction that Peter Klevius seems to be the only one talking about but everyone knows about. So do you see something that Peter Klevius doesn't?

But don't fall in the usual trap by pointing to non-relational differences. Menstruating, delivering and feeding a baby, etc. are not relational. And although heterosexual attraction is only implanted in the male's brain, it's directly dependent on the female. And it affects all women, incl. prepubertal girls and centenary old ladies, precisely because how it outlines the future of the former and the history of the latter.

As Tertullian, "the founder of Western theology" said to women who wanted to abandon heterosexual attraction by marrying Christ: "It's a sport of nature."

And if a lesbian woman's body attracts "the male gaze", i.e. heterosexual attraction, she has no other option than covering it in a burqa-like package - but without becoming a muslim because sharia would kill her lesbianism.

However, if we want to live in a civilized world based on Human Rights equality, i.e. not segregating between humans, then we need to release us from the unnesseccary, stupid and destructive gender prison of sex segregation, and the one sex that lacks sensitivity for heterosexual attraction has to decide whether or when it wants to have anything to do with it. And do remember, we healthy men are always there for you - but not for cheating. So be responsible.

The seemingly seamless connection between heterosexual attraction and reproduction is the mirage that a disastrous sex segregation has been built on.

When will start educating children about heterosexual attraction and sex segregation?

Google seems not to have a clue about heterosexual attractio. This is Google's first on the subject: There are several types of sexual orientation; for example: Heterosexual. People who are heterosexual are romantically and physically attracted to members of the opposite sex: Heterosexual males are attracted to females, and heterosexual females are attracted to males. Heterosexuals are sometimes called "straight."

Peter Klevius: No wonder girls are confused when they don't get any adequate sex education at all.

Peter Klevius wrote:

Thursday, March 14, 2013

Klevius sex and gender tutorial

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

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

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

When God was created he was made like Adam.

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

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

The Plan of God

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

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

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

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

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

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

Klevius: Let's not!

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

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

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

Klevius Sex and Gender Tutorial

What is 'gender' anyway?

(text randomly extracted from some scientific writings by Klevius)

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

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

To really grasp the absurdity of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's and others habit of confusing 'gender' with 'sex' one may consider that “normal” women live in the same gender trap tyranny as do transsexuals.

The definition of ‘acquired gender’ is described in a guidance for/about transsexuals as:

Transsexual people have the deep conviction that the gender to which they were assigned at birth on the basis of their physical anatomy (referred to as their “birth gender”) is incorrect. That conviction will often lead them to take steps to present themselves to the world in the opposite gender. Often, transsexual people will undergo hormonal or surgical treatment to bring their physical identity into line with their preferred gender identity.

This evokes the extinction of the feminine or women as directly dependent on the existence of the masculine or men. Whereas the feminine cannot be defined without the masculine, the same applies to women who cannot be defined - only described - without men.

Female footballers, for example - as opposed to feminine footballers, both male and female - are, just like the target group of feminism, by definition distinguished by sex. Although this classification is a physical segregation – most often based on a delivery room assessment made official and not at all taking into account physical size, strength, skills etc. - other aspects of sex difference, now usually called ‘gender’, seem to be layered on top of this dichotomy. This review departs from the understanding that there are two main categories that distinguish females, i.e. the physical sex belonging, for example, that only biological women may participate in a certain competition, and the cultural sex determination, for example that some sports are less ‘feminine’ than others.

‘Gender’, is synonymous with sex segregation, given that the example of participation on the ground of one’s biological sex is simply a rule for a certain agreed activity and hence not sex segregation in the form of stipulated or assumed separatism. Such sex segregation is still common even in societies which have prescribed to notions of general human freedom regardless of sex and in accordance with Human Rights. This is because of a common consensus that sex segregation is ‘good’ although its effects are bad.

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

However, consensus may also rest on an imbalance that is upheld and may even strengthen precisely as an effect of the initial imbalance. In such a case ‘organized despotism’ becomes the means for conservation. As a consequence, the only alternative would be to ease restrictions, which is something fundamentally different from proposing how people should live their lives. ‘Organized despotism’ in this meaning may apply to gender and to sex segregation as well.

According to Connell (2003) whose confused view may be closer to that of Justice Ginsburg, gender is neither biology, nor a fixed dichotomy, but it has a special relation to the human body mirrored in a ‘general perception’. Cultural patterns do not only mirror bodily differences. Gender is ‘a structure’ of social relations/practices concentrated to ‘the reproductive arena’, and a series of due practices in social processes. That is, gender describes how society relates to the human body, and has due consequences for our private life and for the future of wo/mankind (Connell 2003:21-22).

Gender is neither biology, nor a fixed dichotomy, but it has a special relation to the human body mirrored in a “general perception.” What is wrong with this view is the thought that cultural patterns only mirror bodily differences. Gender is “a structure” of social relations/practices concentrated to “the reproductive arena”, and a series of due practices in the social processes. I.e. it describes how society relates to the human body, and due consequences to our private life and for the future of wo/mankind (Connell 2003:21-22). The main problem here involves how to talk without gender.

... sex should properly refer to the biological aspects of male and female existence. Sex differences should therefore only be used to refer to physiology, anatomy, genetics, hormones and so forth. Gender should properly be used to refer to all the non‑biological aspects of differences between males and females ‑ clothes, interests, attitudes, behaviours and aptitudes, for example ‑ which separate 'masculine' from 'feminine' life styles (Delamont 1980: 5 in Hargreaves 1994:146).

The distinction between sex and gender implied in these quotations, however, does not seem to resolve the issue precisely because it fails to offer a tool for discriminating biological aspects of differences from non-biological, i.e. cultural. This is also reflected in everyday life “folk categories of sex and gender” which (most?) often appear to be used as if they were the same. Although 'masculine' and 'feminine' are social realities, there is a mystique about their being predetermined by biology” (ibid). Furthermore the very relational meaning of ‘gender’ seems to constitute a too an obvious hiding place for essentialism based on sex. Apart from being ‘structure’, as noted above, gender is, according to Connell, all about relations (2003:20). However, if there are none, or if the relations are excluding, the concept of sex segregation may be even more useful.

It seems that 'masculine' and 'feminine’ in this definition of gender is confusingly close to the ‘mystique about their being predetermined by biology’ when compared to the ‘reproductive arena’ and ‘reproductive differences’ in Connell’s definition of gender. However, although gender, according to Connell (2003: 96), may also be ‘removed’ the crucial issue is whether those who are segregated really want to de-sex segregate? As long as the benefits of a breakout are not clearly assessable, the possible negative effects may undermine such efforts.

According to Connell (2003:20) the very key to the understanding of gender is not to focus on differences, but, instead, to focus on relations. In fact, this distinction is crucial here because relations, contrary to differences, are mutually dependent. Whatever difference existing between the sexes is meaningless unless it is connected via a relation. On the one hand, big male muscles can hardly be of relational use other than in cases of domestic violence, and on the other hand, wage gaps cannot be identified without a comparative relation to the other sex.

Biological determinism is influential in the general discourse of sports academia (Hargreaves 1994:8). However, what remains to analyse is whether ‘gender’ is really a successful concept for dealing with biological determinism?

‘To explain the cultural at the level of the biological encourages the exaggeration and approval of analyses based on distinctions between men and women, and masks the complex relationship between the biological and the cultural’ (Hargreaves 1994:8).

With another example: to explain the cultural (driver) at the level of the technical (type of car) encourages the exaggeration and approval of analyses based on distinctions between cars, and masks the complex relationship between the car and the driver. However, also the contrary seems to hold true;. that the cultural (driver/gender) gets tied to the technical/biological. The ‘complex relationship’ between the car and the driver is easily avoided by using similar1 cars, hence making the driver more visible. In a sex/gender setting the ‘complex relationship’ between sex and gender is easily avoided by distinguishing between sex and culture2, hence making culture more visible. The term ‘culture’, unlike the term ‘gender’ clearly tries to avoid the ‘complex relationship’ between biology and gender. The ‘complex relationship’ makes it, in fact, impossible to distinguish between them. On top of this comes the ‘gender relation’ confusion, which determines people to have ‘gender relations’, i.e. to be opposite or separate.

This kind of gender view is popular, perhaps because it may serve as a convenient way out from directly confronting the biology/culture distinction, and seems to be the prevalent trend, to the extent that ‘gender’ has conceptually replaced ‘sex’, leading to the consequence that the latter has become more or less self-evident and thus almost beyond scrutiny. In other words, by using ‘gender’ as a sign for ‘the complex relationship between the biological and the cultural’, biological determinism becomes more difficult to access analytically.

Gender is neither biology, nor a fixed dichotomy, but it has a special relation to the human body mirrored in a ‘general perception.’ What is problematic with this view is the thought that cultural patterns only mirror bodily differences. Gender is ‘a structure’ of social relations/practices concentrated to ‘the reproductive arena’, and a series of due practices in social processes. That is, it describes how society relates to the human body and has due consequences to our private life and for the future of wo/mankind (Connell 2003: 21-22). The main problem here involves how to talk sex without gender:

‘Sex should properly refer to the biological aspects of male and female existence. Sex differences should therefore only be used to refer to physiology, anatomy, genetics, hormones and so forth. Gender should properly be used to refer to all the nonbiological aspects of differences between males and females clothes, interests, attitudes, behaviours and aptitudes, for example which separate 'masculine' from 'feminine' lifestyles’ (Delamont 1980 quoted in Hargreaves 1994: 146).

The distinction between sex and gender implied in these quotations, however, does not seem to resolve the issue, precisely because it fails to offer a tool for discriminating biological aspects of differences from non-biological ones, i.e. those that are cultural. This is also reflected in everyday life. ‘Folk’ categories of sex and gender often appear to be used as if they were the same thing. Although 'masculine' and 'feminine' are social realities, there is a mystique about their being predetermined by biology. Furthermore the very relational meaning of ‘gender’ seems to constitute a too obvious hiding place for a brand of essentialism based on sex. Apart from being ‘structure’, as noted above, gender is, according to Connell (2003:20), all about relations. However, if there are none - or if the relations are excluding - the concept of sex segregation may be even more useful.

In Connell’s analysis, however, gender may also be removed (Connell 2003:96). In this respect and as a consequence, gender equals sex segregation. In fact it seems that the 'masculine' and 'feminine’, in the definition of gender above, are confusingly close to the ‘mystique about their being predetermined by biology’ when compared to the ‘reproductive arena’ and ‘reproductive differences’ in Connell’s (2003:21) definition of gender. The elusiveness of gender seems to reveal a point of focus rather than a thorough-going conceptualization. So, for example, in traditional Engels/Marx thinking the family’s mediating formation between class and state excludes the politics of gender (Haraway 1991: 131).

What's a Woman?

In What is a Woman? Moi (1999) attacks the concept of gender while still emphasizing the importance of the concept of the feminine and a strong self-conscious (female) subject that combines the personal and the theoretical within it. Moi (1999: 76), hence, seems to propose a loose sex/gender axis resting on a rigid womanhood based on women’s context bound, lived experience outside the realm of men’s experience.

Although I share Moi’s suggestion for abandoning the category of gender, her analysis seems to contribute to a certain confusion and to an almost incalculable theoretical abstraction in the sex/gender distinction because it keeps maintaining sex segregation without offering a convincing defence for it. Although gender, for example, is seen as a nature-culture distinction, something that essentializes non-essential differences between women and men, the same may be said about Moi’s approach if we understand her ‘woman’ as, mainly, the mainstream biological one usually classified (prematurely) in the delivery room. If the sexes live in separate spheres, as Moi’s analysis seems to imply, the lived, contextual experience of women appears as less suitable for pioneering on men’s territory.

This raises the question about whether the opening up of new frontiers for females may demand the lessening or even the absence of femininity (and masculinity). In fact, it is believed here that the ‘liminal state’ where social progression might best occur, is precisely that. Gender as an educated ‘facticity’ then, from this point of view, will inevitably enter into a state of world view that adds itself onto the ‘lived body’ as a constraint.

It is assumed here that we commonly conflate constructs of sex, gender, and sexuality. When sex is defined as the ‘biological’ aspects of male and female, then this conceptualization is here understood as purely descriptive. When gender is said to include social practices organized in relation to biological sex (Connell 1987), and when gender refers to context/time-specific and changeable socially constructed relationships of social attributes and opportunities learned through socialization processes, between women and men, this is also here understood as descriptive. However, when description of gender transforms into active construction of gender, e.g. through secrets about its analytical gain, it subsequently transforms into a compulsory necessity. Gendering hence may blindfold gender-blind opportunities.

In conclusion, if gender is here understood as a social construct, then is not coupled to sex but to context, and dependent on time. Also it is here understood that every person may possess not only one but a variety of genders. Even if we consider gender to be locked together with the life history of a single individual the above conceptualization makes a single, personal gender impossible, longitudinally as well as contemporaneously. Whereas gender is constructive and deterministic, sex is descriptive and non-deterministic. In this sense, gender as an analytical tool leaves little room for the Tomboy.

The Tomboy - a threat to "femininity"

Noncompliance with what is assumed ‘feminine’ threatens established or presumed sex segregation. What is perceived as ‘masculinity’ or ‘maleness’ in women, as a consequence, may only in second place, target homosexuality. In accordance with this line of thought, the Tomboy embodies both the threat and the possibilities for gendered respectively gender-blind opportunity structures.

The Tomboy is the loophole out of gender relations. Desires revealed through sport may have been with females under the guise of a different identity, such as that of the Tomboy (Kotarba & Held 2007: 163). Girls throw balls ‘like girls’ and do not tackle like boys because of a female perception of their bodies as objects of action (Young 2000:150 cited in Kotarba & Held 2007: 155).

However, when women lacking experience of how to act in an effective manner in sport are taught about how to do, they have no problem performing, quite contrary to explaining shortcomings as due to innate causes (Kotarba & Held 2007: 157). This is also opposite to the experiences of male-to-female transsexuals who through thorough exercise learn how to feminisize their movements (Schrock & Boyd 2006:53-55). Although, according to Hargreaves (1994), most separatist sports philosophies have been a reaction to dominant ideas about the biological and psychological predispositions of men and women, supposedly rendering men 'naturally suited to sports, and women, by comparison, essentially less suited (Hargreaves 1994:29-30), the opposite may also hold true. Separatism per definition needs to separate and this separation is often based on biological differences, be it skin colour, sex or something else.

From this perspective, the Tomboy would constitute a theoretical anomaly in a feminine separatist setting. Although her physical body would possibly qualify what makes her a Tomboy would not.

The observation that in mixed playgrounds, and in other areas of the school environment, boys monopolize the physical space (Hargreaves 1994:151) may lack the additional notion that certain boys dominate and certain boys do not. Sports feminists have 'politicized' these kinds of experience by drawing connections between ideas and practice (Hargreaves 1994:3) but because of a separatist approach may exclude similar experience among parts of the boys. Moreover, a separatist approach is never waterproof and may hence leak Tomboy girls without a notion.

Femininity and feminism

Feminism and psychoanalysis as oppressors

According to Collier and Yanagisako (1987), Henrietta Moore (1994) and other feminist anthropologists, patriarchal dominance is an inseparable socially inherited part of the conventional family system. This implicit suggestion of radical surgery does not, however, count on unwanted secondary effects neither on the problem with segregated or non-segregated sex-worlds. If, in other words, oppression is related to gender segregation rather than patriarchy, or perhaps that patriarchy is a product of sex segregation, then there seems to be a serious problem of intellectual survival facing feminists themselves. If feminism1 is to be understood as an approach and/or analytical tool for separatism2, those feminists and others who propose not only analytical segregation but also practical segregation, face the problem of possible oppression inherent in this very segregation (Klevius 1994, 1996). In this sense oppression is related to sex segregation in two ways:

1. As a means for naming it (feminism) for an analytical purpose.
2. As a social consequence or political strategy (e.g. negative bias against female football or a separatist strategy for female football).

It is notable that the psychoanalytic movement has not only been contemporary with feminism, but it has also followed (or led) the same pattern of concern and proposed warnings and corrections that has marked the history of ‘feminism’ in the 20th century. According to S. Freud, the essence of the analytic profession is feminine and the psychoanalyst ‘a woman in love’ (L. Appignanesi & J. Forrester 1992:189). But psychoanalytically speaking, formalized sex and sex segregation also seem to have been troublesome components in the lives of female psychoanalysts struggling under a variety of assumed, but irreconcilable femininities and professional expectations.

In studying the history of feminism one inevitably encounters what is called ‘the women’s movement’. While there is a variety of different feminisms, and because the borders between them, as well as to what is interpreted as the women’s rights movement, some historians, incl. Klevius, question the distinction and/or methods in use for this distinction.
However, it could also be argued that whereas the women’s right movement may be distinguished by its lack of active separatism within the proposed objectives of the movement, feminism ought to be distinguished as a multifaceted separatist movement based on what is considered feminine values, i.e. what is implied by the very word ‘feminism’3. From this perspective the use of the term ‘feminism’ before the last decades of the 19th century has to be re-evaluated, as has every such usage that does not take into account the separatist nature underpinning all feminisms. Here it is understood that the concept ‘feminism’, and its derivatives, in every usage implies a distinction based on separating the sexes - e.g. addressing inequality or inequity - between male and female (see discussion above). So although ’feminism’ and ‘feminisms’ would be meaningless without such a separation, the ‘women’s rights movement’, seen as based on a distinct aim for equality with men in certain legal respects, e.g. the right to vote, could be described as the opposite, i.e. de-segregation, ‘gender blindness’ etc.

As a consequence the use of the word feminism in a context where it seems inappropriate is here excepted when the authors referred to have decided to do so. The feminist movement went back to Mary Wollstonecraft and to some French revolutionaries of the end of the eighteenth century, but it had developed slowly. In the period 1880 to 1900, however, the struggle was taken up again with renewed vigour, even though most contemporaries viewed it as idealistic and hopeless. Nevertheless, it resulted in ideological discussions about the natural equality or non-equality of the sexes, and the psychology of women. (Ellenberger 1970: 291-292).

Not only feminist gynocentrists, but also anti-feminist misogynists contributed with their own pronouncements on the woman issue. In 1901, for example, the German psychiatrist Moebius published a treatise, On the Physiological Imbecility of Woman, according to which, woman is physically and mentally intermediate between the child and man (see Ellenberger 1970:292). However, according to the underlying presumption of this thesis, i.e. that the borders between gynocentrism and misogyny are not well understood, these two approaches are seen as more or less synonymous. Such a view also confirms with a multitude of points in common between psychoanalysis and feminism. As was argued earlier, the main quality of separatism and ‘complementarism’ is an insurmountable border, sometimes contained under the titles: love, desire etc.

Peter Klevius wrote:

Sunday, January 1, 2017

Peter Klevius psychosocial Freud timeline

In Atheist* Peter Klevius series notorious "Atheist" idiots** (or just deliberate scumbags) from the past still having their sexist shadow hanging over us.

* There are true Atheists (like Klevius) and naive Atheists (like those with a too simplistic view on religion - e.g. not realizing the importance of sex segregation for the "Abrahaic religions" emanating from Zoroastrian and its prophet Zarathustra from the Russian Pontic-Caspian steppe near Ural).
** Charcot (Freud's mentor), Freud, etc. just replaced conventional religion with new forms rooted in exorcism.

Dear reader, while BBC is busy spreading fake info and islam propaganda* over ignorant license paying Brits, Klevius always guarantees real info. Judge for yourself - and complain about BBC's disgusting behavior and intellectual emptiness!

* Of course it had to be a muslim presenter who 8 a.m. in the morning welcomed the Brits on Christmas day with a long story about an other muslim, etc. etc. Followed up with endless programs about how the "Abrahamic religions" (essentially to boost islam - Christianity is already dead in UK and Jews are a tiny minority) are so much better than everything else.

Henri F. Ellenberger, Peter Klevius favorite source on psychoanalysis) has been praised (but 'criticized', according to stupid religiously biased Wikipedia) for modeling his picture of the origins of psychiatry in the Enlightenment clash with Demonology — in the triumph of illuminated reason over the blindness of faith. Perhaps 'blindness of faith' is an exageration when keeping in mind that religion has very profane objectives, e.g. sex segregation.

Sharia islam is today the worst threat against women's access to full Human Rights equality. This is why Trump was a better choice for women than Clinton who strongly has advocated for sharia islam's main world organization, the Saudi steered and Saudi based OIC. Picture by Peter Klevius (1979).

The reason Klevius is self-promoting is (except for no one else daring to do it, and to serve an audience starved on the "real thing") exactly the opposite to why most bloggers (and media) do it. Compare the promotion of ordinary, or even sub-standard products among high quality ones. A reader stumbling over a blog that looks out of the ordinary and says strange (but logical) things, may need some hard facts about the author, who himself is out of the ordinary (although he calls himself "the extremely normal" to emphasize his logic and internal harmony that should attract those who value it). Dear reader. Of some reason word and phrase statistics etc. clearly show you've a positive view on Klevius. However, how do we get more people reading and understanding Klevius? If you support Wikipedia you shouldn't be forgiven for not supporting Klevius and his defense for your Human Rights, right!

Peter Klevius: Relying on my scientific methodology I enter the field of subversion* through the Trojanian pores of diffuse discourse conceptualizations. My pockets are full of "alien" thoughts and well inside, when I am throwing them around, they might reveal internal inconsistencies in the very discourse I am visiting, not sharing. My employer? Negative human rights, of course!

*the potential subversion is already there waiting for revelation via the dynamics that is created by "alien" thoughts. But "alien thoughts" are no threat to a certain discourse if they don't use this particular method.

Charcot and his school considered the ability to be hypnotized as a clinical feature of hysteria. Here Charcot demonstrating hypnosis on a "hysterical" Salpêtrière patient, "Blanche" (Blanche Wittmann), who is supported by Dr. Joseph Babiński (rear). Blanche acted"hysteric" for to prove Charcot's senseless charlatanic fantasies true. It was here Sigmund Freud got his first kick into the unethical and unscientific swamp that he called "psychoanalysis" - an extension of exorcism, now clad in a new language spiced with medical latin words.

Wikipedia's weird description of this monster of charlatanism: Jean-Martin Charcot (/ʃɑːrˈkoʊ/; French: [ʃaʁko]; 29 November 1825 – 16 August 1893) was a French neurologist and professor of anatomical pathology.[1] He is known as "the founder of modern neurology",[2] and his name has been associated with at least 15 medical eponyms, including Charcot–Marie–Tooth disease and Charcot disease (better known as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, motor neurone disease, or Lou Gehrig disease).[1] Charcot has been referred to as "the father of French neurology and one of the world's pioneers of neurology".[3] His work greatly influenced the developing fields of neurology and psychology; modern psychiatry owes much to the work of Charcot and his direct followers.[4] He was the "foremost neurologist of late nineteenth-century France"[5] and has been called "the Napoléon of the neuroses".

Richard Webster on Charcot's student Sigmund Freud: If Freud’s early patients were, for the most part, not suffering from psychological disturbances at all, and if Freud’s therapeutic technique was founded on the medical errors of Charcot, it might well be asked how it was that he (and Breuer) succeeded in curing so many patients in the remarkable fashion attested to by the early case histories.

Peter Klevius psychosocial Freud timeline

The hysteric birth of psychoanalysis

Sigmund Freud desperately tried to "scientifically" defend how he treated his wife in a world that already had begun abandoning most of sex segregation in practical life. In fact, what many psychoanalytic feminists now ascribe to the "patriarchy" is often a product of this prolonged "artificial" sex segregation and hence due to Freud's and their own separatist efforts.

Sex segregation is the reactionary "phallus" seen as the "hystericized site of displaced" sexes in a world entering the confusion of modernity.. Feminists & Islamists = guardians of the "feminine".

The lost ghost in the machine and the psychoanalytic chameleon Mr. Nobody

There has been an all time on-going development within biology, genetics, AI research and robot technology, which narrows our view on, not only the difference between animals and humans, but also the gap between what is considered living and dead matter. Not only free will, but also properties and representations/symbols are getting all the more complicated and vanishing as their subjective meaning seems less usable in a new emerging understanding of our invironmental positioning. Although the psychoanalytic movement seems ready to confirm/adapt to this development equally fast as Freud himself changed his ideas to fit into new scientific discoveries (it was a pity he didn't get a chance to hear about Francis Crick) psychoanalysis is forever locked out from this reality. PA is doomed to hang on the back of development just as feminism and middle-class politics, without any clue on the direction (neither on the individual nor the collective/cultural level).

Psychoanalysis has survived just because of its weakest (in fact, absent) link, namely the lack of a border between folk psychology and itself. The diagnosis for psychoanalysis would consequently be borderline.

Sigmund's dream of a biological psychoanalysis was his biggest mistake.

However, for women he suggested "a normal penis several times" to keep hysteria at bay.

This timeline (launched on the web in 2003) is copied from a yet unpublished book: Homo Filius Nullius - the Illegitimate Man by Peter Klevius. It consists of mostly Peter Klevius' own observations but includes other gathered material as well.

An interesting detail in the timeline below is Hollywood's early and strong engagement in psyhoanalysis. My working hypothesis is that it might have something to do with certain characteristics of Hollywood, which in a way, are precursors of Homo Filius Nullius and the social state he (and she - compare Finnish non-gender/sex 'hän') lives in. Attractive people were transported to this particular place where they met with other equally attractive but lonely people. As we all do know, apart from movies Hollywood’s favorite product for the media was divorce. It became cool to divorce because these attractive stars did it at an early time with quite some frequency But for many of these stars it might not have been that cool as it appeared and most likely the introduction of psychoanalytic thinking in Hollywood was an attempt to try to better resolve personal relations on these grounds. Here again we see the same pattern of modernity, sex-segregation and lose attachment treated with the disease itself!

1879-80 Translated one volume of Mill's collected works and didn't like Mill's idea about women's emancipation and equal rights. Actually this was the real starting point for Freud's fanatic and lifelong search/construction of a "scientific" defense for sex segregation (see What is sex segregation?) in an unprecedented time of female "gender" breakers..

1881 Sigmund Freud finally gets his delayed medical degree, and a poorly paid job.

1882 Suddenly left his job without getting a new one.

1883 Tried to convince his fiancee that Mill was a moron and that a woman (by nature) belonged to kitchen, nursing room and bed.to such an extent that it "...practically rule out any profession". However, the (deliberate?) development of psychoanalysis into a female profession (many of the female child psychoanalystst were childless including his own daughter Anna Freud), forced him to a pragmatic acceptance of professional (but sex segregated) women while reinforcing his sense that the distinction was still regarded as fundamental..

1884-5 Freud ruins his scientific reputation by presenting too hasty and erroneous conclusions about cocaine.

1885-86 Freud visits his mentor and idol Jean Charcot's lectures on "hysteria" in Paris.

1886 At the end of April, Freud, known as a “practising magnétiseur”, opens his private medical practice in an effort to economically survive after having been laughed down (because of the cocaine mess) by the Viennese scientific society.

1886-7 Turns to hypnotic suggestion based on the lectures of the pathetic Charcot in Paris.

1888 Freud begins treating Anna von Lieben, known in "Studies in Hysteria" as Caecilie M.

1889 In July, Freud begun using the cathartic method on Anna von Lieben, a wealthy morphine addict he treated twice a day for some three years.

1890-92 The “discovery” of electrical activity in the brain was debated in the Viennese ‘Centralblatt für Physiologie’. Freud and his Viennese colleagues did not know about the original discovery by the British R. Caton from 1875.

1891 Caton sends a letter to Centralblatt in which he describes his findings presented in Britain in 1875 and 1878.
(Peter Klevius is, until disproved, to be considered the first (2001) and only one (so far) to have acknowledged the crucial connection between Freud's emerging psychoanalysis and Caton's discovery). Few researcher even know abt the basic controversy (i.e. that Caton was some 17 years - sic - ahead of the Viennese scholars) underlying Klevius' theory. The implications of Klevius findings abt the Freud/Caton connection, are presented in "Pathological symbiosis", and are entirely described in yet unpublished Homo Filius Nullius.

1891 Freud’s ideas on neuronal transmission were altered because of Waldeyer’s hypothesis that the nervous impulse also had to be discontinuous.

1891 Death of Fleischl von Marxow (Freud’s friend who erroneously thought he was the first who had discovered electrical activity in the brain, and who became a cocaine addict because of Freud).

1891 On Aphasia 1891. London and New York, 1953. Indicates a psychosomatic connection between body and language.

1892 Freud moves (according to Macmillan) from the descriptive level of Charcot’s hysteria to the more sophisticated ideas of Janet (March 11).

1892 Dec. A preliminary report on hysteria. A preliminary report for the 1895 book Studies in Hysteria.

1892 First mentioning on tics.

1893 “…in mental functions something is to be distinguished, a quota of affect or a sum of excitation which possesses all the characteristics of a quantity (though we have no means of measuring it), which is capable of increase, diminution, displacement and discharge, and which is spread over the memory-traces of ideas somewhat as an electric charge is spread over the surface of a body. This hypothesis, which, incidentally already underlies our theory of ”abreaction” in our ”Preliminary Communication” (1893), can be applied in the same sense as physicists apply the hypothesis of a flow of electric fluid explaining a great variety of psychical states”.

1893 Freud, S, On the Psychical Mechanism of Hysterical Phenomena. [with J. Breuer] SE 2, 3-17.

1894 - The first written appearance of the word "feminism" as we know it. Two completely different "feminisms" can be exemplified by "feminine" Hubertine Auclert and "non-feminine" Madeleine Pelletier. Also compare the notion of "false feminism" ascribed to competent women competing on male turf.

1894 Freud, S, The Neuro-Psychoses of Defence. SE 3, 43-61.
.
1894 “… a complicated electrical apparatus” (in The Neuro Psychosis of Defence).
The obvious connection between Caton and Freud has to my knowledge not been pointed out before the presentation of this timeline (P. Klevius).

1894 Freud suffers from impotence. Fliess gives him cocaine to cure a sinus infection – Freud got addicted and begun his "self-analysis".

1894 December. Fliess visited Freud and examined Emma Eckstein.

1895 Women's football on the rise (e.g. Nettie Honeyball).

1895 In February Freud asked Fliess to cure Emma Eckstein’s “nasal reflex neurosis” (a hoax diagnose, see above) by unnecessarily removing the middle left concha of her nose. Emma was on the verge of bleeding to death from gauze that carelessly had been left within her nasal cavity. According to Freud Emma was not bleeding because of ruptured veins but because she had, unconsciously, fallen in love with him.

1895 First woman scales Matterhorn (Europe's highest mountain), gets big headlines and becomes notoious in Victoian circles. Did Freud think she actually climbed a penis, and did her (and other women's) strength contributed to the birth of psychoanalysis one year later?

1895 Fliess is peeping on his toddler son’s spontaneous penile erections while looking at his mother. This is then connected to Freud’s “memory” of his desire to copulate with his mother at the age of two.

1895 May. “a consuming passion for psychology” (a “tyrant” as Freud himself describes it in a letter to Fliess).

1895 The first Freudian psychotherapy appeared in 1895, in Freud’s contribution to his and Breuer’s Studies in Hysteria. Here Freud gives the concepts of ”resistance” and ”transference” their first definition.

1895 Freud, S, A Project for a Scientific Psychology. SE 1, 283-397.

1895 On July 25, 1895, the secret of the dream "revealed" itself to Freud.

1896 First coins the term "psychoanalysis”. Freud's father dies and Freud starts his self-analysis (according to some interpretations – but see 1894).

1896 Freud, S, The Aetiology of Hysteria.

1897 “I no longer believe in my neurotica” (seduction theory).

1897 University of Vienna for the first time permitted the enrolment of women.

1897 When Anna Freud was two or less Freud “discovered” infantile sexuality and the Oedipus complex.

1898 Freud, S, Sexuality in the Aetiology of the Neuroses.

1898 R v Krafft-Ebing: Psychology of sexual life. Mentions "psychoanalysis" (Krafft-Ebing was positive to Freud because they both shared the view that "sexuality" was world-embracing, and hence "readable" in every aspect of life. He strongly supported Freud's application to his university).

1899 Freud, S, Screen Memories.

1900 S. F. The Interpretation of Dreams published. (written in 1898-1899).

1901 In the autumn of 1901, Freud was faced with a mind far superior than his own. Otto Weininger approached him with an outline for his thesis (not the final book version) Sex and Character. Of course Freud wasn't the man to take it so he rejected the young (21) genius in the most brute way and hence probably contributed to this sensitive youngster´s suicide. Although Weininger based his thoughts erranenously on a speculative male/female "sex-fluid" in every cell (he didn't know abt DNA and therefore couldn't properly asssess the power of heterosexual attraction), his importance as a genius is the internal logic in his construction - a logic that made Wittgenstein choose Otto, but not Sigmund, to his list of a few important thinkers that had impressed him. Also see Klevius analysis of mind and awareness!.

1904 S. F. published Psychopathology of Everyday Life; and ended relationship with Fliess (who accused Freud of plagiarism).

1905 S. F. published Three Essays on Sexuality and Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious.

1907 Freud and Jung meet in Vienna.

1908 First International Psychoanalytical Congress, Salzburg,
Vienna.

1909 S. F. forms International Psychoanalytical Society with Carl Jung as its first president. Comes to US to give a series of lectures at Clark Univ. (invited by G. Stanley Hall).

1911 Adler left Freud.

1914 Jung left Freud.

1914 S. F. "On Narcissism"-- the first mentioning of the ego ideal, which will become the superego.

1915 S. F. delivers introductory lectures at University of Vienna.

1917 S. F. publishes Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis.

1918-22 S. F. analyzed his daughter Anna Freud and put more emphasis on a mother's role in a daughter's life versus the father's role as being the sole motivator for behavior.

1920 S. F. publishes Beyond the Pleasure Principle; introduces the death instinct.

1920 The first child psychoanalyst, Hermine Hug-Hellmuth, publishes “On the Technique of Child Analysis”.

1921 British FA bans women's football by the help of female physicians, who (as experts on the female body and mind) declare the game "unsuitable for women". Several of the doctors involved are now presented as feminists by feminist writers of today. And feminists should know who are feminists, shouldn't they (also see Heroic gender breaking women - and some tiny men)?

1921 S. F. publishes Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego; applies social context to psychoanalysis.

1921 Margaret Schönberger (Mahler, 24) had severe stomach pains and attacks that horrified her circle of friends. She was diagnosed with Heirshsprung disease, "a congenital disorder of the colon rectum which is unable to relax and permit the passage of stool. During the surgery severe adhesions were discovered and removed. After the procedure, the problem ended.

1922 Anna Freud became a member of the International Psychoanalytic Congress.

1922 Margaret Schönberger (Mahler) age 25, arrived to Vienna and was taken care of by the "expert on delinquency" August Aichhorn.

1923 A long series of operations on Freud’s jaw to remove cancer. Anna felt she had to stay with him because, not only had he been borrowing money from friends, but also he was now ill.

1923 S. F. Publishes The Ego and the Id; a final structural theory.

1923 Anna Freud, while taking care of the neighbors’ children: "I think sometimes that I want, not only to make them healthy, but also, at the same time, to have them, or at least have something of them, for myself”

1923 Sigmund Freud:"Our symbiosis with an American family, whose children my daughter is bringing up analytically with a firm hand, is growing continually stronger"

1923 Klein M. The development of a child. Int. J. Psychoanal., 4:419.

1923 Presented structural model of id, ego, & superego (at age 67).

1924 Hermine Hug-Hellmuth publishes “New Ways to the Understanding Youth”.

1924 On 9 September Hermine Hug-Hellmuth was found strangled (by the boy she had analysed) on her couch. 2.400.000 Kronen were stolen from her underwear. According to a brief entry by Siegfred Bernfeld in International Journal of Psychoanalysis Hermine expressed a desire in a will a few days before she was murdered that no account of her life and work should appear in psychoanalytic publications!

1924 S. F. allegedly turns down an offer of $100,000 by Samuel Goldwyn to cooperate in making movies of famous love stories.

1924 Klein M. The role of school in the libidinal development of the child. Int. J. Psychoanal., 5:312-331.
.
1925 Anna Freud began getting heavily involved with Child Psychoanalysis.

1926 Infant analysis., Int. J. Psychoanal., 7:31-63.

1926 Publishes Inhibitions, Symptoms and Anxiety.

1926 Helene Deutsch began analyzing Margaret Schönberger (Mahler). After 14 months of cancellations she said Margaret was "unanalyzable".

1927 Symposium about the Freud/Klein controversy, arranged by Jones.

1927 August Aichhorn (who had a “personal relationship” with her) became Margaret Schönberger’s training analyst.

1927 Anna Freud, Eva Rosenfeld and Dorothy Burlingham organized a school for local children, later, Hampsted War Nursery research.

1927 Anna Freud’s first book entitled Introduction to the Technique of Child Analysis. It was a collection of all her lectures, and a direct attack at Melanie Klein's theories.

1927 S. F. publishes The Future of an Illusion; debunks religion on rational, scientific grounds.

1933 Margaret Schönberger (Mahler) was finally accepted as an analyst.

1934-6 (?) Rolf (who strangled Hermine Hug Hellmuth 1924) was released and started chasing the psychoanalytic movement and especially Helene Deutch). Deutch’s husband hired two protectors and Rolf eventually disappeared).

1942 M. Mahler: Pseudoimbecility: a Magic Cap of Invisibility.

1944 M. Mahler: Tics and Impulsions in Children: A Study of Motility.

1947 "The Hampstead Clinic is sometimes spoken of as Anna Freud's extended family, and that is how it often felt, with all the ambivalence such a statement implies," one of her staff wrote

1949 Margaret Mahler gives the first hint of her coming theory about symbiosis in a footnote in ‘Clinical studies in benign and malignant cases of childhood psychosis – schizophrenia-like”, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, vol 19, s 297, fotnot.

1949 Therese Benedek published what was perhaps the first use of the concept of ‘symbiosis’ to characterize the early mother-infant unit.

1951 John Bowlby: Maternal Care and Mental Health," published by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1952. ). It stimulated future studies of infant-mother bonding and the effects of early separation.

1955 Mahler and Gosliner presents an idea about human symbiosis and separation/individuation, that launches the research project “The natural history of symbiotic child psychosis” at Masters Children’s Center in New York.

1957 Bowlby's first formal statement of Attachment Theory, ‘The Nature of the Child's Tie to his Mother’was read to the British Psychoanalytic Society. The paper was controversial. Donald Winnicott: "It was certainly a difficult paper to appreciate without giving away everything that has been fought for by Freud". Anna Freud: "Dr Bowlby is too valuable a person to get lost to psychoanalysis".
.
1957 The revelation of the deeds of “the real Psycho”, Ed Gein. Although he suffered and was diagnosed with severe paranoid schizophrenia, the popular “psycho”-analytic “diagnosis” about a too close attachment with his mother is the one that still labels him. When Ed appeared in the psychoanalytic circles and popular culture (which are almost the same as has been noted above, i.e. that psychoanalysis far from being radical can thank its success precisely because it is reactionary) he fulfilled every possible expectation.

1950-64 When Leo Rangell arrived in Los Angeles in 1946, he felt that psychoanalysis seemed ideal. Psychoanalysis was then, according to Rangell, 'as golden as the Southern California sun'. The treatment of the war neuroses together with the arrival of the European analysts who had fled Hitler advanced psychoanalysis, attracting much professional and popular interest. While LAPSI had become almost paralyzed in the late 1940s, the period following the split became for some a 'golden age' for psychoanalysis'. Both societies expanded and graduates quickly developed full analytic practices. Mel Mandel who began training at LAPSI in 1952 recalled that the animosity between the societies 'was as thick as a heavy fog'. Still, within LAPSI the 1950s provided some 'periods of quiescence'.
By the early 1960s, the 'golden age' was over.

1957-61 In 1947, Ernst Simmel appointed Greenson as a training analyst. After the split Greenson became president of the Los Angeles Psychoanalytic Society (1951-53) and Dean of Education (1957-61). He was Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the UCLA Medical School.

1959 Mahler et al’s follow up study with normal children and their mothers.

1959 Psycho, book by Robert Bloch (compared to the movie a more incestuous relationship between a 41 year old man and his mother).

1960 Psycho by Alfred Hitchcock (about a young man that killed his mother). Based on Robert Bloch’s novel but influenced by the screen player Joseph Stefano and the information he got from his psychoanalysts (compare the LAPSI controversy among US psychoanalysts at the time). The movie can be interpreted as a mix of Kleinian and Mahlerian thoughts on the mother/son-relationship. "He used to ask me about my analysis. Many of the things I supplied for Norman's background were not in the book because I was learning in analysis why boys killed their mothers. I would tell Hitch all these things. I told him I felt I could have killed my mother at a certain point in my life, and it was sort of a miracle that I hadn't done that. He thought all that was very interesting."

1963-65 A follow up study to the follow up study was granted and launched for M. Mahler et al. This study is presented in The psychological birth of the human infant (see below).

1968 Ralph (Romi) Greenson was closely connected to Anna Freud and her group in London. His Foundation for Research in Psychoanalysis in Beverly Hills provided an important source of funds for Anna Freud's work in London as well as for Albert Solnit's New Haven group around the journal, The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child. The fund financed Anna Freud's purchase of Freud's London home and half of the Hampstead Clinic's 1968 budget shortfall of $60,000. The chief wealthy donor for this Foundation was one of Greenson's patients, Lita Annenberg Hazen.

Freudian chock waves also reached Sweden.

1970; nr 14 Socialstyrelsens Råd och anvisningar (Advises and Direktions from the Social Boyard) 1970 no 14 Åtgärder mot misshandel av barn (tar även upp psykiskt skadlig behandling). Measures against child abuse (including psychological abuse).

1972 Barnbyn Skå starts treating families in accordance with a psychoanalytic "understanding". A main focus is laid on parent’s “lack of understanding their children".

1973 Beyond the Best Interests of the Child, by Joseph Goldstein, Anna Freud and Albert J. Solnit (financially contributed to Anna Freud’s Hampstead Clinic).

1975 The Psychological Birth of the Human Infant (M. Mahler et al).

1976 The UKÄ-report 1975:24 officially introduces psychoanalysis (psychotherapy and psycho-social work) in the state financed social work in Sweden.

1978 As a result of the official means now available because of the UKÄ report, a psychoanalytic research group, including Sven Hessle, is put together at Barnbyn SKÅ.

1979 Alice Miller: The Drama of the Gifted Child (see Alice Miller's genosuicide)

1979/80:1 Government Bill introduces LVU, the new child protection act. Main features include the suppression of the word “compulsory”, as well as the removal of the punishing aspect of measures directed towards children and youth.

1980 Alice Miller: Det självutplånande barnet in Swedish (Das Drama des begabten Kindes und die Suche nach dem wahren Selbst)

1980 The Shining (movie about domestic violence by the father).

1981 Alice Miller: Prisoners of Childhood.

1981 Socialstyrelsens Allmänna råd (General advices from The Social Board) 1981:2 LVU warns for “destructive bonds” between parent and children, and the necessity of compulsory care because of these ties.

1983 Alice Miller: For Your Own Good: Hidden Cruelty in Child-rearing and the Roots of Violence.

1984 The Psychological Birth of the Human Infant (M. Mahler et al) is published in Swedish.

1986 Sven Hessle introduces “symbiotic rejection ”, a concept he later (2001) seems to be less convinced about.

1987 BRIS (a society connected to Anna Freud) contributes to the preparatory works for a revision of LVU by stating that "symbiosis is the most fundamental of dangers facing a child and thus should be used as a criterion for separating children from their parents".

1989/90:28 Government Bill proposing the new revised LVU including “pathological symbiosis”.

1991-03-01 The revised LVU (SFS Act No: 1990:52) including “Pathological symbiosis” as a legal criterion to take the child into state "care".

For a detailed scientific analysis of the stealthy introduction of "pathological symbiosis" in the Swedish child protection act read Klevius thesis: "Pathological Symbiosis" in LVU
- Relevance, and Sex Segregated Emergence.

Peter Klevius comparison of early female child psychoanalysts (in Pathological Symbiosis, 2004:46).

3.3 Symbiosis in psychoanalytic epistemology

S. Freud never seems to have used the term “symbiosis” to refer to phenomenon associated with psychoanalytic concepts of development (T. M. Horner 1985) in the sense presented here. Sandor Ferenczi, who was the psychoanalytic thinker that, from M. Mahler’s teenage and on, together with A. Aichhorn was the most influential on her development, contributed to this topic already in 1913 by asserting omnipotence as embedded in an original undifferentiated state (ibid.). In the 1920’s Jean Piaget, who focused his research in developmental psychology and genetic epistemology on how knowledge grows, referred to the non-differentiation of self and others in the child’s developmental process (Piaget 1929). Freud’s follower, Otto Rank, used separation-individuation and symbiotic modes of functioning to deal with the “trauma of birth” part of his central thesis in Truth and Reality, published in 1929 (1968). In Escape from Freedom Erich Fromm[53] presents the idea of symbiosis connected to his social psychoanalysis (1941). His description of separation-individuation is, according to T. M. Horner, essentially the same as that later presented by M. Mahler. In 1949 M. Mahler gives the first hint of her evolving theory about symbiosis in a footnote in ‘Clinical studies in benign and malignant cases of childhood psychosis – schizophrenia-like’, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. Vol 19, p 297, footnotes. The same year, 1949, Therese Benedek published what was perhaps the first use of the concept of ‘symbiosis’ to characterize the early mother-infant unit (1949). This is one year after the “invention” of the “schizophrenogenic mother” (also in a footnote, see footnote 54 below). In 1975 M. Mahler et al published the main work The Psychological Birth of the Human Infant.

A precursor to the idea of symbiotic relationship between mother and child is clearly visible in A. Aichhorn’s method of creating dependency in children and youth (1936). Furthermore most of A. Freud and M. Mahler’s contributions to child psychoanalysis were presented during the period of sexual counter-revolution between the 1930’s and the 1960’s. According to L. Appignanesi & J. Forrester the mid-twentieth century was a special time of emphasis rather on a proper motherhood instead of a penis envy transformed to competition with males (1992:458).

3.4 The emergence of “pathological symbiosis”

3.4.1 Early child psychoanalysts

The history of child psychoanalysis begins with Sigmund Freud’s case[54] of the five-year-old “Little Hans”, published in 1909. However, treatment of delinquent children and youth by the means of psychoanalysis got a bad start for the first female child psychoanalyst, Hermine Hug-Hellmuth, who also was an important influential of Anna Freud. H. Hug-Hellmuth´s analysis/treatment of her first child client, ”Rolf”, seems to have miserably failed. The boy got a bad history of foster homes and boarding schools and eventually killed and robbed his analyst[55] the same year, 1924, when her ‘New Ways to the Understanding of Youth’ was published (L. Appignanesi & J. Forrester 1992:196-203). More than three decades later Margaret Mahler presents her view on how a too close, “symbiotic” attachment between parent and child causes pathology and delinquency.

3.4.2 “Black Devil” [56] mothering the “frail child”[57]

According to R. Webster, her father entrusted Anna Freud with the “frail child” of the psychoanalytic movement. She then guarded it with all the jealousy and all the fierceness of a mother protecting her own child (1995:402). “From the beginning Anna did not form a close bond with her mother” (J. Bumb 2002) and Freud’s analysis of his daughter was aimed to support her to develop the right “femininity” thus helping her getting married in an appropriate way (R. Webster 1995:409-418). S. Freud’s emphasise on the pre-Oedipal stages in 1918-1922 may be related to this. Anna stated, “I wanted beautiful clothing and a number of children but I considered myself to be too shabby and inconspicuous” (J. Bumb 2002). The family referred to her and her sister as the “beauty and the brains”. According to Anna she never wrote much on female issues within psychoanalysis because she felt that she identified with male case studies. She was then sent, together with her grandmother, to Sicily and other parts of Italy to improve her health[58] – probably depression and anorexia – (J. Bumb 2002) and to make her more “joyful” and “marriageable” (Webster 1995:407-409). “According to Freud’s own theories his analysis of his daughter was an attempt to resolve her problems with her sexuality. Psychoanalytic theory suggested that Anna had become fixated at an essentially infantile stage, and that she had simultaneously identified with the father who had supposedly been the object of her first sexual desires”[59] (ibid. 415).

A. Freud’s special mix of career and psychological motherhood begun in 1923 when she cared and analysed the children of Freud’s neighbours who lived in the same house. She vicariously tried to be a mother for them (from Young-Bruehl[60] 1994, in J. Bumb 2002). “…I have this dependency, this wanting to have something, even leaving my profession aside, in every nook and cranny of my life." According to S. Freud "our symbiosis with an American family, whose children my daughter is bringing up analytically with a firm hand, is growing continually stronger" (Dyer, 1983 in J. Bumb 2002). In Anna Freud: A Biography, E. Young-Bruehl states: “She remained a ‘vestal’ – to use the apt word Marie Bonaparte later chose to signal both Anna Freud’s virginity and her role as the chief keeper of her father’s person and his science, psychoanalysis.” ( in J. Bumb 2002).

In addition to a strong wish for motherhood, and a strategy to create dependent children in the analysis (compare A. Aichhorn above and below), knowing what is best for the child seems to have been the main characteristic of A. Freud’s child psychoanalytic approach, all of which is embedded in a rigidly sex-segregated discourse. Half a century since the first analysis of the Burlingham children A. Freud co-authored Beyond the Best Interest of the Child, mentioned above as the main source for the “children’s need” approach, which also became the view of the Swedish legislator. We are here warned for the “confusion” of “insufficient” sexual identities: “The sexual identities of the parents may be insufficiently resolved so as to create confusion in the child about his own sexual identity.” (A. Goldstein et al 1973:15).

Anna Freud showed a visceral antipathy against Melanie Klein, the foremost child psychoanalyst of the time. According to Alix Strachey, Anna hated M. Klein, the “ultra-sexual Semiramis waiting to be pounced on”, simply on personal grounds (L. Appignanesi & J. Forrester 1992:289) thus supporting a more personal view on the work of A. Freud and its motives as a whole. A. Freud’s influence in the field of child psychoanalysis grew rapidly and “the Hampstead Clinic is sometimes spoken of as Anna Freud's extended family, and that is how it often felt, with all the ambivalence such a statement implies,” one of her staff wrote (J. Bumb 2002).

According to Anna Freud drives play a major role in the psychological development of a child and a teenager (1994). The force of the sexual instinct can be regarded as the energy underlying sexual urges i.e. the “libidinal energy” of the child, meaning the energy of the child’s sexual activities. In the same manner “aggressive energy” underlies the aggressive urges of the child. The flow of this energy, says A. Freud, we have to try to observe in the child if we want to have any chance to guide and influence it (A. Freud 1992:69). She then outlines the child’s fight against its family ties:

On the line from Biological Unity with the Mother to the Adolescent Revolt[61] against parental influence, we expect the normal child to negotiate a large number of libidinal and aggressive substations such as: the symbiotic, autistic, separation-individuation phases (Mahler); the part-object (M. Klein), need-fulfilling, analytic relationship; the stage of object constancy; anal-sadistic ambivalence; the triangular phallic-oedipal relationship; the latency extension of ties to peers, teachers, the community, and impersonal ideals; pre- adolescent regressions; adolescent struggle against infantile ties and search for objects outside the family (1982:63).

Early stages of infantile sexuality, not the puberty, are crucial due to the normal or abnormal development of the child as well as for its capacity to love (A. Freud 1994:116-117). But reversed, this statement would imply that puberty, not early stages of infantile sexuality, should be the crucial, measurable variable, revealing deviance. Thus, instead of focusing on uncertain and quantitatively, immeasurable mystical[62], sexual traits from early childhood – deformed by the hypothetical repression/unconsciousness hypothesis – there may be alternative hypotheses better in accordance with measurable deviance. One can, for example, reverse the separation-individuation thesis of M. Mahler, hence narrowing an attachment approach. According to this, deviance and delinquency are negatively correlated to attachment between parent and child. But contrary to this, A. Freud expects the normal child to develop from the biological unity with the mother to a defense against parental influence. A. Freud’s own personal situation is reflected when she states that:

…parents’ feelings for their children arise from the depth of their inner lives and are based on procreation and pregnancy, on the emotional dependence of the child, and on the unquestioned proprietary rights of the parents. None of these feelings, however, have any significance for the professional. I cannot help seeing it as our task to arouse this type of interest (deeper dependency on their side, or deeper bonds from the side of the adult) in all the people who work with children. Not love, for which there is no real basis, but an insatiable curiosity to learn more about the problems of child development seems to me the appropriate bond which ties the professional workers to the child in their care, irrespective of the fact whether work is located in school, in the hospital, in a social agency, or in the child therapist’s office (1982:298-299).

Although Anna Freud emphasized a limited love approach she does not seem to have considered the balance between the subjective, human and the professional[63]. Moreover, an important, but perhaps also misleading, key to A. Freud’s understanding and interpretation of children lies in “the parent’s bedroom”:

I and my co-workers could demonstrate to them how often their playrooms became stages where sexual and aggressive scenes in the parental bedroom were acted out by the children, and that understanding of this nonverbal communication offered a key to the children’s confusions, distresses, anxieties, unruliness, and uncooperativeness, i.e., to behavior problems which remained inexplicable otherwise (1982:309-310).

Although Beyond the Best Interest of The Child served as an influential guide for those who argued for the removal of the child from their parents, she also strongly emphasized, according to L. Appignanesi & J. Forrester, a child’s need for “unbroken continuity of affectionate and stimulating relationships” (1992:304). In fact, her contribution seems to have rested in a worry about children in temporary foster placement. This aspect of A. Freud’s later thinking seems not to be reflected in the preparatory works of the revised LVU.

3.4.3 An un-analyzable, “sticky libido” “disturbed by motherhood”

Psychological symbiosis is a key concept intimately connected to M. Mahler’s work. Consider, says P. Stepansky, its widespread usage: “To the extent that when mental health workers and psychologically astute laymen characterize relationships of extreme dependency as ‘symbiotic relationships’, and speak of the chronic needs of such people for support and reassurance as ‘symbiotic needs’, they operate within a Mahlerian paradigm.” (P. Stepansky 1988:xvii). M. Mahler took her inspiration directly from Anna Freud, in theory as well as in observational techniques, which she extended to the use of film cameras. But who was M. Mahler?

Expectations on a girl’s development to a woman in a rigidly dichotomized gender world were extremely pronounced in A. Freud and M. Mahler’s upbringing. “Growing up for Margaret was not a happy time, she had a very low self-esteem and was jealous of the praises that Suzanne received from their mother.” (L. Woolf 2002). Margaret obviously did not fulfil the gender expectations of her time, and in an extension she seems to have internalised her childhood experiences in her evaluation of motherhood:

Margaret once overheard her mother say to Suzanne “I have brought you into this world, I suckle you, I love you, I adore you, I live only for you, you are my whole life.” Margaret’s heart being shattered, replied, “And I, I was born to my father.” Margaret later believed that the way her mother treated her was the reason she grew such an interest in paediatrics and psychoanalysis (L. Woolf 2002).

A. Freud and M. Mahler had similar relations to their fathers who supported a “tomboyish” profile while they were young and later on pushed them back into the “womanhood” and “femininity” of the 19th Century. The clash between out-dated femininity and modern intellectuality seems to have severely affected M. Mahler:

Margaret's father supported her and watched while Margaret excelled in Math and Science. Margaret felt she needed to make up where she was lacking, and gave up her feminine self-esteem for an intellectual self-esteem. Crying one day to her father because none of the boys noticed her he replied, “You don't need a man, you are man enough for yourself.” After realizing she would not be a successful sculptor, she decided to enrol in Medical school in January of 1917. Margaret’s father was so proud she was successful in gaining admission. Though he encouraged her to stay away from anything too masculine and to study ophthalmology, because it was “dainty” (L. Woolf).

Already in her teens M. Mahler developed a “deep adolescent friendship” with her high school classmate Alice Balint, another famous theorist of the mother-infant relationship. M. Mahler ended up as a paediatrician on a well-baby clinic in Vienna after having finished her medical and psychoanalytic training (M. J. Buhle 1998:246-248). Her early professional career became strongly influenced by sex segregation and a demand to fulfill her femininity, and especially her “motherhood”:

von Pirquet’s appreciation of my research skills did little to mitigate his absolute horror at the prospect of having any woman in a position of authority. Thus, when I later requested a promotion from ”apprentice” {Hilfärztin) to ”assistant” paediatrician, he replied, ”I will never have a woman as an assistant. You are very smart, and I like you very much, but if one is a woman, and especially if one looks like you, one should marry and have children.” The remark about the desirability of a woman who ”looked like me”, marrying instead of pursuing a profession, was repeated on more than one occasion. I recall, as well, von Pirquet’s comment the first day I donned glasses at the clinic. Inspecting me carefully, he remarked: “Do me a favour. Put those glasses in your pocket,” by which he conveyed the clear meaning that he couldn’t stand them on my face! This disparaging estimation notwithstanding, I idealized von Pirquet and regressed to the point of being well nigh ”in love” with him. (M. Mahler 1988:45).

August Aichhorn, M. Mahler’s tutor and most powerful influential on her “formative years”, was “a mysterious man who lived a strange and charmed life with close connections to the underworld[64] of Vienna” (M. Mahler 1988:51-54). He analyzed her when the therapy with Helene Deutsch miserably failed (see below). According to P. Stepansky, A. Aichhorn also had a “personal relationship” with M. Mahler who was in her early twenties back then. These topics were obviously still too difficult to face when M. Mahler, at the age of 87, was preparing her autobiography (1988:xxxiv). But regarding symbiosis A. Aichhorn’s concept “dependency relationship” was especially important for M. Mahler:

Aichhorn used dependency relationship to ”show” that the child had chosen his delinquent life-style on the basis of past frustrations, abuse, or misunderstandings, but that this life-style was not appropriate to current circumstances. “He was a master at drawing the unconscious motivation out of a child’s recital of circumstance and happenstance and then confronting the child with the underlying reason for his delinquency… These counselling strategies ushered in the second stage of treatment in which Aichhorn undertook to make the
child, in his own words, ”as neurotic as he can be made” in order to render him analysable (M. Mahler 1988:51-53).

According to S. Freud the essence of the analytic profession is feminine and the psychoanalyst “a woman in love” (L. Appignanesi & J. Forrester 1992:189). But psychoanalytically formalized sex and sex segregation also seem to have been troublesome components in the lives of female psychoanalysts struggling under a variety of assumed, but irreconcilable femininities and professional expectations. How sex segregation was experienced back then is perhaps best illustrated by Helene Deutsch in Psychology of Women: “She passively awaits fecundation: her life is fully active and rooted in reality only when she becomes a mother. …This speculation, which is based on my own experience, can perhaps be confirmed by a more objective observation: no human being has great a sense of reality as a mother.” According to H. Deutsch “the most miserable feminine type in existence” is a woman who is “disturbed by motherhood” and who “protects herself from the development of feminine qualities” (1944:140-142). H. Deutsch’s emphasise on motherhood has its modern child psychoanalytic counterpart in Daniel N. Stern’s[65] “motherhood constellation” (1995). This stays in sharp contrast with the striking lack of motherhood in pre-historic records (R. Tannahill 1992:36-37).

Because of the above it seems less surprising that M. Mahler’s career within the psychoanalytic movement was initiated by a painful clash with H. Deutsch, who, encouraged by Ferenczi, became her first training analyst. However, after 14 months of constant cancellations H. Deutsch insisted that M. Mahler was “un-analysable” (L. Woolf 2002). According to H. Deutsch, M. Mahler-Schoenberger[66] had a “sticky libido” (M. Mahler 1988:60). Although they apparently did not cope well with each other they also shared some similarities. H. Deutsch’s main “love affair” throughout her life was her father, whereas her mother’s role mainly seems to have been to watch guard Helene’s “femininity” thus causing an early rebellion (L. Appignanesi & J. Forrester 1992:307-328). But unlike M. Mahler and A. Freud, H. Deutsch seems to have emphasized the fulfilment of femininity through real motherhood.

The fact that M.Mahler’s major works are published after her menopause may be considered when evaluating the background of the concept of ”pathological symbiosis” and its connection to her interpretation of “motherhood” and “femininity”. “Margaret loved working with children’s clinical studies on childhood psychosis, it was her passion. She loved the way the children gave her all of their attention and enjoyed working with her as well” (L. Woolf 2002). Her own description is revealing:

Paediatrics, I should perhaps explain, represented a compromise of sorts: it would enable me to be what my father was, while simultaneously accommodating my desire perhaps my outstanding “feminine” trait to work with children. At the time, the desire to become a baby doctor, and thereupon to be a practicing physician like my father coexisted with the equity strong desire to become a psychoanalyst like Ferenczi, the warm father figure I had encountered in the Kovacs household (M. Mahler 1988:23-24).

Like most psychoanalysts, M. Mahler’s theoretical method relays on the use of “normal development” as a reference for the abnormal. In a fast changing world such an approach does not, neither however, necessarily takes enough into account an all time ongoing change in human behaviour nor does it allow for historical flexibility in human societies. Hence the “normal” may in fact rather be interpreted as traces of the past, and as such of limited value in assessing the development of contemporary children. On top of this comes the fact that the scientific basis for M. Mahler’s research seems weak. It is difficult to explain, say M. Mahler et al, how the self-object-representations of the symbiotic phase develop into a self-representation (1984:244). The results follow from a complicated process of conclusions based on rules that are not clearly established. This is especially true for psychoanalytic research (ibid. 272). An additional problem is hinted at when M. Mahler et al, “half-way through the examination”, decided not to include those children (25 percent) who did not fit into the categories created by the team (ibid. 282). A. Freud taught us, say M. Mahler et al, that children’s playing with their mothers from the age of seven months is not the result of altruistic behaviour[67]. We think the purpose is to discriminate the child’s view on its body from that of the object (M. Mahler et al 1984:245). Briefly, says M. Mahler, “one could summarize my hypothesis as follows: whereas in primary autism there is a de-animated frozen wall between the subject and the human object, in symbiotic psychosis, on the other hand, there is fusion, melting, and lack of differentiation between the self and the no self” (1979:5). This view constituted a considerable brake to traditional psychoanalysis and places the parent in the position of being potentially accused for treating the child in a deviant way. M. Mahler describes the theoretical introduction of the parent (mother) in the realm of the child’s “mental apparatus”:

The whole idea of the mother-infant dual unity, for example, originates in their (Ferenczi[68], Herman, Bak, Benedek) theoretical and clinical perspectives. This developmental viewpoint did not gain expression in the German or Viennese psychoanalytic literature of the time. It is not even found in the later work of Anna Freud. At her Hampstead Clinic, the mother-child pairing was surely recognized, but the child was evaluated separately. “Leave the mother in the waiting room; she is tired,” the Hampstead analysts would say. Anna Freud and her collaborators were concerned almost exclusively with the intra-psychic, which they believed to be the only proper domain of psychoanalysis. Indeed, the intra- psychic is the main thing, but as I have undertaken to show over a lifetime of research and writing, the intra-psychic only evolves out of the differentiation from the individually undifferentiated matrix of mother and child. At the Hampstead Clinic during the 1930’s and forties the clinic analysts had to take great pains to differentiate their position from that of both Melanie Klein and D. W. Winnicott. It was Winnicott it will be recalled, who claimed that there is no such thing as a baby without a mother (M. Mahler 1988:16).

M. Mahler’s method in practical use is described in a paper from 1977 concerning the assessment of narcissistic and borderline personalities in the boy Sy. Two main characteristics in the assessment are recognizable: 1) strong structural expectations and b) “biologism” (constitution) as an alternative explanation when negative expectations are not fulfilled. At first Sy is assembled into the theoretical framework:

Sy’s sub phase developmental history was characterized by prolongation up to his twentieth month of the nocturnal “child-lover-at-the-breast” symbiosis. This, without more than a nominal experiencing of the practicing and rapprochement sub phases of separation-individuation, was overlapped by and continued as a bizarrely frank oedipal relation with his mother and later with his father (M. Mahler1979:201).

In the next step, Sy’s mother is accused for causing borderline in her son:

From the time he weaned himself and walked, Sy was treated by the mother as her “man,” with reciprocal behaviour on his part. It is a demonstration in statu nascendi and step by step of what Kernberg (1967) describes as the genetic-dynamic analysis of the borderline personality’s oedipus complex. He says: “What is characteristic of the borderline personality organization… is a specific condensation between pregenital and genital conflicts, and a premature development of oedipal conflicts …” (p. 678 in M. Mahler1979:201-202).

However, because of “lack of space”, all the failures of Sy’s poor ego function cannot be elaborated. One example is given, though:

We could follow, in the second part of Sy’s third as well as in his fourth, fifth, and sixth years, the vicissitudes of the failure of the ego’s function of normal repression. There were many instances of this failure, but for lack of space we cannot elaborate on them. An example might suffice: Sy remembered minute details about the Centre, which the other children had completely repressed. These details were syncretically retained by his ego’s pathological memory function (SPI:11 in M. Mahler 1979:201-202).

There are no hints given, except of this fairly poor one, due to the disastrous powers assumed to reside in Sy. M. Mahler and her research team, however, are deeply concerned: “Sy’s intra-psychic conflicts can be only guessed at, of course, and we would like to get Sy into analysis, but both parents are opposed to it” (M. Mahler1979:201-202). Quite contrary to M. Mahler’s prediction it all seemed to get a happy end – except for the teachers’ un-explained irritation with the family:

Follow-up home and school interviews of Sy in his eleventh year described him as faring much better than we would have predicted. His academic achievement in an honors class in a local public school is excellent and he is fairly popular with his classmates. The teachers, however, could not suppress their irritation with Sy and his family (M. Mahler1979:201-202)..

The explanation to this incomprehensible success M. Mahler finds in Sy’s biological constitution:

We believe that the positive qualities that saved Sy from psychosis were his excellent endowment, for example, the way in which he made up for his slow locomotor development by becoming extremely proficient in gymnastics (his favourite activity was acrobatics) (M. Mahler 1979:201-202).

A similar reference to biological factors, however, is completely absent in the case of “another girl” who, during the last couple of days before she arrived at the Centre, had been unable to pass her stool. According to M. Mahler et al, the 29-month-old girl’s behaviour was extraordinary because she liked to play with water in the children’s playroom, and the most plausible explanation to this was a “compulsion”. When she sat on the toilet the “observer” reported that she looked worried and asked not to let the mother in. The “observer” asked her to tell more about it[69]. Then, we are informed, through the “observer”, that the girl said: “Mother hurts me” (this happened during the most intense “the battered child”-debate). But when the pain increased the girl asked for her mother, who then read a book for her until she was released and happy. According to M. Mahler et al, the stool was passed when the girl saw a picture of a foul and shortly after she had pointed to a picture in the book saying: “Dad has a pig in his belly”. This has to be explained as the result of a poor mother relation. Later the girl did very well at school and her social development was good (1984:99-103). This case is of special interest because of its close resemblance with the private life of M. Mahler herself. As noted above, she suffered from a poor connection to her mother and in 1921 she had severe stomach pains and attacks that horrified her circle of friends. She was diagnosed with Heirshsprung’s disease, a congenital disorder that makes one unable to relax and permit the passage of stool. After medical treatment the problem ended. Considering the psychoanalytic interest in anal problems the connections above may not be surprising.

3.4.4 Main characteristics of pioneering child psychoanalysts

M. Mahler, who was childless[70], intellectually relied on S. Freud and his childless daughter Anna. She made her contributions to child psychoanalysis after her menopause and mainly in the especially sex-segregated period from the 1940´s to the 1960´s[71]. A comparison reveals that the similarities between A. Freud and M. Mahler stay in sharp contrast to the view represented by Melanie Klein, the mother of three and a female child psychoanalyst of the less sex-segregated 1920’s. M. Klein was considered a dissident in the psychoanalytic movement because of her early insertion of the Oedipus complex and her suggestion of a primary femininity phase for both sexes (L. Appignanesi & J. Forrester 1992:451-452). Having in mind that M. Mahler’s “pathological symbiosis” concerns mothers, and that “motherhood” is intimately connected to “femininity”, two opposite views on mother/child relations emerge. Whereas the Kleinian view emphasizes the child’s destructive and even violent tendencies towards the mother, the view of A. Freud/M. Mahler recognizes the mother as the main source of pathology.

M. Klein compared free associations with the play of a child and, like S. Freud himself, analysed her own children (Webster 1995:431-432). But in contrast to the view that small children have a weak and unformed superego, she considered the superego of a young child as monstrous, because of early – even before birth – persecutory experiences and fantasies. The superego, hence, should not be strengthened, as A. Freud advocated, but rather be modified to help its integration (L. Woolf 2002). Thus M. Klein’s mother appears to be a resource rather than a threat. Where M. Mahler is searching for a possible “parasitic parent”, M. Klein sees “good enough mothers”. Whereas M. Mahler emphasizes the victimization of the child who has not been properly released from the mother, M. Klein’s approach includes an inherent “badness” in the child in accordance with S. Freud’s own theories. In M. Mahler’s theory the idyllic Eden in the form of the mother/child-symbiosis has to be broken up for the survival of the child, whereas M. Klein’s children already from the beginning were basically paranoid. And whereas S. Freud introduced the super-ego at the age of five, M. Klein inserts it at the age of five month (M. Klein et al 1995:29-35). M. Klein, contrary to A. Freud and M. Mahler, remembered her childhood as mostly serene and happy. She was tremendously impressed and stimulated by her father's intellectual achievements and he was always ready to answer her many questions. M. Klein had a good relation to her mother. Opposite A. Freud and M. Mahler she did not cope well with S. Ferenczi[72] (H. Segal 2003).

In contrast to M. Klein, but in accordance with M. Mahler, A. Freud traces the threats against the child’s healthy development to its mother. The emerging picture is a sensitive, vulnerable being, incapable of adaptation to certain of its mother’s behaviour. Unexplained symptoms are interpreted as psychological:

So far as they (the earliest disorders) have no purely organic cause, they can be traced to interaction of inborn modes of functioning with the mother’s handling of these given potentialities, i.e., her more or less skilful or insensitive, well- or ill-timed response to the infants needs; or they can be traced to the infants high sensitivity to the mother’s emotional states, her anxieties, her moods, her predilections, and her avoidances. Un-pleasure or distress due to either cause can find discharge only in two manners: either through crying, or by way of physical pathways within the somatic areas mentioned above” (A. Freud 1982:19).

Apart from the fact that the above seems more like a simple and quite obvious qualitative evaluation of different methods of parenting wrapped into the mystique of something[73] “discharged through somatic pathways”, a comparison with the view of M. Klein is striking. M. Klein believed that in the play young children “ceaselessly imagined how they might fellate or castrate their fathers, defile or attack their mother’s breast, or imaging or recalling their parents copulating (R. Webster 1995:431-432). But according to A. Freud: “Where a mother, for whatever reason, is unable to give adequate comfort to her infant, this may have a lasting effect on this individual’s own capacity to cope with even normal amounts of un-pleasure, pain, and anxiety, i.e., on his frustration tolerance.” (1982:21). Furthermore, although kinship and other family ties may be the more important the older the child gets because of a widening and more complex life-sphere and a corresponding need of a closer and more sophisticated attachment A. Freud’s following statement reveals a quite limited picture of “the parental task” seemingly utterly devoid of thoughts on continuity, especially over generations:

With the blood tie wholly ignored at this age, he recognizes as his parents the adults who fulfil the parental task in the psychological sense, i.e., who serve his growth by day-to-day interchange of continuous care, affection, and stimulating involvement. As the law stands today children can be forced away from psychological parents, to whom they are deeply attached and under whose guardianship they prosper, and with continuity broken, be made to adapt to biological parents with whom no ties are in existence. It is alleged by some people that return to the biological family is truly in the “best interest” of the child, who thereby will be spared an identity crisis in adolescence. The truth is that in adolescence most children undergo what may be called a crisis of identity when they have the difficult task to grow beyond the parents of their childhood… (A. Freud 1982:302-305).

In conclusion the above reveals a pronounced hostility between childless female child psychoanalysts and female psychoanalyst who had children of their own (A. Freud vs. M. Klein and M. Mahler vs. H. Deutsch). Main characteristics of female child psychoanalysts, as reported above, dichotomised for and against the parent (mother):

From Peter Klevius comparison of early female child psychoanalysts (in Pathological Symbiosis, 2004:46).

Alice Miller´s psychoanalytic genosuicide

The secular trend against religion in its most primordial sense (religare = tie back, ancestor worship) is perhaps best exemplified through the writings of Alice Miller. Although the notion of "the child itself" seems philosophically unintelligible, it reveals the myths and inconsistencies of what is believed to be the modern individual. Alice Miller's inner desperate longing for parenthood lost in modernity.

Lack of deep (not superficial) and lasting attachment (family, kin and friendship ties) is, together with cultural/political segregation (sex, race, etnicity etc), the social cancer of today. In this respect A. Miller's family hatred/jealousy constitutes a weapon directed against the very core of human society, i.e. it's the most lethal and massive form of genosuicide and the basis for the new human being Homo Filius Nullius!

In psychoanalysis a person tells a story she did not know about and the psychoanalyst is a person who lets her be "such as she is right now" says Alice Miller (1980:74), one of the most ardent, psychoanalytic proponents for connecting personal difficulties at adult age, on parental deviance. "My patients", she continues, lack a "genuine emotional understanding" for the course of their own childhood, and they express "complete unsuspecting" for "the real needs of their own". Miller refers to the works of M. Mahler, D. Winnicott and H. Kohut (A. Miller 1980:12-13).

Little is available from general resources as to Alice Miller's personal circumstances and she is known for not revealing her private life. But she writes: "I was a stranger to everybody in my family. Today, I know for sure that I was unwanted, rejected from the conception on, never loved, emotionally completely neglected, and used for the needs of others. But above all I was lied to, I grew up with a perfect hypocrisy. My parents, both absolutely unconscious of their true feelings, pretended to love me very much, and I believed this (because I so much needed this illusion) for more than 40 years of my life until I started to suspect the truth hidden behind their pretensions, hidden probably to them too. Suspecting is not yet as much as knowing for sure but it was the start. It took me 20 years more to get rid of my denial because I was so alone with the knowledge of my body and my dreams, and a wall of denial surrounded me wherever I opened my mouth. Writing and painting were the only ways to continue with my search without being offended and "punished" for being the troublemaker"[1] (Miller 2001).

According to Alice Miller, "any person who abuses his children has himself been severely traumatized in his childhood in some form or another. This statement applies without exception since it is absolutely impossible for someone who has grown up in an environment of honesty, respect, and affection ever to feel driven to torment a weaker person in such a way as to inflict lifelong damage. He has learned very early on that it is right and proper to provide the small, helpless creature with protection and guidance; this knowledge, stored at that early age in his mind and body, will remain effective for the rest of his life" (A. Miller 1990:190).

Parenting seems an almost impossible task when looked upon through the writings of Alice Miller. Furthermore she does

not serve us with more precise advices about the alternatives. Only generalized expressions, such as "seeing the child", are given. Instead Alice Miller asks herself if we ever are going to conceive the extent of the loneliness and abandonment that we have been exposed to as a child. The "very huge number" of people suffering from narcissistic disorders "very often" have had "discerning", "ambitious" and "supporting" parents. Often they have received praise for their talents and achievements. According to Miller, almost all of the individuals attending her for analysis have become dry already during their first year (sic). They tell her that their parents have been empathetic and they have no compassion for the child they were themselves (A. Miller 1980:12-13).

According to Miller there is an "original narcissistic need" in the child to be "as it is". "As it is" has to be understood as M. Mahler's[2] notion that the infant's inner sensations constitute the core of the self. These sensations "seem" to remain the point of crystallization on which the sense of identity is built (1980:14). But, says Miller, if the patient through the analysis, "consciously" has experienced? how he has been "manipulated" in his childhood by his parents and which "wishes for retribution" this has created in him, then he is going to be less manipulative himself (ibid).

This is, concludes Alice Miller, based on my own experiences (A. Miller 1980:103). She gives an example of how remaining "Oedipal pain" can be delegated to the child through parenting. One day she walked behind a young and "tall of stature" (sic) parental couple and their whining two-year-old son. Alice Miller, contrary to the parents, understood that the boy wanted an ice cream stick of his own instead of licking the tip of those of his parents. Why, asks Miller, did not the parents understand the boy and why did not they give half of their ice cream to him? It could only be explained if we look upon the parents as children who now have got a weaker individual on whom they can feel powerful (1980:63-65).

However, an alternative view, as out-lined above, could interpret this as "psychic energy" of Sigmund Freud, that talks through a disappointed adult in search for a suitable explanation that could help her clarify her own life.

But the final question remains: Why do so many assign Miller with such an important role and how do we get back on the old tracks again without fundamentalist degeneracy?

[1] Alice Miller was obviously not a child when she discovered the ?child? in herself. But the question is whether that child would have recognized itself? If not, unrecognizable parts would then belong entirely and only to the already grown up Alice Miller!

[2] In M. Mahler 1972:17.

by Peter Klevius 2003

Shortly after Alice Miller's death her son Martin Miller stated that he had been beaten by his authoritarian father during his childhood - in the presence of his mother. Miller first tried to defend herself by saying she intervened, but later admitted that she did not intervene.

How US robs the world

How US stole the world-dollar 1971

US/UK choose war and genocide instead of ceasefire

US smearing and censoring China

Peter Klevius and Robert Sapolsky lack "free will"

$-freeloader (since 1971-) US supports Israel - no matter what!

China's progress reveals the tech loser and $-freeloader (since 1971-) US' "democratic" nakedness!

Google censors Human Rights!

Necrophilis vs Human Rights

$-freeloader U.S. is the worst threat to the world!

US should be the "enemy" rather than modern China

China's SO BAD - sats $-freeloader US, while OIC praise China for its treatment of Uyghurs

How come that this US patriot shares Peter Klevius view on US?

How $-freeloader US has robbed the world since 1971

US' and its puppets' Sinophobia campaign rooted in UK's appalling opium wars against Chinese people

Pentagon, islam - and China?!

Demand for Resources

Is this MP a clown?

The Saudi-US-UK axis of evil

One Atheism and three "monotheisms"

Muslims attacking in the footsteps of Jews

BBC's evil meddling

While US/UK aim for militarism and war, China aims for health and wealth.

US puppet empire UK

A muslim wants to criminalize Peter Klevius islamophobia. Really!

Why is BBC aiding islamofascism?

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

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

Existence-centrism (Peter Klevius 1986)

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

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

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

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

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

UK is drowning in sharia islamofascism while BBC is silent

Klevius "islamophobic" heroine Nawal El Saadawi from Egypt

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

Politicians against people

Is UK turning into a militaristic unconstitutional islamofascist rogue state?

Klevius CV

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

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.

Theresa May robs EU citizens of their Human Rights

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

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

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

Tuesday, June 20, 2023

Alternative to feminism - and chauvinism

All feminism is reactionary and actually variants of essentialist feminism because the basic idea is always based on perceived difference due to biological sex.

Heterosexual attraction and Human Rights

Peter Klevius, the world's foremost expert on sex segregation (sad, isn't it) to Linda Bengtzing and other sex-confused women:

Sunday, September 20, 2020

Peter Klevius*, the world's foremost expert on sex segregation (sad isn't it), obituary over a Jewish female patriarch.

US Supreme Court needs to replace at least half* of its 100% religious members with Atheists so to democratically represent the people

* Even most Jews are Atheists, although orthodox Jew Ruth Bader Ginsburg was certainly not..

Does the Human Right to 'freedom of religion' really mean freedom to violate Human Rights as e.g. islamic sharia (OIC) does?!

Thursday, March 14, 2013

Klevius sex and gender tutorial

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

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

The Plan of God

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

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

Klevius: Let's not!

Klevius Sex and Gender Tutorial

What is 'gender' anyway?

What's a Woman?

The Tomboy - a threat to "femininity"

Femininity and feminism

Sunday, January 1, 2017

Peter Klevius psychosocial Freud timeline

In Atheist* Peter Klevius series notorious "Atheist" idiots** (or just deliberate scumbags) from the past still having their sexist shadow hanging over us.

Peter Klevius psychosocial Freud timeline

The hysteric birth of psychoanalysis