Calling critics of islam "islamophobes" is pure racism and also supports islamic racism and sexism

Calling critics of islam "islamophobes" is pure racism and also supports islamic racism and sexism

Calling criticism of islam "islamophobia" is pure racism and also supports islamic racism and sexism

Klevius supports no border on Ireland. Follow the will of the people, i.e. let England leave and let Scotland and Northern Ireland stay. UK is an unconstitutional mess which now wants to leave EU without controlling its border to EU. A proper constitution would have demanded qualified majority in two consecutive elections/votes about such a crucial matter as Brexit - and being aware what the vote is about. The root of the problem is England's mad man Henry 8's colonialization of Ireland and lack of constitution. The preposterous "British" Brexit parody is then spiced with the government's and BBC's use of religious hate mongering etc. In summary UK is an anomaly of countries trying to be a state in a world of federal states united as countries.

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).

Is UK turning into a militaristic unconstitutional islamofascist rogue state?

Is UK turning into a militaristic unconstitutional islamofascist rogue state?

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

British militarist neo-colonialism and conflict mongering

British militarist neo-colonialism and conflict mongering

UK sells weapons to Saudis - and smears peaceful China who can do better weapons themselves.

UK sells weapons to Saudis - and smears peaceful China who can do better weapons themselves.

Why is Theresa May excused for her secret ties with Saudi islamofascism?!

Why is Theresa May excused for her secret ties with Saudi islamofascism?!

Euronews/BBC kept for long a low profile about Saudi state terror. Why?

Euronews/BBC kept for long a low profile about Saudi state terror. Why?

A "close ally" of the islamofascist Saudi dictator family mixes OIC sharia with Human Rights

A "close ally" of the islamofascist Saudi dictator family mixes OIC sharia with Human Rights

Negative Human Rights for a Positive Human Future

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.

Definition of Negative Human Rights - i.e. the very foundation of the freedom part of the anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948.

Most people today are A(mono)theists, i.e. not "believing" in an impossible "one god"*. Such a "collective god" would mean equally many personal "gods" as there are believers/interpretors. "Monotheisms" are for racist/sexist movements - not for individuals. Human Rights are for individuals living among individuals with same rights.

Religion always means a total or partial reduction of some people's (e.g. women''s) Human Rights equality.

Being against A(mono)theism must be categorized as contempt of basic Human Rights equality because "monotheists" have doctrines which can't comply with basic Human Rights equality.
Klevius moral formula is a bedrock you can't beat:

1 There's no absolute and fixed moral in a dynamic society.

2 Therefor we have to repeatedly agree on a minimum moral and equality for all.

3 In doing so we are logically forced to approve of negative Human Rights, i.e. not to impose restrictions other than necessary in a democracy based on as much freedom as possible for all individuals - no matter of sex, race etc. And, for the truly dumb ones, do note that this definition excludes the freedom to restrict freedom.

* Though some people keep calling their own racist/sexist "interpretation" as "god's/allah's will").

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

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

UK PM escapes muslim terror induced by her "close ally", the islamofascist Saudi dictator family.


Saudi terror, war crimes, sharia - and "islamophobia" smear campaign against Human Rights.

Rule Britisharia Human Rightsphobia

Racist UK Government and BBC

Racist UK Government and BBC

UK's sharia ties to Saudi islamofascism threaten EU (and UK) security

UK's sharia ties to Saudi islamofascism threaten EU (and UK) security

Warning for BBC's faked "news" and support for Human Rights violating Saudi/OIC islamofascism

Warning for BBC's faked "news" and support for Human Rights violating Saudi/OIC islamofascism

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

Sharia and weaponry keeps Brexit-UK in EU - with leaking borders and against the will of the people

Sharia and weaponry keeps Brexit-UK in EU - with leaking borders and against the will of the people

While EU closes internal borders it opens external ones.

While EU closes internal borders it opens external ones.

"Brits" who are racist against EU citizens but dare not criticize muslims - here's your passport.

"Brits" who are racist against EU citizens but dare not criticize muslims - here's your passport.

Welcoming UK's main security threat - and committing treason against the will of the people

Welcoming UK's main security threat - and committing treason against the will of the people

BBC (imp)lies that 84% of the world is "monotheist" although most people are A(mono)theists

BBC (imp)lies that 84% of the world is "monotheist" although most people are A(mono)theists

The ultimate treason against people in England, Ireland and Scotland

The ultimate treason against people in England, Ireland and Scotland

True Brits for the islamofascist Saudi dictator family and against Human Rights

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

The network that reignited evil Human Rightsphobic sharia islam via al-Saud

Human Rightsphobe Jacob Rees-Mogg and BBC News crack jokes about Germans lacking humour

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

Klevius "islamophobia" CV

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

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

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

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

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


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

Klevius 1979: Human Rights for girls/women rather than religion

Klevius 1979: Human Rights for girls/women rather than religion

Klevius can no longer distinguish between the techniques of BBC and Nazi propaganda - can you!

By squeezing in Atheist ideologies/philosophies as well as polytheisms under the super set BBC calls "religion", and by narrowing 'Atheism' to what it's not (Atheism is what it says on the tin - no god) they produced the extremely faked proposition that 84% of the world's population is "religious". Moreover, BBC also proudly claimed that the 84% figure is rising even more. Well, that's only by relying on those poor women in Pakistan, Bangladesh, English muslim ghettos (where most so called "British" women don't even speak English) etc., who still produce many more children than the average in the world. But Klevius doesn't think this abuse of girls/women is anything to cheer.

Racist Theresa May is robbing EU citizens of their Human Rights

Is Mrs Theresa May digging a miserable "British" sharia "empire" under the Brexit cliff?

Mrs May plays sharia with the islamofascist Saudi dictator family - skipping Human Rights. Right

This (via Saudi sharia finance) is the main threat to your Human Rights

This (via Saudi sharia finance) is the main threat to your Human Rights

BBC, the world's biggest fake/selective news site - with an evil agenda

BBC, the world's biggest fake/selective news site  - with an evil agenda

BBC's compulsory fee funded propaganda for Saudi sharia islam

Support Klevius' Atheist anti-fascism against islamofascism

This is what BBC's muslim sharia presenter Mishal Husain "forgot" to report. Mishal grew up in the very same theocratic medieval dictatorship which now harbors and rules all muslims world organization OIC and its Human Rights violating sharia. While also spreading islamic hatred over the world through a variety of channels.

Klevius to dumb (or just evil) alt-left "antifa" people who support the worst of Human Rights violating evil:

True anti-fascism in its purest form is laid down in the Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948. Islam (OIC) has in UN decided to abandon the most basic of these rights (the so called negative Human Rights).

Fascism is, according to Google's top hit, "a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation*, and forcible suppression of opposition." 23 Aug 2017

So let's face islam with this definition.

A political philosophy, movement, or regime (islam) that exalts nation (Umma) and often race (muslims) above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government (Koran text/Mohammad's example) headed by a dictatorial leader (the caliph - e.g. the Saudi based OIC's Saudi leader), severe economic and social regimentation* (sharia), and forcible suppression of opposition (apostasy ban against muslims wanting to leave islam, and demonizing defenders of Human Rights by calling them "islamophobes").

And islamofascism gets away with it by calling itself a religion and thereby being protected by those very Human Rights it opposes.

* According to Cambridge dictionary, "extreme organization and control of people".

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

Is the islamofascist Saudi dictator "prince" Mohammad bin Salman the world's most dangerous man?

Is the islamofascist Saudi dictator "prince" Mohammad bin Salman the world's most dangerous man?
Is the islamofascist Saudi dictator "prince" Mohammad bin Salman the world's most dangerous man?

Saudi islamofascism attacks Buddhists - again and again - backed by Mrs May.

When will the world finally turn on the hateful Saudi dictator family - rather than on its victims?

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses while FEEding Lnd

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses while FEEding Lnd
The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses over you

How an organization of islamic crimes (OIC) violates Human Rights

The Viking phenomenon started with bilingual Finns raiding/trading sex slaves to Abbasid (ca 750)

What is "islamophobia"?

Human Rights is diversity - sharia is the opposite

The evil of Sharia islam is what makes it incompatible with Negative Human Rights (i.e. why islamic OIC violates Human Rights by replacing them with Sharia, hence excluding women and non-muslims from equality). The evil of islam and its origin may be easier to grasp with historical examples, e.g. the Origin of Vikings.

It's racism and sexism even if proposed by a "god"! Klevius altruistic virtual volunteering for the world community in defense of Universal Human Rights . Yes, I know, it's unfair. Klevius vs islam, i.e. Universal Human Rights vs Sharia (OIC) racism/sexism! Of course Klevius will win. The question is just how long we should allow the dying beast to make people suffer. (Negative) Human Rights is not a ”Western” invention! It’s where you end up when you abandon racism and sexism, idiot! After you have abandoned islam! Your confused islamophilia and ignorance about Human Rights make YOU an accomplice to islam's crimes! Whereas Human Rights work as egalitarian and universal traffic rules (no matter who you are or what you drive you have the same rights as everyone else) islam/Sharia differs between muslim men and the rest (women and "infidels")!

Ask yourself, why can't racist islam (OIC) accept Human Rights? The answer reveals the difference between totalitarianism and freedom. And even if everyone converted to islam we'd still have Sharia sexism.
Have you noticed that when the history of slavery is (PC) debated islam is always excluded/excused? Atlantic slave trade and Roman slaves are eagerly mentioned while the world's by far worst, longest and most extensive one is blinked, as is the fact that islam not only sanctions slavery but is itself built on slavery and sex slavery (rapetivism)! The core idea of islam is the most thoroughly elaborated parasitism ever, i.e. what in 1400 yrs has made it the by far worst crime ever. But thanks to islamic teachings muslims are kept extremely ignorant about the evil origin of islam (institutionalized parasitism based on slave finance, rapetivism and pillage). Ohlig: The first two "islamic" centuries lie in the shadows of history. Klevius: There was no islam or islamic Mohammad (that's why the Saudis have levelled Mohammad's "grave" etc), only the evil murdering, pillaging and raping Aramaic-Arabic Jewish("Christian") led illiterate Arab thugs chasing for booty and sex. The "success" of this formula became later institutionalized and codified as a one way (Koran/Sharia) moral excuse (Allah) for further racist/sexist genocides. The bedrock and currency of this system was racist slavery. However, with Enlightenment the new idea of individual (negative) Human Rights emerged (incl. abolishing of slavery) and were, much later (1948), written down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights according to which everyone is equal no matter of sex, beliefs etc. Just like in traffic! But unlike traffic rules no one really seems to care about guarding our most precious asset as human beings. Instead racist sexist islamofascism (OIC and the Cairo Sharia declaration) is protected by Human Rights while they strive to undermine and eventually destroy these Human Rights! And most people don't seem to get it. Always remember, there is no islam without Human Rights violating racist/sexist Sharia. So a "vote" for Sharia-islam is AGAINST democracy and the freedom part of Human Rights!

Sayeeda Warsi (UK's non-elected OIC/Sharia politician) in essence doesn't differ from those muslim Saudi women who approve of sex slavery etc, other than that she is either ignorant or a traitor (against democracy and Human Rights) of the worst kind.

We're all born unequal - that's why we need Human Rights, not islam!

Audi then built by Jewish slaves - today dangerous quality problems

Myth vs Truth

Tuesday, November 13, 2018

Peter Klevius congratulates Nilla Fischer for winning the 2018 Diamond Ball award in Sweden

Football (no dude, not American handball) is the Queen of all sports.

No, dear reader, this image isn't here to emphasize something so stupid as "sexual identity". What is it? Klevius doesn't have a clue about his "sexual identity" and certainly doesn't miss it. And why even care about it? According to the anti-sexist, anti-racist and anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948 sex shouldn't matter. And isn't it stupid to connect football with private life etc.? The only reason Klevius assembled this image was to emphasize that because football is the trickiest and most multifaceted sport there is, women's participation has been more questioned than in most other sports. 100 years ago in Sweden when women in Gothenburg wanted to start playing football they were "advised" to play handball instead. This aversion against female football has led to much prejudice bolstered by cultural sex segregation. For Klevius the image represents that deep love for football (or seduction as Klevius prefers it) doesn't exclude deep love for other humans. But perhaps most importantly, in Klevius research and interviews in depth it has become extremely clear that football provides precisely that liminal non-sex segregated space that is lacking elsewhere. And although Klevius might be described as extremely heterosexual, when watching females playing football it's precisely the de-sexed character of the sport that is most rewarding. In football women become humans.

Human Rights rather than sex segregated religion - drawing from 1979 by Peter Klevius.

Klevius also wants to remind you dear reader about these facts:

1 Women's football was (in practice) forbidden in 1921 in England by English FA because a female physician from Harley Street, London, witnessed as an expert that football wasn't appropriate for girls/women. This, btw, was the reason why Klevius bothered himself to write a PhD thesis about women's football history in England and Sweden. There's a deep connection - and you can read about it soon when it's out in book format.

2 In Sweden socialist women (Grupp 8) vehemently opposed female football in the 1960s and 70s.



Klevius wrote:

Monday, July 17, 2017

Women's Euro cup 2017 has started - but BBC's women ignore it and rather talk cricket(because cricket is Commonwealth - backwardness?!)


Football is the king/queen of all sports, and therefore officially banned for women in England 1921-1971 - and in practice unofficially still today.

Perpetua (died as a martyr 203 A.D.): "And I was stripped and became a man".

The focused women on these pics are - at least momentarily - freed from sex segregation, albeit not from a deep rooted sexism that renders their beautiful performance less worthy than that of men. However, Klevius can't stop watching these heroines, nor does he have any problem "comparing" them with Messi & Co. And Klevius still thinks Flo-Jo is (R.I.P. Flo) the best sprinter ever - no matter of sex.

Multitasking without hands.

How many girls in England are even aware of Euro Cup 2017? It has certainly not been given any space so far between BBC's huge amount of boring cricket, rugby, tennis, etc.

Russia's win today will probably not be celebrated by BBC.

Relying on the "expert" suggestion by a female physician from London's Harley street, FA in 1921 decided to ban women from playing football.

The ban was finally officially lifted in 1971. However, everything unofficially possible has been made since to divert girls/women from football to other sports. Why?

The answer has much to do with the simple fact that football (no dude, not American handball) is the most challenging of all sports. So how come? Well, just consider the fact that no other sport both lack any tools but also not even arms and hands are allowed to touch the ball while in play. This divine setup has therefore been seen among many as the most "masculine" of sports - not the least by many not football playing women.

Klevius old but revealing PhD thesis on the subject will soon be available in fresh book format. It shows how Sweden and England interacted in a way that was detrimental for early female football, yet in very different ways.

Klevius wrote:

Wednesday, June 24, 2015


Klevius reports from Womens World Cup 2015 about heroic Japanese women and disgusting BBC


Japan has now won all their matches, only let in two goals, and has lifted up the technical level of womens football to never before seen heights. And England's women passed the knockout stage for the forst time ever. Yet BBC keeps silent and boosts cricket for girls instead.



Yes, in the previous posting Klevius asked for the blondest team to win in the face of black haters, but Klevius also said that he from the bottom of his heart wants the Japanese women to win because they are by far the best football players. And this is even more remarkable keeping in mind that football in Japan is a minority sport in the shadow of the American WW2 influences from baseball and American handball (aka American "football").

Mizuho Sakaguchi curled in a beautiful goal from outside the penalty area against Netherlands after an equally beautiful foreplay that was on level with Barcelona's male team.

Japan has tested three goalkeepers in this world cup and the only two goals scored against Japan so far has been when Ayumi Kaihori guarded the cage. She did so first in a 2-1 victory over Cameroon, and then again Tuesday when Kirsten van de Ven drove home a ball in added time.

Kaihori, was playing in place of injured Erina Yamane (dislocated shoulder).

 Unfortunately the Japanese women use to have the referees against them which fact encourages other team to add even more violence to what they already see as their only chance against technically superior Japanese women.

A disgrace for the beautiful game.


Klevius wrote:

Saturday, July 09, 2011


Japan women beat Germany in the world's hardest* sport

* The combination of no hands allowed, extreme individual freedom, 1.5-2 hours play on a 100 m long and 50 m wide pitch. This is also why the rest of the world can't stop laughing when Americans call their rugby "football"! Moreover, there's no difference in rules and gears (except for sport bras of course) whatsoever between women and men (although islam wants to change that of course). You can be a good football player no matter of your size or constitution. The world's best male player, Lionel Messi, is 170 cm (no 2 Christiano Ronaldo is 186 cm)  and the world's best female player, Marta da Silva, is 163 cm (no 2 Birgit Prinz is 179 cm)!

Karima Maruyama's World Cup goal was a real classic when it comes to football technique. Running at high speed towards the side of the goal and then, at the right microsecond,directing a kick just outside the opposite goalpost makes the forward inertia in the ball curving it enough to be out of reach for the goalkeeper while still making its way to the inside of the post.

Klevius question: Is this the real reason why football is by far the most controversial of sports when it comes to female participation? Check out: Did feminists kill the World's best female football team in 1921?


Sexist BBC

While some of the most exciting matches are played in Women's World Cup BBC decides to neglect it all together and instead offers EIGHT HOURS OF F1 RACING added by some golf etc!!! No wonder British girls/women in general don't have a clue about football and are among the most sex segregated in the world. This is then reflected in British men's due attitude towards women. According to many of my Finnish and Swedish female friends who have experienced Britain British men are the most sexist they have ever encountered in the West!

Of all sports a girl can use (many girls don't use any sport at all) to sculpture her future physicsfootball is by far the best.


An other moment of disgrace was when Mishal Husain's BBC news neglected the Japanese women completely and gave England's womens football team less than five seconds of air time (compare to some five minutes of womens cricket) when they won their knockout match to reach the quarter finals for the first time ever!


Mishal Husain's BBC news didn't mention Japan's victory at all but instead talked a long time about cricket as usual. Why? Simply because cricket is part of their muslim propaganda (compare e.g. cricket frenzy Pakistan, one of Michal Husain's muslim home countries.




.

Monday, November 12, 2018

Klevius sex tutorial and suggestion for DSM-6 (no pun intended).


What is the difference between a "Tomboy" and gender dysphoria? Klevius answer: Sex segregation.


Human Rights rather than religion (Klevius drawing from 1979 - used in many exhibitions back then).
Klevius vocabulary for those poor souls who haven't followed his previous tutorials (shame on you):
Sex is biology (male, female or in rare, and for this analysis irrelevant, instances hermaphrodites).

Gender is ever-changing extremely varied cultural expectations, norms or even laws (e.g. sharia) based on biological sex.

Sex segregation doesn't mean having women and men competing in different groups in sports because of biological differences (no more than e.g. weight groups). What it means is a biologically unfounded cultural prejudice based on biological sex.

Heterosexual attraction is the only relevant way of distinguishing between women and men. Why? Because every other distinction is cultural - and giving birth to a child has nothing to do with men. However, heterosexual attraction only affects some women (usually younger ones) and only monumentarily. Moreover, because heterosexual attraction only exists in males (as a built in address for sperm delivery) but directs towards, and affecting, females, it can't define some imagined "totality" of femininity/masculinity. And perhaps most importantly, unlike what Tertullian thought some 1,800 years ago, the Western world has actually proved (as had so called "primitive" societies long before - see Klevius 1992) that women showing their bodies in public isn't "a sport of nature" (see Klevius PhD thesis - extracts available on this blog, see e.g. below). Men can actually live with it without becoming rapists or necrophiliacs (a term Klevius has introduced to describe male sexing - e.g. up-skirting - of women who aren't even aware of it or interested in being the target of "the male gaze").

Dear reader. Klevius, the world's foremost expert (sad isn't it) on sex segregation, challenges you to find any logically inevitable relational sex difference between men and women, except heterosexual attraction. Monotheist religions are founded on it but have used its reproductive consequences for cultural self reproduction. This in turn explains why all monotheisms in general and islam in particular have problems with the anti-fascist, anti-racist and ant-sexist 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration which gives equal rights to all - without exceptions for sex.


Two female "Tomboys" are given different diagnosis although nothing is wrong with any of them. Why? Because of desperate sex segregation (see e.g. Klevius Warning for Feminism 1998).







A (female sex) is a "Tomboy". Boys and girls like her. She also enjoys her heterosexual attraction (i.e. biological femininity) but on her own terms.

B (female sex) is also a "Tomboy" but is bullied by boys and girls and calls herself Rick and feels bothered by heterosexual attraction. DSM-5 diagnoses her with "gender dysphoria".

The reason B called herself Rick was the surrounding cultural sex segregation. If A should have been equally treated she might also had wanted to call herself Rick.

In Warning for Feminism (1998) Klevius pointed to the fact that the desperate effort to sex segregate has been proportional to de fact de sex segregation in practical life. And the main tool for this has been to enclose girls/women in cultural "femininity".

When Klevius daughter played football in San Francisco she was the only one with short hair. And when Klevius commented on it for the other parents they just looked confused and embarrassed when checking the sea of long pony tales waving in front of them. Klevius got the impression that they hadn't even thought about it before.


Klevius wrote:

Sunday, March 8, 2015

Klevius' sex tutorial on Women's Day


British siekh leader Lord* Indarjit Singh: Cigarettes are to cancer as muslims are to sexual grooming/abuse. However, he also cowardly added that 'it's not islam'!

 * i.e. elected by a politician for the purpose of supporting a certain political ideology or cause. Such "life peers" are entitled to sit in the House of Lords for the duration of their lives, but their titles are not hereditable by their heirs.

Sikh and Hindu organisations have signed an open letter claiming that sex-grooming gangs "predominantly originate from a Pakistani muslim community, while their victims are almost always of a White, Hindu or Sikh background".

Klevius comment: How could it possibly 'not be islam'? Islam seems to be defined as 'without negative consequences' although islam itself eagerly points out such negative consequences of the "disbelievers" infidels" or "wrong believers" and proudly tells us that we all should be muslims and if we don't we are just crap - i.e. we are no longer "innocent" and therefore the legitimate target for whoever lunatic muslims. This is what your imam means when he says (usually via BBC to make it sound more serious) that 'islam forbids attacks on innocent people'.

Islam is all about sex apartheid (sexism) and "hatred against "infidels" (racism). In fact, Klevius blog Origin if islam - the worst crime ever against humanity, started as a blog against sex segregation and racism.

Klevius has been loaded with at least the average (probably more) tesosterone since his early teens (i.e. 10-30 times more than most women). Klevius has also had the opportunity to befriend a lot of representatives of the opposite sex. Not a single one can report abuse or failure. However, Klevius has never seduced anyone - precisely because he has always considered himself prepared for sex whenever while simultaneously never been in need for sex and therefore left the initiative to the one with a lower libido! Moreover, Klevius has never had sex without heterosexual attraction as the motivation - which fact in no way should be seen as criticism of other forms of sexuality. Likewise Klevius has often sneezed in the kitchen because of white pepper but never deliberately thrown white pepper around just because of the pleasure of sneezing.

The power and curse of biological female heterosexual attraction - leading to stupid cultural "femininity" and due sex segregation/apartheid


Teenage girls (and many women as well) realize the power of their asses but mis-connects it as part of their personhood. And often with disastrous consequences when males act without respecting basic Human Rights, i.e. seeing the individual that's connected to the ass.


Is RFSU suffering from sexual correctness or what's going on here? The pic below is from RFSU's campaign "Don't put it in".


Is this man a victim of MGM (male genital mutilation) or is he just religiously mutilated - or both?!

RFSU: 'Don't put it in!'

The video from which the first pic is taken has been a success in Thailand and - Saudi Arabia!


RFSU's picture (top) modified by Klevius (bottom)


The Swedish Association for Sexuality Education (RFSU, Riksförbundet för sexuell upplysning) is a Swedish nonprofit organization that works with public opinion formation on sexual and reproductive health and rights as well as information and education about sexuality and relationships. One of RFSU's main issues is the right to free abortion. The current Secretary-General is Åsa Regnér.

RFSU was founded February 24, 1933 by, among others, Elise Ottesen-Jensen, Gunnar Inghe and Hanna Lundin. Ottesen-Jensen was chairman from its inception until 1959, and has come to be strongly associated with the organization, whose journal, Ottar, was named after her.

RFSU works with information, education and advocacy by organizing courses, conferences and debates. Moreover the RFSU carries an extensive international work with similar organizations in other countries. RFSU is the Swedish national affiliate of the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

RFSU's booklet “Sex: your own way” for teens is about sexual feelings and what you can do when caressing, making out, masturbating or having intercourse with someone.

It is aimed at everyone, whether you have sex on your own, with someone else, or don’t want to have sex at all. We’re also writing for those who would like to have sex with someone, but haven’t done it yet.

RFSU believes that sex isn’t just something you do or feel. It’s also about knowledge. It’s good to have facts and tips, so you can make your own decisions – now and later in life. Everyone has the right to make their own decisions about their body and their sexuality.

Openness is a key factor for prevention and sexual health. Everyone should have the freedom to choose, to be oneself and to enjoy.


Klevius additional clarification


For analytical purpose one needs to distinguish between heterosexual attraction (residing only in the "male gaze") and physical sexual acts (incl. intercourse, masturbation etc).  Most people are able to feel sexual pleasure just as Klevius feels pleasure by inhaling a little white pepper enough to make him sneeze.

However, although men have a stronger overall sex drive (plus the heterosexual attraction* feature programmed in their brain) than women, the latter may feel a strong urge sexual around the time of ovulation.

* Do keep in mind that 'heterosexual attraction' is here biological, not cultural! Rapetivism, nymphomania etc are cultural.

The relaxation of the smooth muscle in the vagina and clitoris and the increase of blood flow into these organs is thought to be essential in the female sexual response. However, unlike Klevius (and most other men) who is always ready for hetero sex (but never in need for it) women are most receptive for sex only a couple of days per month. And how else could heterosexual reproduction function if not based on heterosexual attraction implanted in males as a code for seeing females as sexually attractive? The pistil is receptive for pollen but to get them she has to attract them, e.g. via honey bees etc. And many male fishes get aroused not by the female fish but by the eggs on which they spray their sperm without a penis. 

However, due to the fact that religion has made sex so culturally weird, we now have a situation where heterosexual attraction is used by both men and women as an excuse for sex segregation/apartheid.

To really see the confusion surrounding heterosexual attraction do consider the following:


Wikipedia: The term heterosexual or heterosexuality is usually applied to humans, but heterosexual behavior is observed in all mammals and in other non-human animals.

Klevius: Would you believe it! 'Observed in all mammals and in other non-human animals'! Since we left the germ state of being, heterosexual attraction has been the rule of sexuality. It's the very definition of sexual reproduction, dude! And even in creatures with both sexes within the same individual there has to be heterosexual attraction to get the sperm to the egg.

Wikipedia: Heterosexuality is romantic attraction (Klevius: impossible), sexual attraction or sexual behavior between persons of opposite sex or gender (sic).

Klevius:  Thus single sentence is packed with stupidities. Heterosexuality can never be romantic attraction because it's purely physical. 'Hetero' means different biological sex. And what would cultural 'gender' have to do with biology!

Wikipedia's senseless babble continues: As a sexual orientation (sic), heterosexuality is "an enduring pattern of emotional (sic), romantic (sic), and/or sexual attractions" to persons of the opposite sex; it "also refers to a person's sense of identity (Klevius: How could physiology suddenly become cultural?!) based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community (sic) of others who share those attractions."

Klevius: Unbelievable conflation of poorly understood (or poorly conceptualized) concepts. Heterosexual' can not be anything else than based on biology, i.e. sex - no matter what you or someone else thinks about it. And yes, you can well be attracted to someone of the opposite sex without it being heterosexual! And the other way round, a man can get heterosexually attracted to someone of the same sex who mimics the opposite sex. What determines heterosexuality is what the man thinks it is. To understand this you may compare a cyber sex robot whom you can't distinguish from a living person.

Drawing (1979) and photo (2012) by Peter Klevius.

Islam is a grave violation of women's sexual freedom (incl. freedom from sex all together). However, Human Rights freedom lets you lead your life as you wish.

The main outlet of islamofascism - i.e. the "respectable" wrapping that really makes it tick. By allowing sharia islam into UN history repeats itself. Either UN as a whole or sharia islam (islamofascism) has to go.

It's precisely UN's and PC babblers' "diversity" (islam) rhetoric that paves the way for and legitimizes muslim "extremisms" and gives their cause something to resonate from.

Saudi based OIC (and its sharia declaration against the most basic of Human Rights) and its Saudi Fuhrer Iyad Madani constitutes the backbone of islamofascism today. So what do you have to say - you half to one billion anti-sharia "muslims"? Talk louder cause Klevius can't hear you!

Klevius wrote:

Monday, May 21, 2012


Klevius beats BBC when it comes to true reporting about OIC!


Totalitarian fanaticism replacing Human Rights while BBC misinforms muslims and others on how they're robbed of their Human Rights!

Sadly, Klevius is still the foremost (and lone?!) expert on sex segregation/apartheid and, consequently, also the web's foremost expert on islam. Why? Because islam rests so heavily on sex segregation/apartheid, even in its most "secular" form (as long as it's meaningful at all to call it islam) that an effort to understand islam without understanding sex segregation/apartheid is doomed to complete failure! In essence what Klevius is doing is in Bourdieu's words 'to restore to historical action, the relationship between the sexes that the naturalistic and essentialist vision removes from them'.  And where Bourdieu went to the Kabyles Klevius went to the origin of islam, Christianity and Judaism!

Klevius beats BBC in reporting on the most essential and critical issue of our time: OIC and its Fuhrer Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu's islamofascist violation of the most basic of Human Rights!

BBC, the largest broadcaster in the world, has as its main responsibility to provide impartial public service broadcasting.

Klevius question: How come then that Klevius beats BBC when it comes to informing about OIC? As you can see on the 'OIC BBC' search below Klevius' 'BBC News', i.e. not BBC, is the first to offer real info about OIC. on the web (see the eighth result on the pic below: BBC News by Klevius)! And to really prove it you will find a picture of the first BBC post (BBC News - Profile: Organization of the Islamic Conference) further down to show that it completely avoids to inform the most essential feature of OIC, namely that it has abandoned Human Rights and replaced them with Sharia.











































































According to BBC OIC's aims are to 'safeguard islamic holy places' (Klevius comment: Those places are already carefully destroyed by the Sauds) and toe eradicate racial discrimination (meaning Human Rights "discrimination" of islamic Sharia) and colonialism (sic - islam has been the worst colonizer ever throughout 1400 years!). But nowhere in BBC's text can you find the most important namely OIC's violation of Human Rights by replacing them with Sharia!

While BBC has some 23,000 staff Klevius is not only alone* and without resources, he is also deliberately hindered in his extremely informative work by active and continuous "islamophobia filtering". Yes, Klevius knows that he could do much better by avoiding words like 'islamofascism' etc. but he loves it.

* no offence to other "islamophobes" out there but Klevius happens to be the one with the best potency for evaluating the origin of islam from a perspective of sex segregation/rapetivism.




Klevius wrote:

Saturday, September 27, 2008


Heterosexual attraction & sex segregation in islam

Quote of the day (Edmondo de Amicis visiting islamic Morocco some 100 yrs ago): "She appeared sad. Perhaps the reason was that her husband's fourth wife, a recently arrived young 14 yr old girl in his harem, had triumphed over her in a way that was clearly reflected in her husband's indifference." Klevius comment: Heterosexual attraction (HSA) combined with sex segregation is often disastrous for human relations! Only with full access to respective social spheres, as well as full awareness of the HSA discrepancy between the sexes (i.e. what möst feminists deny) an open de-sex segregated interaction is possible' HSA per se doesn't presupposes/determines sex of any kind - neither does women "need a normal penis several times" (S. Freud) nor does a male need to rape. What could the older wife possibly offer her husband behind an impenetrable wall of sex segregation when her physical attraction didn't work anymore? Only islam was satisfied because she had to continue her inescapable (Sharia & apostasy ban) fate of fostering new islamists!



Klevius wrote:

Monday, April 15, 2013


Rapetivism and heterosexual attraction


Researching rapetivism in research




“I had no power to say ‘that’s not okay:’” Reports of harassment and abuse in the field, By Kate Clancy.


Klevius (who seems to be, sad to say, still the world's foremost expert on sex segregation): Sexism is a widespread social disease fueled by sex segregation/apartheid. And it's not cured by covering in burqas and Sharia.

Sex segregation results in girls being stripped off their humanhood and hence becoming the sole target for heterosexiual attraction and cultural sexism. Usually the only sex freed relationship outside a girl's own sex  in a sex segregated world is with close male kins (because they lack bio-heterosexual attraction).

Rapetivism , i.e. the enslavement/abuse of confined/veiled girls/women as physical and cultural reproducers of as many new muslims (i.e. islam) as possible under the threats from Sharia and apostasy ban, is, in fact, a form of HSA perversion , i.e. "cultural/physical necrophilia" that rests on cultural sex segregation. However, although islam is the ultimate sex segregation/apartheid, most of us, at least partially, still suffer under milder forms of the same cultural disease. This (+ our untreated vulnerability for fascism) is the main reason why evil medieval islam has been able to rise its ugly face of slavery/racism/sexism again.

(text extracted from Klevius old original writings)

So underpinning these rapes and sexist attitudes lies a cultural sex segregation/apartheid that is codified in the Bible and driven to ultimate excess in the Koran/Sharia.

God made Adam in his image but to entertain Adam he created a being called Eve from the least valuable part of Adam's skeleton, i.e. a ribbon which happens to be the only bone that has multiple copies and which doesn't cause much of a trouble even if broken.


Educate yourself on the crucial difference between positive and negative Human Rights!





Klevius wrote:

Tuesday, December 16, 2014


Muslim stupidity behind islam's misogyny


Klevius, the world's foremost expert on sex segregation (sad isn't it), sex tutorial for muslims and their accomplices in their crimes against Human Rights





Samantha Lewthwaite, Mishal Husain (BBC's sharia presenter) and Michael Adebolajo all have islam and its Human Rights violating sharia in common




onislam.net (a deceptive but popular A/Q site for naive/ignorant people): By covering herself, a Muslim woman declares that she is equal to man and has brains. She closes the door to being seen as “a piece of meat”.

Klevius: Really! Muslim women have brains! A muslim brain, is it? However, Klevius has always enjoyed seeing his infidel girlfriends and wives as heterosexually attractive (i.e. what muslims see as “a piece of meat”). However, unlike all true muslims (defined according to onislam.net) and many sexist non-muslims as well, Klevius has always seen women as equal to himself - even while appreciating their heterosexual attraction and during sexual acts. This approach seems to be radically different from muslim sex predators who, following the Koran and onislam.net etc., see "infidel" girls/women as sex slaves 'their right hand possesses'. In other words, whereas muslim women just belong to an inferior "race" in need of male dictators, non-muslim women are considered even lower than that. Klevius approach, however, goes in the very opposite direction and makes it possible for him to encounter, on an equal basis women with or without heterosexual attraction! Klevius is the opposite to Casanova or Don Juan and has never ever seduced a woman - and he is extremely proud about it. Why should he even try to lure her into something and consequently loose the human virginity in the relation?! And how could one fully enjoy a relation with a woman if there are mutual "no go zones" - not to mention restrictions laid on her? And what if the woman isn't interested in heterosex or sex at all? The fact that Klevius might appreciate the look of a woman's body doesn't make him believe the woman wants it. And although Klevius has nothing to say about voyeurism emanating from women themselves, he completely disapprove of peeping Tom. Likewise Klevius can not comprehend how anyone could be aroused by seeing a naked woman who isn't herself aware and positive to it. Klevius files such perversions under necrophilia. 

onislam.net: As for women praying behind men, it is not, my dear (sic), because they are inferior. Muslim prayers involve bowing and prostrating. If women were next to or in front of men, their movements would be distracting. It is again, to keep their chastity and avoid focusing on their bodily existence.

Klevius: Poor muslim men. They seem to be real extremists. Although Klevius would love to be unique, facts seem to prove him "extremely"* normal". Unlike muslims, the majority of civilized men have no problem seeing female bodies without connecting it to sex or sexism, not to mention rape etc. Where Klevius differs from many other civilized men is only when it comes to sex segregation, i.e. the prevalent but so problematic confusion produced by mixing heterosexual attraction with the human person. And in this both men and women have been guilty of upholding a perverted view on each other. This is also why Klevius always refers to the (negative) Human Rights declaration from 1948 which clearly states that one's sex ought not to infringe on one's Human Rights - as it does in islam and which caused OIC (all muslims Saudi based and Saudi steered world Umma organization) to abandon Human Rights and replace them with misogynist sharia.

* Among 1.5+ Billion muslims and another 1.5+ Billion naively/ignorant (or purely evil) muslim supporters, Klevius normality has to be underscored in the same way as his normality in defending Human Rights isn't "extremism" but extremely important today.
onislam.net: In Islam, the husband is responsible for all the expenses of the household. Then, in return, the wife is to guard his property and her chastity in his absence. She is to obey him in things regarding their life together.

Klevius: An imprisoned whore!

onislam.net: A Muslim husband has the right to order his non-Muslim wife not to serve pork or alcohol in the house. Yet, he is also responsible not to offend her creed or prohibit her from her given right of worshiping, according to her Christian or Jewish faith.

Klevius: Only Christian or Jewish faith? What about people outside the book, i.e. the majority of the world's population? And is she allowed to eat pork? More to the point, Klevius would hate to be a family dictator. Why? Because Klevius believes in democracy. Which fact doesn't exclude criticism of bad decisions/opinions. And the best way to criticize is to highlight possible drawbacks and let her balance them just as she would do against his. I.e. that kind of criticism that isn't allowed against islam!

onislam.net: But, if a Muslim woman were to marry a non-Muslim man and he ordered her to serve pork or alcohol, what would she do? What if he ordered her not to pray or fast?

Klevius: She doesn't have to eat it, does she, precisely because he is a non-muslim. Or should we interpret it as muslim women aren't allowed to even touch wine bottles or pork packages etc. Islam is a laughably rigid system of restrictions and impositions. And a civilized non-muslim man would probably not "order" a woman at all. Only in the worst ever ideological hate crime is it today possible to even hint at such stupidities.

onislam.net: A Muslim wife is originally obliged to obey her husband, in order to maintain peace and love with the family relations. Yet, off course a woman should obey Allah first. So, if there is conflict between the husband’s demands and Allah’s orders, it puts a great strain on the marriage. Thus, Islam prohibits a Muslim woman from marrying a non-Muslim man.

Klevius: Not at all. The will of "Allah" is completely deleted in islam. The real reason is that the kids should become muslims. And this extreme one way immoral is perhaps the most striking feature of islam compared to civilized Human Rights thinking.


onislam.net: Even if a non-Muslim wife doesn't respect Islam the Muslim husband has the right to demand certain behavior from her.

Klevius: "Certain behavior" like domestic sex slavery and responsibility to foster her kids to muslim jihadis and not according to her own beliefs.

onislam.net: Men and women do not have the same responsibilities and rights in Islam. For example, the wife has the right to  stay home and care for her young children. She can instill the best values in them. She can build a strong family… and strong families build strong healthy societies.

Klevius: Healthy societies?! The majority of the most unhealthy societies are and have always been muslim caliphates, nations or muslim communities! No matter if a muslim nation is rich due to slavery or Western oil money, or poor when this is lacking - the result is always unhealthy societies!


Iyad Madani, the Saudi dictator family's islamofascist leader of the world's muslims most important organization OIC.




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 inevitable encounters what is called ‘the women’s movement’. While there is a variety of different feminisms, and because the borders between them, as well as to what is interpreted as the women’s rights movement, some historians, incl. Klevius, question the distinction and/or methods in use for this distinction.
However, it could also be argued that whereas the women’s 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.

Sunday, November 04, 2018

Make it a hate crime when politicians call criticism of evil islam 'islamophobia'. And double the sentence if this "islamophobia" is actually defense of Universal Human Rights.


Politicians shout "islamophobia" when they think they can gain votes or money. But what they do is in fact treason against those very Human Rights Western civilization was rebuilt on after WW2.


The "custodian of islam"
and some of islam's* victims.
* Without islam this muslim would have been toothless

Criticizing islam is considered
blasphemy and punishable
by torture and death in Saudi
Arabia and Pakistan,

and punishable with the
Saudi sponsored smear campaign
against "islamophobia" in the West.

Islam is culture, i.e. human
interpretation, and its intolerance
should not be tolerated.

Evil can never be protected by
Human Rights. "Freedom of religion"
was never meant to undermine
Human Rights.


Wikipedia: The issues when debating and questioning islam are incredibly (sic) complex with each side having a different view on the morality, meaning, interpretation, and authenticity of each topic.

Klevius: The only reason questioning islam is "incredibly complex" is how islam defenders could possibly manage to "fit" islam's innate evil (measured by Human Rights standard) into a world based on anti-racist and anti-fascist Human Rights equality. However, from an "islamophobic" Universal Human Rights equality stand point nothing could be clearer - just ask Saudi based and steered OIC. They have seen what media and politicians in the West seems to have missed, i.e. that islam is incompatible with the anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration..

Since after 9/11 Klevius has been a proud "islamophobe" against an evil ideology he'd thought was already buried and forgotten - even by most muslims.


But the West managed to resurrect this evil monster born out of looting, pillaging, enslaving and humiliating taxing (dhimmitude) so well described by historians (e.g. Hugh Kennedy) which was never able to feed itself without sucking life blood from others (the "infidels").

When Klevius had a debate about evil islam in the Swedish state radio, he was immediately called an "islamophobe" by the leader of Young Muslims in Sweden. More than one and a half decade later the Swedish authorities finally stopped feeding said organization due to "extremism". It took some time and politicians continue calling people like Klevius "islamophobes". Why?

No matter how many Saudi sponsored mosques are built, they will all crumble to dust under the logical inevitability of Universal Human Rights equality. But the building per se may be useful though. No need to physically destroy them as muslims have done with Buddhist, Roman and Christian statues, buildings  etc.. In the future they may even function as historical warnings over human stupidity.

It's absolutely no coincidence that islamic/muslim evil is centered around "the custodian of islam". And it's absolutely no coincidence that the most staunch defenders of the islamofascist Saudi dictator family, Donald Trump and Theresa May, are not even allowed to visit the muslim center of islamic hate against "infidels" because they are, after all, "infidels".


Saudi Arabia is consistently ranking among the "worst of the worst" in Freedom House's annual survey of political and civil rights.
Qorvis MSLGroup, a US subsidiary of Publicis Groupe, amid the execution of political protesters and opponents, has been working with Saudi Arabia for more than a decade to whitewash its record of Human Rights abuses.


Pakistan: Arbitrary detention, torture, deaths in custody, forced disappearances, and extrajudicial execution are rampant. ... Armed groups, including Pakistani Taleban have committed serious Human Rights abuses, including direct attacks on civilians, abduction, and hostage-taking, torture, and killings.

Extremely faked up BBC spreads this dung: "In Pakistan, most victims of the blasphemy laws have actually been muslim or from the Ahmadi sect (declared non-muslim by Pakistan), not Christian or other minorities".


Klevius comment: Is BBC brain dead or evil - or both!

About 97.0% of Pakistanis are muslims. Pakistan has the second largest number of muslims in the world after Indonesia. The majority are Sunni (75–95%) while Shias make up between 5–20% and Ahmadis (considered by the constitution of Pakistan to be non-muslims) are 1–2%.


Wikislamopedia vs Klevius



Islam biased Wikipedia on Criticism of islam: John Esposito emphatically argues against what he calls the "pan-islamic myth". He thinks that "too often coverage of islam and the muslim world assumes the existence of a monolithic islam in which all muslims are the same."

Klevius: Esposito's view is dangerously naive and unjustifiably obscures the important and crucial dividing line between Saudi based and steered OIC's world sharia and Human Rights. And what would a non "monolithic" islam be if not the monolith that produces "islamophobia"?!

Wikipedia: William Montgomery Watt argues on a basis of moral relativism that Muhammad should be judged by the standards of his own time and country rather than "by those of the most enlightened opinion in the West today."

Klevius: This is exactly what happens when muslim's from the least enlightened "communities" use terror, rape and hate of "infidels" etc. in accordance with Mohammad and the Koran, i.e. original islam.

Wikipedia: Karen Armstrong finds in Muhammad's teachings a theology of peace and tolerance. Armstrong holds that the "holy war" urged by the Quran alludes to each muslim's duty to fight for a just, decent society.

Klevius: Compare her "findings" with those of serious historians who only found booty hunters, robbers, pillaging etc.. The only thing they didn't find in early islam was Mohammad.

Wikipedia: Edward Said (a sharia muslim), in his essay Islam Through Western Eyes, stated that the general basis of Orientalist thought forms a study structure in which islam is placed in an inferior position as an object of study. He claims the existence of a very considerable bias in Orientalist writings as a consequence of the scholars' cultural make-up. He claims islam has been looked at with a particular hostility and fear due to many obvious religious, psychological and political reasons, all deriving from a sense "that so far as the West is concerned, Islam represents not only a formidable competitor but also a late-coming challenge to Christianity."[264]

Klevius: Because islam is desperately and heavily defended by "islamophobia" accusations and protection of "muslim sensitivities", islam and muslims are in a superior position compared to their critics. However, morally islam is clearly in an "inferior position" to anyone who accepts Universal Human Rights equality as stated in UN's 1948 declaration against fascism. Again, just take a look at Saudi based and steered OIC's world sharia declaration. And for those who try to find a loophole for islam - there's none! OIC realized it and therefore couldn't accept Human Rights.

Wikipedia: Cathy Young of Reason Magazine claims that "criticism of the religion is enmeshed with cultural and ethnic hostility" often painting the muslim world as monolithic. While stating that the terms "islamophobia" and "anti-muslim bigotry" are often used in response to legitimate criticism of fundamentalist (sic - islam is fundamentalist) islam and problems (sic) within muslim culture, she claimed "the real thing does exist, and it frequently takes the cover of anti-jihadism."

Klevius: What a pathetic twisted "defense" of evil islam. Yes, the "real thing" is Human Rights - not Human Rights violating sharia! Klevius doesn't even lower himself to correct this utter non sense - Klevius readers are clever enough to see it anyway.

Friday, November 02, 2018

Finding muslim antisemitism on Google/BBC etc. is directly opposite finding it in real life


Muslim antisemitism has been sponsored by the Saudi"custodians of islam" who also happen to be an ally with not only Theresa May but also with Israel.

Much (most?) anti-Jews are muslims. So why so silent about it?

The inherent tectonic fault lines within religions which haven't as yet adapted themselves fully to Universal Human Rights equality, produce one anomaly after an other, resulting in a never ending bigoted and hypocritical discourse.




There seems to be a direct connection between the size of the muslim population and anti-semitism

Klevius comment: There's something peculiar with monotheisms. Canaanites, Jews in Medina, Catholic inquisition etc. It not only fulfills today's definition of 'hate' but also

Poland has one of the smallest proportional muslim populations - especially compared to England  and Sweden.

There are 1,000 times fewer Jews in Poland (pop. 38 millions) than in England (pop. 56 millions). There are some 5,000 muslims and some 3,000 Jews in Poland.

Sweden has 15,000 Jews and 600,000 muslims on a population of 10 millions.

There are 10-15 times more muslims than Jews in UK.


Klevius suggests (as he has done for the last 15 years): Name sharia muslims who are against Human Rights equality for what they are, i.e. islamofascists - thereby helping Human Rights loving muslims apostating from evil islam.
This is the world's main center of supremacist hate, racism and sexism. This is as far you can get from Human Rights equality.