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.

US loosing the tech war - and starting a real one?

US loosing the tech war - and starting a real one?

Do Americans and Pompeo share the Saudi hate against Shia muslims?

BBC supports muslim persecution of Christians etc.

BBC supports muslim persecution of Christians etc.

Saudi war crimes investgated by the Saudis

In the 8 October 2016 Sana'a (Yemen) funeral bombing by Saudi Arabia 155 people were killed and at least 525 more wounded when two airstrikes, about three to eight minutes apart, hit the packed Al Kubra hall. US and UK happy with the Saudis investigating it.

This Swedish muslim MP wants to criminalize Peter Klevius islamophobia. Really!

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.

BBC squeezes in Eng-land cricket in every news report - while UK-land plays borderless Brexit - and football is divided in four UK-lands, Welsh, English, Irish and Scottish players, and two top leagues with whatever players!? Confusing? Not even close to the "British" measuring decaphobia. English isn't "British", it belongs to the world. British stands for imperialism, colonialism, slavery and cooperation with islamofascists.

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).

Islam is the problem - China is the solution.

If China today became a full democracy (and even accepting full Human Rights) - nothing would change, because it's not the rulers but the high tech industry in China that outperforms the West. And unlike islam, China doesn't have tenets against Human Rights. However, islam is tied to its supremacist and sexist sharia tenets (OIC) which deny women full Human Rights - just the opposite to what is said in the anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration from 1948. If islam would accept full Human Rights it would not be islam anymore. China's economic expansion has been a non-aggressive big contributor to wealth around the world, but when China reached out its Belt and Road hand, then the West bit it and supported extremist muslim terrorists. Islam induced hate crimes and terror are based on a shared evil ideology (a global muslim collective rather than as nationals, which inspire and hail each other) - but because most are committed by lonely or gang muslims, and because police and media are told muslim "ethnicity" ought not to be revealed, then the public are kept unaware of most muslim hate crimes. How come that evilness is protected? The answer is in the question. To hide its original evilness. And how come that BBC and UK politicians dare to support islamofascism in Kashmir? Freedom from sharia for women in Kashmir!

* UK PM Theresa May opposed Human Rights.

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.

Why is BBC aiding islamofascism?

Why is BBC aiding islamofascism?

UK's islamic and Sinophobic Parliament

UK's islamic and Sinophobic Parliament

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

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

Why didn't islam go to the Moon?!

Why didn't islam go to the Moon?!

Sex segregation/apartheid (aided by religion and poverty) means over-population.

Sex segregation/apartheid (aided by religion and poverty) means over-population.

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 utilize it?

In UK both Tories and Labour are against "islampohobia" - so apparently also against Human Rights? And if not, then they are "islamophobic" after all. 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.

Peter Klevius: Girls' emancipation needs more football and less cricket, netball etc.

BBC's cricket propaganda is a slap in the face of young girls who need equally much moving around and spatial skills as young boys. However, there's a huge sex segregation in females motivation and access to football - not only the world's by far most popular physical sport, but also the only one that doesn't use tools or hands to handle the ball, and which makes all participants moving most of the time even without the ball. Moreover, the very nature of the sport forces participants to a never ending series of spatial and strategic challenges - with or without the ball and even while playing alone. So why is BBC so hostile to the Queen of sports (the "beautiful game") that is perfect for the physical and spatial development of girls - and in the face of the football loving majority who has to pay compulsory fees (and paying extra for football channels) to this faking regime propaganda media that uses stiff and lifeless colonial cricket for neo-colonial purpose?! England banned football for girls/women already 1921 and suggested cricket, land hockey and netball instead - almost like today except it's not called a ban. And what about the laughable notion of a "world cup" in cricket?! When is the "world cup" in caber tossing between Gotland and Scotland?

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

The murderous war criminal, Saudi muslim "custodian of islam" (and OIC) "prince" MBS is OK but Human Rights defender Peter Klevius isn't. Why?! Because the former isn't an "islamophobe", dude!

Stop US global bullying! What moral right does US have trying to dominate Earth and space? "God"?! Or the Saudi murderer and mass murderer "prince"?! Hasn't US sucked out enough already from the rest of the world? A global dollar manipulation favoring US and paid by the rest. A US marked global license and patent imperialism - and Android. Is Internet next?

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?

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

BBC  News 8:00 AM 23 June 2019: Johnson financially unfit because he spilled wine on a couch.
Is the Saudi "custodian of islam" a muslim - and is the very question "islamophobic", "muslimophobic" or "Saudiphobic"?
Why is BBC comparing Saudi with China?! China's leader isn't a murderer, war criminal, and spreader of terror on the streets! "If we drop the Saudis then we can't deal with China either." Really?! BTW, 'Diversity' means different/conflicting whereas its antonym stands for similar/friendly.

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'.

Your choice: China high tech or US/UK bombs?

Your choice: China high tech or US/UK bombs?

US puppet empire UK's Jeremy Hunt wants to double spending on militaristic meddling for US

US puppet empire UK's Jeremy Hunt wants to double spending on militaristic meddling for US

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


Racist Sinophobia disguised as "security" while muslim terror spreading Saudi murderous dictator and war criminal is "an important security ally"!?


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

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".

Peter Klevius to Greta Thunberg: Saudi salafist oil funded supremacist islam or Chinese Taoist (kindness) high tech - which one do you think is the real threat to the people and environmment in EU and the world?

Ultimate bigotry and hypocrisy – militant spying and war mongering 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. If a Chinese would attack shouting 'Tao' it would most certainly be classified as a hate crime. However, chances are slim that it ever occurs compared to hate attacks made by muslims.

Arabic (not "white" etc.) islam has been the by far biggest enslaver throughout 1,400 years. Islamic language imperialism via the Koran. And all races have been complicit in the muslim Koranic slave trade. So how do you distinguish between descendants of slaves or slave traders? Will Cambridge check today's "Caribbeans", "Africans" etc. about it? Klevius warns there might be unwelcomed surprises, e.g. that many of those who come to Europe are actually descendants of slave trading black Africans on whose wealth lineage top they are better privileged than those from slave lineages. And what about "whites" like Klevius who were cut off from any lineages? Should the skin color Klevius was born with be used against him because of the privileges of others with the same skin color? Same question may be asked about sexism. Klevius doesn’t see it fair to blame him for male sexism just because he happens tp be male, do you!

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!

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 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.

Top emitters

Top emitters

Peter Klevius evolution formula

Peter Klevius serious questions to you "out of Africa" believer! Ask yourself: How come that the oldest primates came from outside Africa; that the oldest great ape divergence happened outside Africa; that the oldest bi-pedals are from outside Africa; that the only australopithecines with a Homo skull lived as far from Africa you can get; that the oldest truly modern looking skull is from eastern China; that the oldest Africans are mongoloid; that the latest genetic mix that shaped the modern human happened in Siberia and is traced to SE Asia; that the earliest sophisticated art is found from Iberia to Sulawesi - but not in Africa; that the oldest round skulled Homo sapiens in sub-Saharan Africa are much younger than similar skulls in Eurasia; that we lack ancient enough DNA from Africa, etc. etc.? Peter Klevius theory answers all these questions - and more.

Peter Klevius evolution formula.

Existence-centrism (Peter Klevius 1986)

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

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/BBC's extreme double standard re. the islamofascist Saudi dictator family and China. Klevius: How come that islamofascist tech poor Saudi property-, media-, infra structure- etc. 'vulnerable' investments and supremacist hate spreading mosques, is considered no threat to UK but instead an 'important ally' while China, which doesn't tick any danger boxes, is deliberately painted by BBC propaganda as the worst threat? And how come that China's peaceful Belt and Road spreading of wealth and high tech is considered worse than UK's continuing militaristic and (un)security meddling within an EU that UK decided to leave for the purpose of EU not meddling within UK?!
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.

Iran, Corbyn, bin Laden's son etc. - it's more about protecting BBC's poster boy, war criminal and state terrorist Mohammad Salman, than protecting people on the streets from Saudi exported racist islamic hate terror.

Saudi and BBC hate propaganda against Iran and Shia muslims behind attacks on Corbyn's "anti-Semitism"? BBC's inflammatory and offensive hate mongering use of the oxymoron "anti-Semitic" (reinforced by "islamophobia") protects Semitic (Arab/Sunni/Saudi) muslims from criticism while excluding non-Semitic Shia muslims (e.g. Iran). BBC also use "Asians" when they mean non-Semitic former British Asian muslims, i.e. again not incl. Iranian Shia muslims. Why? Because BBC's poster boy Mohammad Salman hates Shia. England also got a massive problem with "Asian" (sic - read 'mostly Sunni muslim') sex offenders. But no one dares to ask if islam's hate teaching of taking "infidel" sex slaves - and "muslim sensitivity" policies - may encourage it?

The world's biggest fake news producer, UK state media BBC, 20190221 gave the Japanese asteroid landing just a few seconds but managed to squeeze in the fake "info" that "it is the first attempt to bring back samples to Earth" (Cathy/PM 17:00) when the previous Japanese sond already 2010 brought back samples from an other asteroid. No one else has managed to do this except the Japanese. This is in line with BBC's usual racist attitude against Japan and China.

Klevius wonders whether BBC/UK government count Islamic State muslims who can't be directly tied to atrocities, as "peaceful muslims"?

Klevius wonders why semitic attacks on Jews are called "antisemitism"?

WARNING about "Five Eyes" and BBC, and their "close ally", the hate, terror and war crimes producing islamofascist "custodian of islam", the Saudi dictator family!
If you prefer peace, democratic non-fake information and positive development - ask your politicians to avoid US/UK's war mongering militarism and the world's biggest state propaganda tool BBC, which constitutes the most serious threat to free information. UK government is pushing for neo-British imperialist militarist meddling and intervention around the world - and making its propaganda tool BBC "the custodian of fact checks", i.e. a wolf among sheep.

Theresa May wants to leave EU. That should include UK militarist meddling within EU as well. Leave means leave! Don't let UK and its "close ally" the islamofascist Saudi dictator family contaminate EU citizens lives. Don't let the insidious spy organization Five Eyes spy on EU citizens and their leaders and parliamentarians.

Don't let BBC's or islam's glossy surface (i.e. normal news/info and non-sharia muslims respectively) lure you to not see the evil core. Klevius is the opposite. WYSIWYG. No hidden evil core, just defense of your (whoever you are) basic Human Rights that islam wants to deny 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.


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 government wants to force EU to put a border on Ireland - so it can blame EU for something UK-Brexit caused.

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.

Listen to this Viking about the danger of religion
Martina Big (aka Malaika Kubwa) wanted to be "black". We don't know exactly why. However, fair skinned politicians and media people who support black supremacism, Nation of Islam etc. might consider following her example.

Are "whites" the new Jews - and in need of a burqa or skin color change?

Are "whites" the new Jews - and in need of a burqa or skin color change?

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

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

Is UK/Saudi cooperation a security threat to EU - and people in UK

Is UK/Saudi cooperation a security threat to EU - and people in UK

US/UK is a security risk - not China. Tell your EU politician!

US/UK is a security risk - not China. Tell your EU politician!

Klevius "islamophobic" heroine Nawal El Saadawi from Egypt

Klevius "islamophobic" heroine Nawal El Saadawi from Egypt

Politicians against the people

Politicians against the people

Rule Britisharia Human Rightsphobia

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.

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'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

Monday, June 17, 2019

Peter Klevius congratulates Christiane Endler Mutinelli for her incredible performance in Women's World Cup 2019. While BBC boosts stupid* cricket!

* Cricket (a game were most girls never move much) belongs to the sports historically considered "appropriate" and PC for girls, whereas football (no dude, not US handball) was considered so inappropriate for girls and women that it was banned in England for some 50 years (see Peter Klevius previous posting) and is still hated by BBC.

If all of Chile's players had been on the same level as their goalie they would easily have been the best team in the world.



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.


No comments: