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

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

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

Should BBC and some politicians be put on a Nurenberg trial after this relentless and demonizing Sinophobia campaign and deliberate lies?

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

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

20200701: BBC News asks for war against China but complains "we have only two aircraft carriers". Peter Klevius wonders how sick BBC has become?!
20200618: Why is the most cemtral witness, Inge Morelius (later aka Mårelius) in the Swedish PM Palme's murder case, deleted by Google's search engine from Peter Klevius revealing murder analysis?!
20200616: When China discovers Covid-19 with a European DNA profile on a cutting board for Norwegian salmon, the BBC thinks it's the communist party.
Why is BBC so quiet about Churchill's secret (until 2018) pact with Stalin in 1939 which would have divided Scandinavia between Russia and UK?! And US' NATO puppet Jens Stoltenberg repeats like a parrot his master's voice against China - while a civil war is going on inside NATO between Greece and Turkey.
African Pygmy lives matter! Colonized and enslaved for more than 3,500 years by the Eurasian Bantu etc. intruders we now call Africans. It's a senseless irony that "Africans" (Bantus etc. newcomers) who enslaved and mixed with original Africans (Khoisan and especially Pygmies from whom they got their phenotype) and later were enslaved by muslim Arabs and their "African" collaborators now get a brain drop at the West African ports where islam exported slaves. Any old African genes come from Khoisan and Pygmies - and ultimately out of Asia - not Africa. "Out-of-Africa" and BLM are created by white idiots and only feed supremacism. Read "out-of-Africa" more dangerous than the Piltdown hoax.

Peter Klevius 20200604: What if Floyd had been white or Chinese?! And the officers members of Nation of Islam? And how do we even know that any racism was involved? And what about a fair trial? All human lives matter!
20200503: UK's Sinophobic right wing anti-EU migration Brexiters now want to import 3 million Chinese from Hong Kong!?
20200529: In its everyday Sinophobia rant BBC today managed in one sentence to accuse Chinese, China and Xi separately - and even missing the stock smear, i.e. the "communist party". However in a very near future China will develop and export a world leading ecosystem of non-US software, hardware, fintech, social media, telecom infrastructure etc. that everyone will long for. Stubborn and dumb stiff lipped Sinophobes will become Neanderthals in no time. Sadly few politicians understand how powerful Chinese tech development is. Japan did the same but wasn't hampered by Maoist communism and was ten times smaller. High IQ and an Atheist culture they both have in common.

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

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

20200518: BBC again repeated the anti-China lie about "a silenced doctor" by inviting the former right wing and pro-Saudi (anti-)EU Research Group - now (anti-)China Research Group. How bad a journalist isn't Sarah Montague then when she didn't even try to question it - or is she muffled?! Eye dr. Li Wenliang wrongly spread out it could be SARS. It wasn't and just one hour later - and long before any police etc. had contacted him - he corrected his mistake (see fact check below).
$-freeloader US provoking China with war ships while simultaneously "leaking" "classified" rumours. Why?! Its Sinophobia is all about trying to stop China's success as the foremost spreader of wealth and high tech both in China and the world. It's not the leadership but China's success that US can't stand.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pentagon, islam - and China?!

Pentagon, islam - and China?!

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

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

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

Demand for Resources

Is this MP a clown?

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

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

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

20200407a.m.: UK's best PM, Boris Johnson, is much shorter (same as Einstein and Klevius dad) than Trump - but also much more intelligent. It's OK to say so when Trump is white - and loves to play on height, right?
20200412: The reason the Chinese government wanted extra control of DNA results was the previous failed report (see below) which wrongly indicated SARS. However, British media (BBC etc.) blatantly lie about it and first accused Shi Zhengli's lab for spreading infected bats, while some weeks later making her a hero and accusing the government. And no, it didn't spread from bats - but possibly from civet cats. Suspected animals are now forbidden from the market.

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

SINOPHOBIA RACISM. "COVID-19 has a natural origin and there is no evidence that the virus was made in a laboratory or otherwise engineered" (Nature). China swiftly sequenced and shared the genome worldwide. China's remarkable response on all stages was praised by WHO (but not BBC) and is in line with its superior tech advances (Mao's China would never have made it). US tries to pull you away from Chinese high tech superiority so US can keep feeding you with its outdated tech and influence - just as it used to do with cars and wars. Your pick: US militarism with Saudi led islamofascism - or highspeed Chinatech towards Chinese democracy and global wealth. China is the very opposite to Cuba - and already, in practise, almost identical to Western governments. Excluding China only prolongs the democratic process - and even speeds up China's high tech inside its 1.4 billion market.

Peter Klevius fact check: There isn't a trace of an alleged (by BBC etc. fakes) Chinese Covid19 reporting "delay" that wouldn't have been bigger in the West. And the reason is that
for China good reputation is all that matters - now when it has already won the tech competition. China's defense against West's smear campaign is called "propaganda" - in the West.
Dear US, it's time to behave! You lost the tech war to little Japan long ago. Now you've lost it against big China. Get over it. So Peter Klevius advises: Do as Wall Street, shake hands instead of producing unfounded Sinophobic smear propaganda!

Covid19 timeline
17 November 2019: A retrospectively confirmed case.
1 December 2019: The first known patient started experiencing symptoms but had not been to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. No epidemiological link could be found between this case and later cases.
8–18 December 2019: Seven cases later diagnosed as COVID19 were documented; only two of them were linked with the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market.
18-29 December 2019: Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BAL) that will eventually be used for viral genome sequencing is collected from patients.
25 December 2019: Wuhan Fifth Hospital gastroenterology director Lu Xiaohong reported suspected infection by hospital staff.
26 December 2019: Zhang Jixian identified a CT scan that showed a different pattern from other viral pneumonia.
27 December 2019: She reported to Jianghan district CCDC with four cases. During the following two days, the hospital received three similar cases, who all came from Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. The hospital reported to the provincial and city CDC directly which initiated a field investigation with a retrospective search for pneumonia patients potentially linked to the market. They found additional such patients and on 30 December, health authorities from Hubei Province reported this cluster to CCDC who immediately sent experts to Wuhan to support the investigation. Samples from these patients were obtained for laboratory analyses.
30 December 2019: Wuhan Municipal Health Committee informed WHO, Weibo etc. about an "urgent notice on the treatment of pneumonia of unknown cause". There had been "a successive series of patients with unexplained pneumonia recently." However, a DNA report inaccurately indicated SARS on one patient. Late same day (17:43) ophthalmologist Li Wenliang WeChatted "There were 7 confirmed cases of SARS at Huanan Seafood Market." He included a patient's CT scan. At 18:42, he admitted that it wasn't proven SARS.
31 December 2019: US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were alerted by China of an unexplained "cluster of 27 cases of pneumonia” in Wuhan.

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

US island puppets against China and EU. US, who used to treat Japan as it now treats China, is now parasitizing on former enemy Japan in an (in vane) effort to keep China high tech down, and on the much tinier UK ally to trouble EU.

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

Klevius to women: NATO makes a deal with the Taliban to continue sharia oppression of women, and NATO+IS=true because NATO is the main culprit behind the suffering in Idlib. Without the support from NATO the worst muslim terrorist group would never have survived. Like IS, NATO ally Hayat Tahrir al-Sham wants to create an islamic state. Turkey/NATO backs SNA well knowing that it's together with HTS. I.e. a NATO member state invades its neighbor, sides with terrorists and gets full support from NATO when its soldiers get killed while helping the terrorists. And what about Yemen?!
Peter Klevius to climatists: Sinophobia is a threat to the environment, because China has the slowest population growth and is the the least per capita polluter of main economies (see table below) and the main producer of alternative and conventional super high tech! Moreover, China lacks the same proportion of natural resources as e.g. Sweden, Norway etc. (e.g. hydropower) but instead has to deal with the dust smog blowing from the Gobi desert and the extreme cold from the north. And China bears the manufacturing pollution for products other countries then consume and profit on.

NATO (Turkey supported by US/UK) is siding with the worst muslim terrorist organization Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (some 10,000 IS jihadi) against the people of Idlib while BBC News spreads misinfo propaganda against Syria, Russia and Iran - and nothing about the Saudi dictator family.
BBC (20200217) wants to stop Chinese tech because China opposes islamofascist Uyghurs. Klevius suggests the world should stop dealing with US/UK because of involvement in war crimes and genoscides against Shia muslims.

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

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

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

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

The Saudi-US-UK axis of evil

Chinese eyes less intrusive than Five Eyes (US and its puppets) - because China prioritizes trade and reputation while US prioritizes global spying, meddling and military control. The Saudi loving US puppets Duncan Smith, Davis, Paterson, Green, Ellwood and Seely etc. produce baseless "security" arguments for Sinophobic MPs.

U.S. flu this season Feb. 2020: 19 million illnesses, 180,000 hospitalizations, and over 10,000 deaths (China has a third less common flu than US). 2019-nCoV, 6 Feb. 2020 (estim. total death rate 0.1-0.2%, i.e. same as common flu): 28,018 cases (not illnesses) and 563 deaths. Did the eye doctors SARS rant on social media delay response in China? It wasn't SARS but much closer to common flu - but without vaccine. Instead of assisting, US/UK/BBC did the utmost to smear China with it!

Klevius warning to Finland (and the rest of the world): Don't be useful idiots in US' export of militarism! It will create tension and pull fire on you in a conflict. Four balancing power blocs is safer than one or two. Moreover, China will become the world's first true democracy thanks to AI. Don't let Sinophobia blind you. US is going down unless it starts cooperating instead of trying to rule the world. Non 5G iPhone sells well - in US - where there's no true 5G.

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

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

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

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

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

Niklas Arnberg, Swedish professor in virology: "Considerably higher mortality than ordinary flu." BBC: "Death toll rises as disease spreads from China."

Peter Klevius: Both are faking! Arnberg used overall death numbers although most (all?!) of these deaths have been people who could have died from ordinary flu as well. And do you really think BBC would ever have written similarly about the deadly camel flu from Saudi Arabia?!

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

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

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

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

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

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

You believer in "islamophobia"! Doesn't it scare you that if Peter Klevius is right about islam but wouldn't say anything, then who would when you're doomed on the market if you do? If Marx had been called a "messenger" then Marxism would have been protected by freedom of religion, and critics called "Marxophobes". All "monotheist" religions make excuses not to fully accept Human Rights equality, but islam is by far the worst - not the least due to its origin and the fact that it's protected, unlike other threats to Human Rights. Whereas totalitarian Marxism used to be the enemy of the West, today US is on the totalitarian islamofascist side using it for Saudi gains against declared "enemies". It's truly a grim irony when BBC protects islamofascist terrorist groups by telling you that the suffering in Syria is due to the Syrian government and Russia. US could stop the muslim terrorist groups at any time - but doesn't because it wants the war and suffering to continue.
Peter Klevius fact/fake check: Why does Google (and BBC) lie and fake straight up your face about China?! When searching for 'world's biggest per capita polluters' China comes up with extra big letters despite being one of the least polluting of major economies (47th on a reliable polluters list). Moreover, China is not only the world leader for alternative technologies, but its pollution number also includes the biggest production of products exported and consumed all over the world outside China. Source: EDGAR and incl. all human activities leading to climate relevant emissions, except biomass/biofuel combustion (short-cycle carbon).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peter Klevius filming re-visitors in Buchenwald 1990

Is BBC killing UK democracy and paving the way for islamofascism?
DEMOCRACY DENIED: WARNING TO UK VOTERS ABOUT BBC's HUMANRIGHTSPHOBIA! WHO's RIGHT ON ISLAM - BBC OR THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE?
BBC undermines your most basic Human Rights. BBC's "islamophobia" propaganda machine (incl. Sayeeda Warsi) boosts OIC islam while neglecting Council of Europe's sharp ("islamophobic") criticism of OIC's world sharia (Cairo declaration). SO HOW COME THAT BBC IS ALLOWED TO MEDDLE IN THE VOTING PROCESS BY ATTACKING AND SMEARING THOSE CANDIDATES WHO SHARE THE VIEW OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE - not to mention the anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948?!

How Merkel paved the way for Brexit (Erdogan deal) and aided jihad in EU. NATO (US) with former fascist state Germany now sides with islamofascism - especially Erdogan's Ottoman aspirations - and supports Uyghur jihadism in hope of placing NATO (i.e. US) nukes between Russia and China. Peter Klevius wonders whether this ill-directed jihad propaganda will promote peace and safety? And how come that racism against e.g. Polish and other EU people in UK is of no interest for BBC while the "problem" of "islamophobia" fills all BBC "news"?
The world bully U.S. thinks it owns and rules the world after having colonized it via dollar manipulation, infiltration, spying, meddling, sanctions and the unscrupulous use of militants and militarism.
Thanks to the global dollar scam, Americans have been freeloaders on the rest of the world, the biggest per capita polluters and the U.S. by far the biggest threat to world peace via weapons built with money it stole from the world. Said by Peter Klevius who has been an anti-socialist all his life. Btw. the world's industrial revolution didn's start in England but in Sweden already in the late 17th century by inventor Christopher Polhem and capitalist Gabriel Stierncrona. Without Polhem's automation to get the rich Swedish iron ore from the mains, England had no chance to start real industrial production.
A nun's gear doesn't sign other women as "whores". However, what about a woman in an islamic "chastity" gear?

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

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

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

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

Saudi Aramco's confidence scam

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

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

BBC dosn't want to save 4,000 steel-workers' jobs because "it's a Chinese buyer and because of the leadership". However, BBC doesn't complain about the murderous and islamofascist Saudi leadership and more than 200 UK/Saudi joint ventures between UK and Saudi companies, and some 100,000 Saudi nationals in UK (equivalent to 14 Million Chinese).

BBC, in an interview about Corbyn, also desperately tries to agitate for more militarism and use of nukes - although fact being that a UK with nukes and war meddling globally may draw more attention and due risk for the Brits than without.

Peter Klevius: The Saudi Aramco sale is the biggest ripoff in the world. If there's any future in oil and you don't care about environment, then why buy what's at its peak when Venezuela's PDVSA is bigger and as low it can get?!

Are you an "islamophobe" if you don't like islamist Human Rights violations? Islam has (via OIC's sharia declaration) abandoned the most basic anti-fascist Human Rights from 1948. Islam is hence the only religion in doing so - not even the Catholics have needed to replace Human Rights with "Catholic human rights".

The seed for world fascism is dormant in Saudi based and steered OIC's world sharia - opposed by ECHR and Peter Klevius, but supported by Sayeeda Warsi.

Sayeeda Warsi, UK's biggest "islamophobia" shouting mouth against Human Rights, is for OIC sharia

Sayeeda Warsi, UK's biggest "islamophobia" shouting mouth against Human Rights, is for OIC sharia

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

While US/UK aim for militarism and war China aims for health and wealth.
How could the Brexit party possibly avoid the Parliament?!

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

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

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

1 Nov 2019 BBC's Sinophobic muslim presenter Razia Iqbal spent most of World Tonight ("in depth news reporting and intelligent analysis from a global perspective") to defend muslim connected street terror in Hong Kong while smearing China. However, nothing about muslims in UK attacking journalists and non-muslims celebrating the Diwali which is globally seen as 'a day of light and hope'. The rest of the time Razia Iqbal boosted rugby. Intelligent? No. Propagandistic, tendentious, bigoted, hypocritical and misinforming while neglecting - yes.

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

China (laws against sharia islamofascism) and EU (Human Rights against sharia islamofascism) are now the only ones protecting basic (negative*) Human Rights.
* Religious people and socialists don't like negative Human Rights simply because they prefer collectives ("communities") rather than individuals. That's why the web is full of misinfo about these rights. Read Peter Klevius definition instead if you want a deep view - or listen to Lauren Chen starting from 7:11 if you want it light
The Saudi "custodian of islam" has some 1.5 billion "citizens" in the muslim world Ummah nation - and demands the world to bow them no matter what (as long they aren't Shia or so, of course). China, on the other hand, keeps its citizens and laws within its own borders. IS islam IS fascism and islam (even the archbishop agrees). So why is sharia fascism not separated from an "islam" that submits to basic Human Rights? As it stands now Saudi based and steered OIC's sharia (the 1990 Cairo declaration) still stands as the basic Human Rights violation via sharia muslims all over the world. And whereas China actively tries to erase sharia islamofascism, EU keeps promoting import of it while judicially telling us it's not right, yet doing nothing to stop it.
Unlike the West, China hasn't aggressively meddled militaristically in other countries around the world, but rather being the world's foremost spreader of new technology and wealth. And whereas the West has eagerly supported Mohammed's totalitarian aims, China has, in practise, implemented in law most of the Human Rights advices that The Council of Europe has directed against OIC. Against this background West's Saudi backing and China smearing is deeply bigoted and hypocritical.

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

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

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

Read K.S. Lal (free online) on islam's evil spread!

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

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

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

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


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


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

As Greta Thunberg is allegedly reported to the Swedish social authorities, Peter Klevius suggests that her parents read his thesis Pathological Symbiosis in LVU, Relevance, and Sex Segregated Emergence. Keeping in mind that Peter Klevius daughter was only 15 when she entered university and at 16 made her graduate paper about women in ancient times, it shouldn't be considered too sensitive for Greta either. Also read the attached email correspondence which clearly shows how democracy is manipulated. And why not consider Angels of Antichrist, the Social State vs the People (P. Klevius 1996). And last but not least, Peter Klevius 1981/1992 Demand for Resources (original titel Resursbegär).
Peter Klevius and the Council of Europe share exactly the same "islamophobia".
Council of Europe. Resolution 2253 (2019), Sharia, Saudi based and steered OIC's Cairo Declaration and the European Convention on Human Rights: Human Rights protect the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion as enshrined in Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The right to manifest one’s religion, however, is a qualified right whose exercise, under Article 17 of the Convention, may not aim at the destruction of other Convention rights or freedoms.

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

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

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?

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

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

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

Wednesday, February 26, 2020

1991-1994 Peter Klevius wrote a book and told his friends and Francis Crick that there's no essential difference between a brick and them. Now some 30 yrs later physicists imply the same about sand dunes.

Peter Klevius brain tutorial: The only "consciousness" there is - is the word 'consciousness'.


"They're definitely communicating," physicist Nathalie Vriend from Cambridge University said in an interview with The Washington Post.

and here's Peter Klevius take on sand dunes:




Here Peter Klevius (right) has just informed his friend (middle) that there's no difference between Peter Klevius wife (left) and a brick. That's why his friend looks slightly puzzled.



Whoever interested in what consciousness is and how the brain works, need to read Peter Klevius stone example (see below) and the Even More Astonishing Hypothesis (see below). In fact, Peter Klevius stone example should be compulsory reading for everyone - just like a vaccination against dumb or deliberately evil "spirituality".

That will cure much of your "religiosity" etc. bias.

Peter Klevius knows about aliens because he is one - you're too. Most parents see their children turning into aliens already in their teens (that's how the concept 'teenager' emerged). Changing education/job and location also alienates. And when we send humans on multi-generational space trips, their grand-grand-grand etc. -children will have absolutely nothing in common with the grand-grand-grand etc. -children to those humans who stayed on Earth or went to other places. Of course, there's no reason to send people in the future - read Rendezvous with Rama by Arthur C. Clarke, the best science fiction ever written. Why isn't there a movie?!

The reason why Peter Klevius is so successful in scientific analysis is (except for his slightly "different" brain) the fact that he simply checks for bias (religious, political, economics etc) - and the results reveal themselves naturally. And according to Weiniger (who had a big influence on Wittgenstein), 'the Woman' is the main obstacle against women's emancipation, and according to Klevius, 'the Human' is the main obstacle against science. Klevius may accordingly be one of the last human scientists.

And of course, checking for all kinds of bias erases pretty much every possible source of support.

The first and most important redundancy to understand is to skip 'understanding' all together and replace it with 'adaptation'. That simple maneuvre will clean the playing field from distractions more than anything else.

We don't "observe" or "understand" - we adapt. And not only to our outer surrounding but eqaully to our own body incl. our brain. Or a brick turning into grovel/sand. Or a star etc.

Is the flying dust from what used to be a brick less or more "complex"? Or the supernova?

Although the brain/nerve system is more complex, it's no different from e.g. light skin that gets tanned in the sun.

And when Klevius says "we" he really means it. There's no "I" (other than as origo) or "self". As Klevius wrote on the web 2003: In creating this text Klevius would have been helpless without an assisting world". Wittgenstein showed the impossibility of a "private language" and Klevius showed (see the stone example below) that information is the flow of perception and that there's no difference between observation and understanding.

As a consequence there's no free will (even Luther realized this and threw it in the face of Erasmus) because free will is a linguistic mirage (although Luther called it dependancy on a "god").




Peter Klevius scientific biography: My bio-parents were both highly intelligent, thank you. Lincoln Barnett's book (co-written with Albert Einstein) was my favourite at age 14. In my early twenties I wrote an unpublished essay about universe and an other about automation. I see my own best asset as a scientist being lack of political, religious, academic etc. ties. I also see the danger in this setup as it could as well be the perfect road to "private pseudo-science" i.e. individual charlatanism, or "public pseudo-science" i.e. collective charlatanism. The latter may well include s.c. "highly respected" researchers.

However, being too much ahead of once time most often doesn't pay off. The only time I've been paid for my scientific revelations was back in 1981 when my mentor Georg Henrik von Wright (Wittgenstein's successor at Cambridge) convinced a paper to publish an article that apparently none of its editors and few of its readers understood. It was called Resursbegär (Demand for Resources) and was ten years later - again assisted by Georg Henrik von Wright - self-published in a 71 pp "book" in which I analyzed our "existence-centrism" in an unreachable universe. This included a new understanding of "consciousness" that emerged from my criticism of Haberma's division of communicative action in observation and understanding.


Klevius stone example

My view was and is that there can only be adaptation.

I exemplified it (1992:31-33, ISBN 9173288411) with 1) someone seeing (fotons) a stone and 2) telling (sound waves) about it to 3) someone who writes it down (text) to 4) someone else who sees  (fotons) the text. 5) Then the initial "observer" kicks the stone which turns out to be made of paper-mache.

Klevius argues that this example covers everything essential for understanding human information flow.



There's only now -

exemplified it (1992:31-33, ISBN 9173288411) with 1) someone seeing (fotons/understanding/language?*) a stone and 2) telling (sound waves/language) about it to 3) someone who writes it down (text/language) to 4) someone else who sees  (fotons) the text. 5) Then the initial "observer" kicks the stone which turns out to be made of paper-mache.

Klevius argues that this example covers everything essential for understanding human information flow.

1) is a specific perception (understanding) and thought (interpretation) synonymous with the individual's communicative use (compare Wittgenstein's "language game") of the concept 'stone'.

2) is the second individual's linguistic interpretation and understanding of a 'stone', but limited to this individual's specific communicative use of the term.

3) same as above

4) same as above

5) a new perception (understanding)

This last one isn't to be seen as a "correction" but just as part of a continuous flow of adaptation.

* some people understand without necessarily putting a word on it



In 1994 I developed my theory calling it EMAH ('the Even More Astonishing Hypothesis', alluding to Francis Crick's 1994 book The Astonishing Hypothesis). EMAH has been on the web since 2003. In the “book” I also warned how research is vulnerable to be choked by its own peer steered citation cartels. I finished the book by exemplifying a new division of human cultures in a chapter called Khoi, San and Bantu. My moral bedrock since my teens rests on universal (negative) Human Rights for everyone - incl. women.


Here's rough Google translate based "translation" from Klevius 1992 book Demand for Resources:

What I want to say is that there is a culturally independent "thought intelligence" and that there is an intellectual difference between cats, monkeys and humans even when body? and environmental experiences are equated. A person can simply boast of experiences in a cat impossible way, no matter how dull the lives they both lived. Produced in this way, the matter seems obvious, but it is often diffused in the debate.

I also find it difficult to understand the relevance of the theory of the so-called The "Machiavellian Intelligence" which states that social manipulation skills would have shaped and driven our intelligence. For me, it seems as if successful% ocio play "today seems to lack intelligence and / or thought correlation. It is more exceptional, in relation to other factors, that fruitfully intriguing carries fruit. You can as well see memory capacity (in an ecological context ) as a consequence of the selection factor and social interaction.

An interesting detail in this context is that the large brain of man as well as of other animals is actually the "neck" upon which it so-called. the olfactory center (the odor organ) is associated with the brain stem. This "olfactory neck" has, in man, received its longest and most complex design, while man actually has denser accumulations of odor-producing fat glands than any other animal. One can therefore rightly assume that the odor organ has played a crucial role in designing the way in which we perceive / think the world. You just need to think about how strong and overwhelming emotions some smells that you have not known for a long time can induce. For me personally, it seems to apply mainly to smells and smells with positive associations from my childhood. At the beginning of my work, it appeared as something of an intuitive feeling that the "psychological" view of the brain so strong in the 20th century led us away from the evolutionary self-explanations of thought.

In line with the modern "hygiene", which seems to have the main purpose of concealing body scents and replacing them with artificial, allergies and immune problems increase. If you assume that thinking has a close connection with smells and scents, this is undoubtedly a reflection. Does this also affect us on other levels?

While in his book "The Scented Ape" Michael Stoddart pleads for the fact that man, when she started hunting in flock, would have lost large parts of his odor communication ability due to that the then necessary monogamy was threatened by sexual odor invasions from the females but at the same time one can come up with several alternative scenarios and objections. The "olfactory neck" complexity of man suggests Lex. that something closely related to the odor organ has' driven our intelligence. Lex's dogs. which have recognized good sense of smell, even the very strongly developed "olfactory neck" and therefore the brain's development, except possibly marginally, can be linked to or from simpler degrees of odor detection. In fact, we know quite a bit about the more subtle odor perceptions that man unconsciously occupies.

The connection between intelligence / intellect and its biological anchors can thus appear to be problematic on several levels. This applies inter alia to the connection between sensory impression and abstraction. In a remark about rational reconstruction, Jurgen Haberma makes a distinction between what he calls sensory experience (observation) and communicative experience (understanding). Against this, one can polemise if one sees the thought process as consisting of parts in memory patterns and experiences that must be processed / understood in order to be meaningful at all.

  sees a stone = sight impression as understood by the viewer
  I see a stone = opinion understood by another person

I suppose Habermas sees the latter example as communication because of the purpose (via the language) of the original stone viewer's visual impression of the stone and then to claim that this "extent" of the meaning in the opinion cannot be proved to be of a different nature from the thought / understanding process that lies behind the first example. This understanding of the stone does not differ from the understanding of an abstract symbol like Lex. a letter or a word, written or pronounced. The statement "I see a stone" is likewise a direct impression of mind which, like the stone as an object, lacks all meaning if it is not understood. Here one can object that the word stone in contrast to the phenomenon stone can transmit meanings (symbolic construction according to Habermas). Nevertheless, I would like to insist that this is also apparent and a consequence of our way of perceiving the language and Popper's third world (see below).

A stone can be perceived as everything from the printing ink in a word to an advanced symbolic design. It is not a matter of difference between observation and understanding, but only different, unrelated levels of understanding. Nor does the division "pure observation" and "reflective observation" have any other than purely comparative significance, since any delimitation (other than the purely comparative) does not make sense meaningfully. Doesn't it matter that communication takes place between two conscious, thinking beings? Certainly, Habermas and others are free to elevate communication between individuals to another group than the communication the stone viewer has with himself and his cultural heritage via reflection in the stone, but in this case this is merely an ethnocentric position without relevance to the distinction / observation distinction.

For me, it is therefore not a fundamental difference in the symbol combination in the sensory experience of a stone or of Habermas text. Of course, this does not mean that in any way I would express any kind of valuation of the Habermas or the stone. What it does mean, however, is that I want to question the division of observation / understanding and thus also the division of primitive / civilian thinking. In the name of justice, it should be said that Habara's example is based on a completely different chain of thought with a different purpose than this one mentioned, and that I only want to try to demonstrate the danger of generalizing the relationship between observation / understanding. In other contexts, it becomes almost unnoticed for a linguistic axiom (virus to take information technology as an example) that then both generates and cumulates differences that do not exist.

In the book Evolution of the Brain / Creation of the Self (with preface by Karl Popper), John C. EccIes notes among other things. that: '1t is surprising how slow the growth of World 3 (K. Poppers and J. EccIes division of existence and experiences; World I = physical objects and states, World 2 = states of consciousness, World 3 = knowledge in objective sense) was in the earlier of thousands of years of Homo sapiens sapiens. And even today there are races of mankind with negligible cultural creativity. Only when the societies could provide the primary needs of shelter, food, clothing, and security were able to participate effectively in cultural creativity, so enriching World 3. "

This quote shows Eccle's and Popper's legitimate concerns about the issue and partly the cultural-revolutionary retreat path they use to leave the question. (See the chapter Khoi, San and Bantu in this book) It also reveals a certain, perhaps unconscious, aversion to the idea that societies would voluntarily settle for meeting their "primary needs".
Karl Popper has, with reasons, made himself known as the freedom advocate and here I fully share his attitude. Freedom (implicitly a human and responsible freedom) is a clear deficiency in the modern welfare state. At the same time, it is so that the concept of freedom does not exist at all among the collectors / hunter cultures referred to in this consideration. The concept of freedom, like diamonds, is created only under pressure.


Peter Klevius wrote:


Tuesday, May 15, 2018

Peter Klevius contribution to the AI/consciousness debate.

The thoughts below were first presented 1979-81 in an article and correspondence with Georg Henrik von Wright (Wittgenstein's successor at Cambridge), and later published in a book 1992, a letter to Francis Crick (Salk) 1994, and on the web 2003.

Evolution means change - a fact missed by many neo-creationists*


* Exemplified with the eager "humanifying" of Neandertals etc. extinct creatures. Or the equally eager (not to say desperate) search for a hiding place where "consciousness" can be protected against de-mystifiers such as e.g. Peter Klevius.


In Demand for Resources (1992 ISBN 9173288411) Klevius crossed the boundaries between consciousness-observation-understanding-language and wrapped it all in one, i.e. adaptation.
According to Klevius analysis everything is adaptation. There's no principal analytical difference between how planets adapt to their star or how humans adapt to their environment. And no dude, this is not "simplifying away" or diluting it. When the bedrock of the Indo-Australian Plate met with the bedrock of the Asian plate the landscape was almost flat. However, look at the Himalayas today. Same rock but a completely different and extremely wrinkled appearance and a new name, mountain range.

Consciousness is neither simple nor complicated - and certainly not a "mystery". The real mystery is how people "mystify" it - from Penrose's hiding in quantum tubulars to Koch's escape into the brain's olfactory channels. The former outside falsifiability, and the latter outside any kind of scientific consensus and, more importantly, clearly related to the fact that brain evolution started as a smell organ which later on was mounted with additional gadgets (vision, hearing etc.) connected via Thalamus. In short, as Klevius wrote 1992, this is why olfactory "memories" feel so different. This is also why claustrum is focused towards the olfactory lobes, i.e. functioning as a "translator" and transferer of these signals which weren't originally connected to thalamus at all.

And please, don't get stuck in the frontal lobe just because you find some difference compared to other parts of the brain. The simple reason is just that the frontal lobe happens to be the last expansion in brain evolution and is lacking in non-humans.

The  "mystery" of drivingness - or carness.


An undriving car doesn't move.

A selfdriving car makes intentional decisions based on history and present. These decisions wouldn't be any different with a human driver with exactly the same information available. A surprising looking choice of route may be just based on info npt available for the surprised.


Humans have humanness rather than "consciousness"*


* Humans have skin. So were's the mystery of "skinness"?
According to Peter Klevius (1981, 1992, 1994, 2003) humans have trapped themselves in language and have a borderline problem re. what can be said across the border between humans and "the rest".

In Demand for Resources (1992, ISBN 9173288411), Peter Klevius presented the following - his own (as far as he is aware of) - original observations re. evolution and awareness/mind:

Existence is change - not creation out of nothing.

Among so called "primitive" societies which had had no contact with monotheisms, the very thought that something could appear out of nothing was impossible.

So why did monotheisms come up with such a ridiculous idea? It's very simple. The racist "chosen people" supremacist ideology created a "god" that was not part of the world he (yes, he) had created out of nothing, i.e. making a clean sheet on which the chosen ones could exist (see the chapter Existencecentrism in Demand for Resources, 1992 ISBN 9173288411).

Culture is that (arbitrarily defined and bordered) part of adaptation that is shared by others.


Warning/advise: To better your understanding of Klevius writings you need to realize that he is extremely critical of how concepts are created and used. Not in a stiff/absolute sense of meaning, but rather how concepts may cluelessly (or deliberately) migrate within a particular discourse. So when Dennet talks about "deliberate design" he contrasts it against "clueless design", although such a distinction isn't possible. Evolution is neither clueless nor deliberate. And whatever we are up to it can't be distinguished from evolution other than as a purely human assessment - in which case it can't include evolution. Only humans can evaluate human behavior, which fact renders such evaluations pointless outside the realm of humans. Getting this seems to constitute a main obstacle in debates about AI and singularity.

This is why Klevius always refers to the individual human's negative Human Rights, i.e. everyone we agree is a human. This is also why Klevius can emphasize the Denisova bracelet, genetics etc. finds in Siberia/Altai as proof of modern humans evolving there (with some help from island South East Asia, not in Africa. Most humans living today would have been incapable of intellectually perform the task because the IQ peak has long since been diluted in the mass of humans. We're all one family of humans but the top of the line of human intelligence was a combination of island shrinking brains and its genetic transfrer to big skulled relatives in the north - as Klevius has pointed out since 2004 on the web.

Peter Klevius EMAH update on "consciousness" 2018: 


Acknowledgement: I've never in my life met anyone who I've felt being more intelligent* than I am. This means I've had no reason warshipping human intelligence. And whole my life I've been told it's unfair that I see things faster and clearer than others - or even worse, that I "turn black into white" (some real idiots from the 1970-80s). But how could it be "unfair" when I can't use it for my own advantage without others sooner or later catching up and shaming me? And when you're in the front line no one understands and therefore doesn't pay you. Which fact has added valuable neutrality and reduced malign bias to/from Klevius' analysis.

* Klevius intelligence was perhaps best described by the Finnish neuroscientist, J. Juurmaa, who in the 1990s wrote: "Peter Kleviuksen ajatuksen kulku on ilmavan lennokas ja samalla iskevän ytimekäs" which translated to English would mean something like: "Peter Klevius' thought process is easily eloquent yet simultaneously concisely punchy." This he wrote in a long letter answering Klevius question about the effects on the visual cortex on individuals who have been blind from birth. This inquiry was part of Klevius check up of his already published EMAH theory, so to get a qualified confirmation that the "visual cortex" in born blinds is fully employed with other things than vision. Juurmaa's description of Klevius  is in line with philosopher Georg Henrik von Wright's 1980 assessment, and more importantly with Klevius own experience, and perhaps most importantly when assessing AI/deep learning etc.

Only in true science and Human Rights does Klevius intelligence matter. And with AI singularity "pure" science will be dead anyway (although some idiots will never get it). Why? Because human existencecentrism (look it up in Klevius 1992 book pp 21-22) will only follow AI to the point of singularity.

Peter Klevius has - since he at age 14 read Einstein's and Barnett's book - been fascinated with human aversion of checking themselves in the mirror of existencecentrism.

Future democracy will be cloud based and filtered through (negative) Human Rights equality. This means that we get rid of the distorting bottleneck our politicians now constitute.

This also means the definitive end of islam as we know it, i.e. as a Human Rights violating excuse for racism, sexism, and power greed.

It's astonishing how the avoidance of negative Human Rights affects every debate. And most of this is due to our politicians' defense of the Saudi dictator family. Why? Simply because they stand as the "guardians" of islam and 1.6 Billion muslims which are all lumped together and protected by the label "islamophobia" which in fact only protects the Saudi dictator family and those who want to deal with it and its Human Rights violating sharia(e.g. OIC etc).

There's no way to copy a brain without a total break between individuals. That's perhaps one definition of what it means to be a human.

What makes humans individuals (atoms) and robots collective. Robot memories are shared and if you destroy the hardware, the software will still be alive and well.

However, a human individual is extremely vulnerable to individual extinction.

And a "pet" copy is an other individual - although it remembers and behaves like the original.


Peter Klevius in Demand for Resources (1992:23, ISBN 9173288411):



The basis of existence is change, and causality constitutes a complex of evolution and devolution. Evolution may be seen as the consequence of causality's variables in time where complexity in existing structures are reinforced. This stands in opposition to thermodynamics which theoretically leads to maximal entropy (i.e. energy equilibrium) where time/change finally ends. Someone might then say that the products of evolution are just temporary components in causality's road towards uniformity (Klevius 1981, 1992 - text copied from Klevius 1981 article Demand for Resources).


The Even More Astonishing Hypothesis (EMAH)

by Peter Klevius


1991, years before Crick's book, the original idea was presented for Georg Henrik von Wright (Wittgenstein's own choice of successor at his Cambridge chair), then published in Demand for Resources (1992, ISBN 9173288411), and 1994 presented for Francis Crick and 2004 presented on the world wide web.

Abstract: Consciousness may be seen as environmental adaptation rather than something "uniqely human". Although neo-cortex constitutes the mass of adaptations Thalamus is the least discussed yet perhaps the most important piece in the "puzzle of mind" due to its central function as the main relay station between body actions, brain and environment. A critical assessment of concepts such as: observation/understanding, mind/body, free will, knowledge and language reveals an inescapable awareness in the Thalamic "meet-puts". In conclusion memories hence may be better described as associations causing linguistic traps (i.e. self-inflicted "problems" produced in language) rather than as distinct entities. The continuity model proposed in EMAH avoids the limitations of a "discrete packets of information" model, and without Cartesian dualism or the Homunculus fallacy.

Note. In some respect the neural network of "lower" systems such as the spinal cord and cerebellum by far outperforms the cortex. This is because of different tasks (fast motorics and slow adaptation) and due difference in processing. (Copyright Peter Klevius).


Introduction

Understanding how social behavior and its maintenance in human and other forms of life (incl. plants etc) evolved has nothing to do with “the balance between self interest and co-operative behavior” but all to do with kinship and friendship adaptation. Everything is "self-interest" - how could it not be? Although humans may be attributed a more chaotic (i.e. more incalculable) "personality", they are, like life in general, just adaptive "robots" (i.e. active fighters against entropy – see Demand for Resources, 1992 ISBN 9173288411). Misunderstanding (or plain ignorance of – alternatively ideological avoidance of) kin recognition/friendship (symbiosis), and AI (robotics) pave the way for the formulation of unnecessary, not to say construed, problems which, in an extension, may become problematic themselves precisely because they hinder an open access for direct problem solving (see e.g. Angels of Antichrist – kinship vs. social state).

Mentalists trap themselves in selfinflicted astonishment over phenomenons they think are beyond determinism. When Chomsky says "there are things beyond comprehension" he should ask himself: Who are you to talk about things beyond comprehension (compare 'existencecentrism' in Klevius Demand for Resources, 1992 ISBN 9173288411), i.e. something that can't be asked - without just pushing the border a little - or rather, just a new comprehensible adaptation. And if it seems incomprehensible, it's no more so than e.g. Donald Duck (see below).


The Future of a "Gap" (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

Human: What is a human being? Can the answer be found in a non-rational a priori statement (compare e.g. the axiomatic Human Rights individual) or in a logical analysis of the alleged "gap" between human beings and others? The following analysis uses an "anti-gap" approach. It also rests on the struggle and success of research performed in the field of artificial intelligence (AI), automation/robotics etc.

Signal: A "signal gap" is commonly understood as a break in the transition from input to output, i.e., from perception to behavior. Mentalists use to fill the gap with "mind" and "consciousness" while behaviorists don't bother because they can't even see it. A five minute timelaps of Earth spanning 4.5 Billion years would make a very lively planet. However, where's "consiousness" between input (the single frames) and output (the running video)? Or, what/whom should we allow to possess "consciousness"? And if we limit it only to humans we are stuck with it being just a human thing - hence impossible to use in general meaning. An easier way out is to avoid the signal "gap" and call it what it is, a network. But a network that continuously builds new patterns on top of already existing ones. 

Matter: Berkeley never believed in matter. What you experience is what you get and the rest is in the hand of "God" (i.e. uncertainty). This view makes him a super-determinist without "real" matter. Klevius just adds the fact that Berkeley's "God" is truly metaphysical and therefore not worthy of even talking about.

Mind: The confusing mind-body debate originated in the Cartesian dualism, which divides the world into two different substances, which, when put together, are assumed to make the world intelligible. However, on the contrary, they seem to have created a new problem based on this very assumption. But a problem that has become popular among those who want to talk metaphysics, i.e. giving an impression of talking about what can't be talked about.

Free will: Following a mind-body world view, many scholars prefer to regard human beings as intentional animals fueled by free will. It is, however, a challenging task to defend such a philosophical standpoint. Not even Martin Luther managed to do it, but rather transferred free will to God despite loud protests from Erasmus. Although Luther's thoughts in other respects have had a tremendous influence on Western thinking, this particular angle of view has been less emphasized. However, 'free will' can only be used locally.

Future: When asked about the "really human" way of thinking, many mentalists refer to our capacity to "calculate" the future. But is there really a future out there? All concepts of the future seem trapped in the past. We cannot actually talk about a certain date in the future as real future. What we do talk about is, for example, just a date in a calendar. Although it is a good guess that we are going to die, the basis for this reasoning always lies in the past. The present hence is the impenetrable mirror between the "real future" and ourselves. Consequently, every our effort to approach this future brings us back in history. Closest to future we seem to be when we live intensely in the immediate present without even thinking about the future. As a consequence the gap between sophisticated human planning and "instinctual" animal behavior seems less obvious. Is primitive thinking that primitive after all? And isn't 'instinct' just an excuse for ignorance?

An additional aspect of future is that neither youth, deep freezing or a pill against aging will do as insurance for surviving tomorrow. The human individual is lost in a crash whereas the robot brain safely hovers in the cloud - in many copies.


Observation and Understanding (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

If one cannot observe something without understanding it, all our experiences are illusions because of the eternal string of corrections made by later experience. What seems to be true at a particular moment may turn out to be something else in the next, and what we call understanding is merely retrospection.

The conventional way of grasping the connection between sensory input and behavioral output can be described as observation, i.e. as sensory stimulation followed by understanding. The understanding that it is a stone, for example, follows the observation of a stone. This understanding might in turn produce behavior such as verbal information. To do these simple tasks, however, the observer has to be equipped with some kind of "knowledge," i.e., shared experience that makes him/her culturally competent to "understand" and communicate. This understanding includes the cultural heritage embedded in the very concept of a stone, i.e.it's a prerequsite for observation. As a consequence it's not meaningful to separate observation and understanding. This, of course, doesn't exclude "local" (non-analytical) use of the terms in speech and literature etc. for the purpose of catching subtle nyances.

Categorization belongs to the language department, which, on the brain level, is only one among many other behavioral reactions. But due to its capability to paraphrase itself, it has the power to confuse our view on how we synchronize our stock of experience. When we watch a stone, our understanding synchronizes with the accumulated inputs associated with the concept of a stone. "It must be a stone because it looks like a stone," we think. As a result of such synchronization, our brain intends to continue on the same path and perhaps do something more (with "intention"). For example, we might think (as a result of our adaptation to the situation), "Let's tell someone about it." The logical behavior that follows can be an expression such as, "Hey look, it's a stone out there." Thus, what we get in the end is a concept of a stone and, after a closer look, our pattern of experience hidden in it. If the stone, when touched, turns out to be made of paper maché, then the previous perception is not deepened, but instead, switched to a completely new one.

It's almost frightening how often one hears researchers/scientists/philosophers etc. who think they are at least average in intelligence, telling others that "previously we didn't understand what X was", for example that "water consists of molecules and atoms". This kind of schizophrenic "thinking" reflects the depth of the mind/body hoax many are trapped in.

One might say that a stone in a picture is a "real" stone, while the word 'stone' written on a piece of paper is not. The gap here is not due to different representations but rather to different contexts. When one tries to equalize observation with understanding, the conventional view of primitive and sophisticated thinking might be put in question. We still act like complex worms, and sophistication is only a matter of biased views built on different stocks of experience (adaptaion) and the overwhelming complexity that appears chaotic. Moreover, a worm, just like a computer, is more than the sum of its parts.

Therefore, meaning, explanation and understanding are all descriptions of the same basic principle of how we synchronize (adapt) perception with previous experience. For the fetus or the newborn child, the inexperienced (unsynchronized, or uncertainty/"god" if you prefer) part of the inside-outside communication is huge compared to a grown up. Hence the chaotic outside world (i.e., the lack of its patterns of meaningfulness) has to be copied (adapted) in a stream of experience, little by little, into the network couplings of the brain. When the neural pattern matches the totality (meaningfulness) its information potential disappears. Our brain doesn't store information - it kills information. From an analytical point of view "storing of information" is an oxymoron. On top of this, there is a continuous growth of new neurons, which have to be connected to the network. As a result of these processes, the outside world is, at least partly, synchronized with the inside, "mental" world. Heureka, the baby appears to think and exist! In other words, the baby records changes against a background of already synchronized (adapted) inputs.

* see "existence-centrism" in Demand for Resources (1992) for a discussion abt a shrinking god and the allmighty human!


The Category of the Uniquely Human Category Mistake (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

It's meaningless to state that we are the best (or the worst) humankind. However, category mistakes re. humans and non-humans are still common and many researchers/scientists don't even seem to realize how carelessly they handle this important distinction.

It's equally meaningless to ask what something is that we don't know what 'it' is. 'Consciousness' is easily understood when used in comparison with 'unconcious'. However, how stupid is it when we mystify the term beyond comprehension by squeezing in random additional properties and then ask the question: What is this mystery with consciousness".

A main difficulty in formulating the concept of consciousness is our pride (presumably we should have been equally proud as mice) and our tautological belief in "something uniquely human", However, if we try to follow the die-hard determinists, we would find free will and destiny easier to cope with, and also that the concept of "the unique human being" is rather a question of point of view and carelessly crossing borders of concepts.

Following this line of thought, I suggest turning to old Berkeley as well as to Ryle but excluding Skinnerian Utopias. Those who think the word determinism sounds rude and blunt can try to adorn it with complexity to make it look more chaotic. Chaos here means something you cannot overview no matter how deterministic it is. We seem to like complexity just because we cannot follow the underlying determinism. The same could be said about what it really is to be a human? A passion for uncertainty, i.e. life itself. Francis Crick in The Astonishing Hypothesis: "... your sense of personal identity and free will are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules."

This statement is easy to agree on, so let me continue with another, perhaps more useful, quote from Crick: "Categories are not given to us as absolutes. They are human inventions." I think these two statements create an efficient basis for further investigations into the mystery of thinking. Hopefully you will forgive me now as I'm going to abolish not only memory but also free will and consciousness altogether. Then, I will go even one step further to deny that there are any thoughts (pictures, representations, etc.) at all in the cortex. At this point, many might agree, particularly regarding the cortex of the author of this text.

The main problem here is the storage of memories, with all their colors, smells, feelings and sounds. Crick suggests the dividing of memory into three parts: episodic, categorical and procedural. While that would be semantically useful, I'm afraid it would act more like an obstacle in the investigation of the brain, because it presupposes that the hardware uses the same basis of classification and, like a virus, hence infects our analyses.

The analysis presented here is the result of de-categorization. The only thing that distinguishes us from the rest of nature (and 'nature' includes all artefacts, non-human as well as human ones) is the structure and complexity most (but not all) humans possess. In other words, there's no point at which something "special" happens. This is why Klevius in 1994 said that there's no principal difference between a brick and his girlfriend - which comment rose the eyebrow on his pal who admired Klevius girlfriend.

Instead of categorization, this analysis sees only adaptation to the surrounding world incl. one's own brain, which condtitutes of layers of previous adaptations where the latest one is awareness, consciousness, or the present now if you like.


Nerves, Loops and "Meet-puts" (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

According to Crick, "each thalamic area also receives massive connections from the cortical areas to which it sends information. The exact purpose of these back connections is not yet known." In the following paragraphs, I will outline a hypothetical model in line with this question. The interpretation of the interface between brain and its surrounding as it is presented here has the same starting point as Crick's theory but divides thinking into a relay/network system in the cortex and the perception terminals (or their representatives in the thalamus) around the body like an eternal kaleidoscope. Under this model, imagination would be a back-projected pattern of nerve signals, associated to the original events that caused them but with the signals faded and localized as "internal" based on direction of nerve signals. This view suggests that there are not only inputs and outputs but also whst one might name "meet-puts," i.e., when an input signal goes through and evolves into other signals in the cortex, these new signals meet other input signals in the thalamus.

There is no limit to the possible number of pattern/association in such a system, and there is no need for memory storage but rather, adaptive network couplings. These "couplings," or signal pathways, are constantly running in loops (not all simultaneously but some at any given moment, i.e. e.g. what we call awareness) from the nerve endings in our bodies through the network in the cortex and back again to the thalamus. Of course the back-projected signals have to be discriminated from incoming signals, thereby avoiding confusion regarding fantasy and reality. But this process, though still unknown, could be quite simple and perhaps detected simply based on the direction where it comes from. As a consequence of the loops, the back-projected pattern differs from the incoming signals, or the stimuli. Therefore, every signal from the body/perceptions, hormonal signals and so on, either finds its familiar old route or pattern of association in the network (established/adapted experiences) or creates new connections (new experiences) that can be of varying durability depending on how they settle with older associations. For example, if someone is blind from the moment of birth, s/he will have normal neuronal activity in the cortex area of vision. On the other hand, in case of an acquired blindness, the level of activity in the same area will become significantly lower over time. This is logical according to the EMAH model because, in the former case, the neurons have never become involved in association patterns of vision but were engaged in other tasks. In the latter case, the neurons have partly remained in previous vision patterns, which are no longer in use, while the rest has moved onto other new tasks.

It is important to note that human thinking, contrary to what today's computers do, involves the perceptions that originate from the chemical processes in the body's hormonal system, what we carelessly name "emotions." This, I think, is the main source behind the term "human behavior." The difference between man and machine is a source of concern but, as I see it, there is no point in making a "human machine". But perhaps someone might be interested in building a "human-like machine".


Body vs. Environment - a History of Illusions (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

The surface of our body isn't the border of consciousness. A better candidate is the neuronal system/Thalamus.

According to the EMAH model, nerves define our body. Thus, our hormonal signals inside our body can be viewed as belonging to the environment surrounding the nerveous system. As the meaning of life is to uphold complexity by guarding the borders, it's ultimately a fight against entropy. In this struggle, life is supported by a certain genetic structure and metabolism, which synchronizes its dealings (adaptation) with the surrounding environment. Balancing and neutralizing these dealings is a job done by nerves. Also consider Klevius gut bacterias with brain.

A major and crucial feature of this "body-guarding" mechanism is knowing difference in the direction between incoming signals and outgoing, processed signals. On top of this, both areas change continuously and thus have to be matched against each other to uphold or even improve the complexity. According to this model, people suffering from schizophrenia, just like healthy people, have no problem in discriminating between inputs and outputs. In fact, we can safely assume that the way they sometimes experience hallucinations is just like the way we experience nightmares. Both hallucinations and nightmares seem so frightening because they are perceived as incoming signals and confused as real perceptions. The problem for the schizophrenic lies in a defect in processing due to abnormal functions in and among the receptors on the neurons, which makes the association pattern unstable and "creative" in a way that is completely different compared with controlled fantasies. In the case of nightmares, the confusion is related to low and fluctuating energy levels during sleep. However, a frightful hallucination is always real because it is based on perceptions. What makes it an illusion is when it is viewed historically from a new point of view or experienced in a new "now," i.e., weighed and recorded as illusory from a standpoint that differs from the original one. In conclusion, one may argue that what really differentiates a frightful ghost from a harmless fantasy is that we know the latter being created inside our body, whereas we feel unsure about the former.



EMAH Computing as Matched Changes (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

EMAH does not support the idea that information is conveyed over distance, both in the peripheral and central nervous system, by the time of occurrence of action potential?

"All we are hypothesizing is that the activity in V1 does not directly enter awareness. What does enter awareness, we believe, is some form of the neural activity in certain higher visual areas, since they do project directly to prefrontal areas. This seems well established for cortical areas in the fifth tier of the visual hierarchy, such as MT and V4." (Crick & Koch, 1995a,b).  Hardware in a computer is, together with software (should be “a program” because this word signals programming more directly), specified at the outset. A high level of flexibility is made possible through the hardware's ability to unceasingly customize to incoming signals. This is partly what differs human beings from a machine. The rest of the differentiating factors include our perceptions of body chemistry such as hormones, etc. Programming a computer equipped with flexible hardware, i.e., to make them function like neurons, will, according to the EMAH-model, make the machine resemble the development of a fetus or infant. The development of this machine depends on the type of input terminals.

All input signals in the human, including emotional ones, involve a feedback process that matches the incoming signals from the environment with a changing copy of it in the form of representations (or rather adaptations) in the brain's network couplings. Life starts with a basic set of neurons, the connections of which grow as experiences come flooding in. This complex body of neuronal connections can be divided into permanent couplings, the sum of experiences that is your "personality," and temporary couplings, short-term more shallow "memories"/imprints for the time being.

A certain relay connection, if activated, results in a back-projected signal toward every receptor originally involved and thus creates, in collaboration with millions of other signals, a "collage" that we often call awareness. This is a constant flow and is in fact what we refer to as the mysterious consciousness. At this stage, it is important to note that every thought, fantasy or association is a mix of different kinds of signals. You cannot, for example, think about a color alone because it is always "in" or "on" something else (on a surface or embedded in some kind of substance) and connected by relay couplings to other perceptions or hormonal systems. "Meaning" is thus derived from a complex mix of the loops between perceptions and back-projected perceptions. This can be compared to a video camera system with a receiving screen and a back-projecting screen. The light meter is the "personality" and the aperture control the motor system. However, this system lacks the complex network system found in the cortex and thus has no possibility to "remember"/adapt. The recorded signal is of course not equivalent to the brain's network couplings because it is fixed. To save "bytes," our brains actually "forgets" what has been synchronized (adapted) rather than "remember" it. Such changes in the brain - not memories - are what build up our awareness. This process is in fact a common technique in transmitting compressed data. It's also similar to how we first actively learn to walk, and then stop thinking about it.


Short-Term Memories and Dreams (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

At any given moment, incoming signals, or perceptions, have to be understood through fitting and dissolving in a network of associations. If there are new, incomprehensible signals, they become linked (coupled) to the existing net and localized in the present pattern of associations. Whether their couplings finally vanish or stay depends on how they fit into the previous pattern and/or what happens next.

As a consequence of this coupling process - a process that could be described rather as a flow - memories in a conventional, semantic meaning do not exist, because everything happens now. Consciousness or awareness is something one cannot influence, but rather, something that involves an ongoing flow of information to and from nerve endings through the brain (a relay station incl. Thalamus). For every given moment (now) there is consequently only one possible way of acting, i.e. no absolute "free will". One cannot escape awareness or decisions because whatever one thinks, it is based on the past and will rule the future. Memories are thus similar to fantasies of the future, based on and created by experiences. Regarding short-term memory, I agree with Crick's view and hypothesis. But I certainly would not call it memory, only weaker or vanishing superficial couplings between neurons. Remember that with this model, the imagination of something or someone seen a long time ago always has to be projected back on the ports were it came through and thus enabling the appropriate association pattern. Although signals in each individual nerve are all equal, the back-projected pattern makes sense only as a combination of signals. The relay couplings in the cortex is the "code," and the receptor system is the "screen." Because this system does not allow any "escape" from the ever changing "now" which determines the dealings with the surrounding environment. Living creatures develope their software by living.

Dreams are, according to this model, remnants of short-term memories from the previous day(s), connected and mixed with relevant patterns of associations but excluding a major part of finer association structures. This is why dreams differ from conscious thinking. The lack of finer association structures is due to low or irregular activity levels in the brain during sleep. The results are "confused thoughts", which are quite similar to those of demented people, whose finer neural structures are damaged because of tissue death due to a lack of appropriate blood flow. Thus dreams are relevantly structured but in no way a secret message in the way psychoanalysts see them, whereas patients with dementia tend to go back to their childhood due to the irrevocable nature of the physical retardation process. Investigating dreams and their meaning by interpreting them is essentially the same as labeling them as psychological (in a psychoanalytical sense). A better and less biased result would emerge if the researcher actually lived with the subject the day before the dream occurred. Rather than analyzing pale and almost vanished childhood experiences from a view trapped in theoretical prejudices that describe an uncertain future, the researcher should perhaps put more efforts in the logic of the presence.





Donald Duck and a Stone in the Holy Land of Language (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

Wittgenstein: "Sie ist kein Etwas, aber auch nicht ein Nichts!" (Phil. Untersuch. 304). Also see P. Klevius' analysis of a stone (in Demand for Resources - on the right to be poor, 1992).

Although Wittgenstein describes language as a tool it seems more appropriate to classify it as human behavior. Unlike tools language is a set (family) of a certain kind of bodily reactions (internal and/or towards its environment). We have to reject, not only the grammar which tries to force  itself on us", but also, and perhaps even more so, representations we, without any particular reason, assign to language.

Language is basically vocal but apart from that, little has been said about its real boundaries. One could actually argue that the best definition is perhaps the view that language is human territory. The question whether animals have a language is then consequently meaningless. On the other hand, Wittgenstein denied the existence of a "private language" because applying it could never prove the validity of its products. We are trapped in words and connotations of language although these categories themselves, like language in general, are completely arbitrary "language games," as Wittgenstein would have put it. (no offense, Mr Chomsky and others, but this is the tough reality for those trying to make sense of it in the efforts of constructing intelligent, talking computers). Furthermore, these categories change over time and within different contexts with overlapping borders.

Changing language games provide endless possibilities for creating new "language products", such as e.g. psycho-dynamic psychology. I believe this is exactly what Wittgenstein had in mind when he found Freud interesting as a player of such games but with nothing to say about the scientific roots of the mental phenomenon.

Let's imaging Donald Duck and a picture of a stone. Like many psychological terms, Donald Duck is very real in his symbolized form but nonetheless without any direct connection to the reality of the stone. In this sense, even the word stone has no connection to reality for those who don't speak English. Words and languages are shared experience.

It is said that a crucial feature of language is its ability to express past and future time. This might be true but in no way makes language solely human. When bees arrive to their hive they are able, in symbolic form, to express what they have seen in the past so that other bees will "understand" what to do in the future. Naming this an instinct just because bees have such an uncomplicated brain does not justify a different classification to that of human thinking.

If, as I proposed in Demand for Resources (1992), we stop dividing our interaction with the surrounding world in terms of observation and understanding (because there is no way of separating them), we will find it easier to compare different human societies. Language is a categorizing extension of perception/experience patterns and discriminates us as human only in the sense that we have different experiences.

Language has developed from a tool for communication to an additional tool of deception within itself. In Demand for Resources (1992 ISBN 9173288411) I used the example of a stone that turned out to be papier mache, as well as the word existence which has transformed from emerge to exist, i.e. loosing its root and hence opening up for the question how we can exist.

However, words and language are just like everything else that hits our receptors. There is no principle difference in thinking through the use of words or through sounds, smells (albeit not through thalamus), pictures or other "categories". Ultimately, language is, like other types of communication with the surrounding world, just a form of adaptation to one's environment (in a broad sense of course), i.e. resistance against entropy.



Wikipedia: Language is a system that consists of the development, acquisition, maintenance and use of complex systems of communication, particularly the human ability to do so.
Human language has the properties of productivity and displacement, and relies entirely on social convention and learning. Its complex structure affords a much wider range of expressions than any known system of animal communication. Writing is a medium of human communication that represents language and emotion with signs and symbols.

This short "definition" reveals the meaninglessness of the definition.



It's important to note the difference between everyday use of language, and language used about itself.

What's the difference between an image of a distant galaxy taken via a space telescope, or smell molecules left on a path?

And long before humans realized how nature performs photosynthesis, they already thought of themselves as the masters of Universe.

And unlike what Chomsky and others say, Klevius doesn't think in language other than when preparing to answer someone through language. Is this why Klevius is a lousier talker than most early teenagers who don't have a clue about what Klevius is talking about?

Words constitute rigid traps when compared to free, smoothly running thinking/analysis - unless you're gambling with words, as Freud did while waiting for reality to catch up with his speculations we call psychoanalysis (see Klevius Psychosocial Freud timeline.

However, words are also so unprecise that they are useless for construction work etc. where we need math and geometry instead. Words describe what it is and math how it is.

Everyday language needs its greatest asset, volatility, which simultaneously constitutes its main security risk re. faking/misleading communication.

To define it more narrowly, language is also the room where psychoanalysis is supposed to live and work. A stone does not belong to language, but the word "stone" does. What is the difference? How does the word differ from the symbolic expression of a "real" stone in front of you? Or if we put it the other way round: What precisely makes it a stone? Nothing, except for the symbolic value derived from the word "stone." The term "observation" thus implicates an underlying "private language. When Turing mixed up his collapsing bridges with math, he was corrected by Wittgenstein, just as Freud was corrected when he tried to build psychological courses of events on a fantasy of natural science. Wittgenstein's "no" to Turing at the famous lecture at Cambridge hit home the difference between games and reality.

Archetypes and grammar as evolutionary tracks imprinted in our genes is a favorite theme among certain scholars. But what about other skills? Can there also be some hidden imprints that make driving or playing computer games possible? And what about ice hockey, football, chess, talk shows, chats and so on? The list can go on forever. Again, there is no distinguishing border between evolutionary "imprints" (i.e. adaptation) and other stimulus/response features in ordinary life.


"Primitive" vs. "Sophisticated" Thinking (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

The more synchronized (informed) something or someone is with its surrounding reality, the less dynamics/interest this something or someone invests in its relationship with that particular reality. Interest causes investment and social entropy excludes investment economy because economy is always at war against entropy. The key to economic success is luck and thus includes lack of knowledge. No matter how well a business idea is outlined and performed, the success or lack of success is ultimately unforeseeable.In Demand for Resources I discussed the possibility of some serious prejudice hidden in Karl Poppers' top achievement of civilization, namely the "World 3" and his and Eccles' assumption of an increasing level of sophistication from the primitive to the modern stage of development. It is of course easy to be impressed by the sophistication of the artificial, technical environment constructed by man, including language and literature, etc. But there is nonetheless a striking lack of evidence in support of a higher degree of complexity in the civilized human thinking than that of e.g. Australian Aboriginals, say 25,000 years ago. Needless to say, many hunting-gathering societies have been affluent in the way that they have food, shelter and enough time to enrich World 3, but in reality they have failed to do so.

Even on the level of physical anthropology, human evolution gives no good, single answer to our originality. What is "uniquely human" has rested on a "gap," which is now closed, according to Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin, among others. This gap is presumably the same as the one between sensory input and behavioral output mentioned above.From an anthropological point of view, it can be said that a computer lacks genetic kinship, which, however, is a rule without exception in the animate world, although we in the West seem to have underestimated its real power.


De-constructing the Mind (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

A deconstruction of our underlying concepts of the brain can easily end up in serious troubles due to the problem with language manipulation. Wittgenstein would probably have suggested us to leave it as it is. If language is a way of manipulating a certain area - language - then the confusion will become even greater if we try to manipulate the manipulation! But why not try to find out how suitable "the inner environment" is for deconstruction? After all, this environment presupposes some kind of biology at least in the border line between the outside and the inside world. Are not behavioral reactions as well as intra-bodily causes, e g hormones etc. highly dependent on presumed biological "starting points"? How does skin color or sex hormones affect our thinking? Where do causes and reactions start and isn't even the question a kind of explanation and understanding?

Determinists usually do not recognize the point of free will although they admit the possible existence of freedom. Why? Obviously this needs some Wittgensteinian cleaning of language. Unfortunately I'm not prepared for the task, so let's pick up only the best looking parts, i.e. that words as freedom, will, mind, etc., are semantic inventions and that they have no connections to anything else if not proved by convincing and understandable evidence. Does this sound familiar and maybe even boring? Here comes the gap again. Stimuli and response seen purely as a reflex/adaptation is not always correct, says G. H. von Wright, because sometimes there may be a particular reason causing an action. According to von Wright, an acoustic sensation, for example, is mental and semantic and thus out of reach for the scientific understanding of the body-mind interaction. Is this a view of a diplomatic gentleman eating the cake and wanting to keep it too? To me, it is a deterministic indeterminist's view.

G. H. von Wright concludes that what we experience in our brain is the meaning of its behavioral effects. In making such a conclusion that it is rather a question of two different ways of narrowing one's view on living beings von Wright seems to narrow himself to Spinoza's view. Is meaning meaningful or is it perhaps only the interpreter's random projection of him/herself? Is it, in other words, based only on the existence of the word meaning?

Aristotle divided the world primarily into matter and definable reality (psyche). As many other Greek philosophers, Aristotle was an individualist and would have fitted quite well in the Western discourse of today. Berkeley, who was a full-blood determinist, however recognized the sameness in mind and matter and handed both over to "god". Consequently Philonous' perceived sensations in the mind were not directly aligned with Hylas view of immediate perceptions. We thus end up with Berkeley as a spiritual die-hard determinist challenging materialistic humanism.


Conclusion
                                                                            
In conclusion one might propose a rethinking of the conventional hierarchy of the brain. What we use to call "higher levels", perhaps because they are more pronounced in humans, are in fact only huge "neural mirrors" for the real genius, thalamus (and its capability of two-way communication with the cortex and extensions in the cerebellum, spine, nerv ends etc), i.e. what is part of the "primitive" system. In other words, one may propose a view describing the "gap" between humans and animals as a quantitative difference in the amount/power of cerebral "mirroring" and communication with thalamus, rather than as a distinct qualitative feature. Nothing, except our "emotions", seems to hinder us from making a "human machine". And because these very "emotions" are lived experience (there is, for example, no way to scientifically establish what could be considered "emotions" in a fetus) nothing, except the meaninglessness in the project itself, could hinder us from allowing a machine to "live" a "human life".

Monday, February 24, 2020

Why is Google interfering with Peter Klevius defense of women's Human Rights?!


Why did Google - wittingly or unwittingly - doctor this image by Peter Klevius which defends women's Human Rights?! Is it for the purpose of protecting islamic sharia from criticism? 


As you can see the first and last lines are cut off from the original text that asks: 'Should women have sharia or Human Rights? Attractive but inferior, or fully human?'





 This is what you get on a 'sex segregation klevius' image search onGoogle.

Here's the very same original image from the posting.
Peter Klevius photo and drawing from 1979.

Peter Klevius has always (both in his scientific writings as well as in his practical life) argued for the abolishment of sex segregation/apartheid

Peter Klevius has for the whole of his adult life been defending women's full Human Rights in accordance with the 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration (which islam rejects) and therefor also been against sex segregation. Peter Klevius has always said that women should have the freedom to lead their lives as they wish without having to excuse their bodies (i.e. without having to use or be named by labels such as Tomboy, lesbian, transsexual etc.). In Peter Klevius Utopia everyone is a human and free to act as they like without hormones, surgery  etc. So Peter Klevius has no other problem with LGBT+ except that he feels it's unfair that they instead of having the freedom to lead their lives as they wish, they now need to go through a lot of struggle just to satisfy unfounded and ever changing cultural gender expectations.

Peter Klevius, the world's foremost expert on sex segregation (sad, isn't it) again had to correct the widespread confusion between 'sex' and 'gender'. This map shows that it's islam that stands for sex segregation. However, Peter Klevius is 100% sure that it's not based on thoughts in the head of the students, but rather the form of genitals etc. bodily features usually assessed at birth.

Peter Klevius respects everyone's freedom to fashion as they like. However, deliberately offensive or oppressive supremacist markers reveal disrespect against Human Rights. As an example in this context one may point to islamic sharia "chastity" markers such as the veil, niqab etc. which actually may signal to other women that they are less worthy. In other words, if the clothing is connected to islamic sharia instead of a personal fashion choice.And if a muslim woman makes such a choice not connected to islam/sharia but purely on personal grounds, well, then she really blurres the meaning of it and contradicts the purpose of non-islamic fashion.

Peter Klevius wrote:

Friday, October 26, 2018

Klevius, the world's foremost expert on sex/gender issues (sad isn't it), demands a stop for in sane cultural sex segregation that hurts and violates Human Rights.


The ambigous use of 'gender' for the purpose of upholding sex segregation/apartheid is the real culprit behind many suicides and destroyed lives.


Klevius drawing from 1979 (background photo by Klevius 2012): Human Rights rather than religion

A legal definition of sex as "a biological, immutable condition determined by
genitalia at birth" is proposed in US. What could possibly be clearer than that? And why hasn't it been there all the time?!

This definition says nothing about cultural gender restrictions. And the fact that it's also supported by in sanely religious "communities" shouldn't stain it.



The insidious "socially constructed roles and behaviors typically (sic) ascribed to men and women" is like the Spanish inquisition.


However, when it comes to gender the American medical community currently recognizes a distinction between sex -- a classification based on bodily characteristics, internal and external -- and gender, the socially constructed roles and behaviors typically ascribed to men and women.

It also recognizes that no single aspect of sex or gender defines a person's gender identity -- their internal sense of gender, which may not match the sex assigned to them at birth.

So "behaviors typically ascribed to one sex" aren't allowed but demand hormonal, surgical etc. change of biology instead of human society stopping the sexist "typically ascribed roles and behaviors" of "mainstream" culture.

Under the 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration there's no room whatsoever to command rights and behavior in accordance to sex - no matter how "typical" such sexism is.

And when you have digested this, then take a new reading of what Klevius has tried to teach you throughout his adult life, namely understanding heterosexual attraction.

Klevius hates* the concept "sexual identity" but if he's necessitated to use it it would mean that his only "sexual isentity" is heterosexual attraction and that women's only possible "sexual identity" is as possible receivers of "the male gaze". Every other form of sexuality can be performed or imagined by any person no matter of sex.

* The concept of "sexual identity" is an oxymoron introduced via sociology and theoretical feminism for the sole purpose of keeping up old fashioned sex segregation. As Klevius wrote in Warning for Feminism (1998): When sex segregation in real life vanishes, cultural sex segregation is reinforced by those who seek political etc. power out of it - well knowing that women in most areas have been in a backward position due to classical sex segregation due to child rearing etc., and that many women have felt embarrassed about lacking competence in many "male activities" and therefore an easy target for the proposal of not admitting it but rather call it "feminine behavior". 


Klevius wrote:

Tuesday, April 28, 2015


Bruce Jenner becomes a cultural lesbian because of sex segregation


Bruce Jenner says he becomes a cultural woman - but is still sexually attracted to biological women

He changes his body with hormone therapy and he continues calling himself he. Why? Klevius has the answer further down.

Will Toril Moi accept Bruce as a "woman"?


Bruce Jenner can never have a make up that makes him a biological woman. Not even if he manages to get rid of his heterosexual attraction capacity. Is this masquerade (for whom?) intended to culturally over compensate a biological lack? Why? Who denies Bruce Jenner the right to be as he is unless he masquerade himself into a mirage of "a woman" that simultaneously contributes to the restraints put on young girls via rigid cultural sex segregation? 

 Sometimes ago in Sweden many (most?) persons wearing a dress on a Monday were not biological women.

Toril Moi: I'm not a cultural woman writer but I write like a biological man can not.


Klevius explains: Toril wants to free her writings from the category of women writers ("not to conform to some stereotypical norm for
feminine writing") while simultaneously make sure that she can write in a way a man can not. In other words, like all other true feminists she is a fanatic defender of sex segregation. And like Luce Irigaray, she is probably just a sex politician waiving the affirmative sword - in a way that continuously hurts young girls, for the sake of defending own or women's in general backwardness - which is due to hers and Moi's continuing of historical sex segregation/apartheid.



Sex change is biologically impossible and "gender" or, more properly, sex segregation isn't biological but cultural

Klevius "gender" and sex tutorial


"Sexual Orientation" and "Gender Identity" defined from the perspective of Heterosexual Attraction

Forcing people into a rigid (yet simultaneously completely arbitrary) sex segregation through the creation of "gender identity" categories is a violation against the 1948 Human Rights declaration according to which sex shouldn't matter. How people look and behave changes all the time and varies between communities as well as between individuals. Sex segregation is therefore pure intolerance, i.e. a form of racism. And no, you idiots who think de-sex segregation means giving dresses and dolls to boys, you're very wrong. De-sex segregation means stopping mounting girls with dresses and dolls to an extent that robs them of their possibilities compared to boys.

Dear reader, as you already know, due to a complete lack of competition Klevius is the world's formost expert on sex and sex segregation (sad isn't it). This fact makes it understandably sometimes confusing for you because of the corresponding complete lack of "peer reviewers" who could boost your confidence in what Klevius is saying. However, as you already know, even if there were supporting "peer reviewers" Klevius would never trust them (i.e. in accordance with his scientific methodology which rests on a relentless pursuit of self criticism). So here's some logic instead:


Sexual orientation - why does it matter outside sexuality? It doesn't!

There exists only one meaningful "sexual orientation" and that is heterosexual attraction, i.e. what makes males sexually interested in females. The means for heterosexual attraction vary from bees transporting male pollen, to male fishes getting horny at the sight/smell of eggs left by female fishes, all the way to human males getting excited by female curvature. A male's physical attraction to the opposite sex (not "gender"). "Women" "gay" and "lesbian" are terms indicating lack of this heterosexual attraction in their sexual activities (which fact of course doesn't exclude that male "gays" can have heterosexual attraction activities outside their "gay" activities). 

Sexual activities which lack the element of heterosexual attraction simply have nothing to do with sex dichotomy. A so called heterosexual couple may well perform sexual acts without heterosexual attraction whereas a man may well be heterosexually attracted to a transvestite etc because he thought it was a biological woman - until he finds out.

Gender identity is a hoax term made up for the purpose of guarding sex segregation.

Gayatri Spivak's strategic essentialism (i.e. sex segregation) was meant to signal that while huge intragroup differences may exist, it is important to strategically bring forward a simplified ‘essentialised’ group identity.  "I saw the insane division between Hindus and muslims. This is what makes the idea of including religion in politics and faith-based activism so inconceivable for me." Klevius agrees about this latter part. However, the insane division between Women and Men locks half the population in rigid yet unpredictable cultural fashion groups while islam, on top of this, locks all of us in a similar sharia muslims/Human Rights infidels dichotomy.


Were Bruce Jenner's wives lesbian?


Chrystie Scott, Bruce Jenner's first wife: "It's so hard to wrap your head around it, particularly because he was such a manly man. He never indicated anything feminine in his demeanor. However, it didn't threaten our relationship. It wasn't really a problem,"

Klevius: Indeed, why would it! Who made it a problem? And if you thought of him as "such a manly man" while he actually was a "feminine woman", doesn't it confirm that you didn't know him at all and that you indeed were a lesbian in your love relation to Bruce? He said he has the "soul of a female" even though he was born with male body parts.

Linda Thompson, Bruce Jenner's second wife: "He can finally realize his need to be who he authentically is, who he was born to be. I have respectfully kept his secrets private and would have taken his confidences to my grave had he not spoken out. He can finally realize his need to be who he authentically is, who he was born to be."

However, Linda Thompson also wrote that she would not have married Jenner if she had known about his "gender issue" when they first met. But she's glad she didn't know because she would have missed the chance to share a life with him.
Looking back, I'm so grateful to God, the universe, and Bruce that I didn't know, and that Bruce played the role in my life that he did."

Klevius: Would you believe it! He was the perfect guy for her yet when he put dissonating words (or clothes etc) on it she got scared.

The two met in 1979 at the Playboy Mansion (a house built on a foundation of heterosexual attraction and some silicon), and married on January 5, 1981, and moved to Hawaii.

"The Bruce I knew back then was an easygoing, down-to-earth, casual, romantic, good and loving man. I was extremely happy to have found such a remarkable partner with whom to share my life. I found him to be honorable and, well, just too good to be true. Just too good to be true indeed. The Bruce I knew back then was unstudied, affable, and seemingly very comfortable in his own skin. So it seemed."

Klevius: The big questions are: 1 Why did he do anything? and 2 Why did his sex segregated masquerade affect you so much back then when you applaud it today?

Jenner told her in 1985 that "he identified as a woman" and hoped to move forward with the process of becoming a woman." Confused and desperate, Thompson suggested therapy to overcome or fix it."

They separated after the failed six months therapy and Jenner began taking female hormones and removing face and body hair. He then started developing breasts.

She hopes people will remember him as "world's greatest athlete, who became trailblazer for the civil rights of the transgender community."

Klevius: He is a trailblazer for the Human Right not to be restricted by one's sex. However, his method is over ambitious and he might lose some of his heterosexual attraction instinct.


How to differentiate between the "soul of a female" and the "soul of a man"?


Toril Moi: I try to answer two questions: Why did the question of the woman writer disappear from the feminist theoretical agenda around 1990? Why do we need to reconsider it now? I then begin to develop a new analysis of the question of the woman writer by turning to the statement ‘I am not a woman writer’. By treating it as a speech act and analysing it in the light of Simone de Beauvoir’s
understanding of sexism, I show that it is a response to a particular kind
of provocation, namely an attempt to force the woman writer to conform
to some norm for femininity. I also show that Beauvoir’s theory illuminates Virginia Woolf’s strategies in A Room of One’s Own before, finally, asking why we, today, still should want women to write.

If there is a difficulty with Woolf’s view, it is that she argues as if it were
always wrong to write as if one were a woman. In the end, the danger of
identifying with the despised category, namely femininity, is more terrify-
ing to her than the danger of having to pretend to be entirely genderless.
That she feels this way, is surely Professor von X’s fault.

However, here's Klevius' Virginia Woolf (extracted from his PhD thesis):


Virginia Woolf on heterosexual attraction


Virginia Woolf: "Why are women... so much more
interesting to men than men are to women?"

According to Virginia Woolf ‘all this pitting of sex against sex, of quality against quality; all this claiming of superiority and imputing of inferiority belongs to the private-school stage of human existence…’ (1928: 21).

Woolf’s androgyny and Bloomsbury’s sexual liberalism can be traced to nineteenth and early twentieth century science and individuals such as Richard von Krafft-Ebing, Edward Carpenter, Havelock Ellis, Otto Weininger, and Sigmund Freud, who all maintained the theory of a third sex in which masculine and feminine characteristics (drawn of course along the lines of biological essentialist binary thought) unified in a single body (Wright 2002: 1-4).

Woolf’s androgyny has been interpreted in a variety of ways. However, ‘Woolf distilled a purer essence from the concept than contemporary critics tend to do. Androgyny, for Virginia Woolf, was a theory that aimed to offer men and women the chance to write without consciousness of their sex – the result of which would ideally result in uninhibited creativity’ (Wright 2007: 1 & 4). The function of Woolf’s androgyny would ideally be to provide ‘a third term that neutralises the gendered way in which the subject is constructed.’ Woolf’s androgyny was assigned to sex instead of settling down into the sexual polarisation it is designed to avoid. We may then read androgyny as either liberation for women, as a bisexuality to which women are closer than men, or the result of the split that continually takes place in female consciousness due to sex segregation (Wright 2007: 4).

Ultimately, according to Wright, Woolf’s androgyny implied a way of thinking that would enable women and men to write as themselves, ‘still in a sexed body, but without the attendant prejudices and discriminations that are connected to the body by society’ (Wright 2007: 8), i.e. what here is termed sex segregation. In Wright’s words:

‘For Woolf, the enemy of androgynous thinking was summed up in the Victorian age which forced writers into a consciousness of their sex and led to the production of abortive works deformed by sexual self-awareness…. How do women avoid writing as women constructed by patriarchy, or avoid writing like men in the service of patriarchy?’ (Wright 2007: 9-10)

For Woolf, ‘androgyny is the capacity of a single person of either sex to embody the full range of human character traits, despite cultural attempts to render some exclusively feminine and some exclusively masculine.’ The ability to access this ‘full range of character traits’ and subject positions so that we read and write as ‘fully human men and women’ is the ideal that Woolf is chasing (Wright 2007: 16). This is an answer to the question whether women understand heterosexual attraction. They do not, if we are to rely on Virginia Woolf and this author’s interpretation of her writings. But why should they indeed? For Woolf the answer is given in the form of an androgynous fully human being.


In my view, says Toril Moi, if a woman’s vision of the world is strongly marked by her gender, that is surely as potentially interesting as if it is not. The whole point, after all, is to avoid laying down requirements for what a woman’s writing must be like. Every writer will have to find her own voice, and her own vision. Inevitably, a woman writer writes as a woman, not as a generic woman, but as the (highly specific and idiosyncratic) woman she is.

Gayatri Spivak suggests that whilst such labels as false, we need to continue to use them as an operational necessity.

It can be just as frustrating for a woman writer to feel that she has to
write as a generic human being, since this opens up an alienating split
between her gender and her humanity.

Klevius: And that "alienating split" is in fact the gate to real emancipation.






Klevius wrote:


Thursday, March 14, 2013


Klevius sex and gender tutorial


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


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


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’ so to include girls, 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'. And keep in mind, this has nothing to do with biological differences.

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” girls/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 or sporters 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, as it is seen here, its effects are bad in the long run.

In Durkheim’s (1984: 142) view ‘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). However, 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, behaviors and aptitudes, for example ‑ which separate 'masculine' from 'feminine' life styles (Delamont 1980: 5 in Hargreaves 1994:146).

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.Hesitating to run out through an opened door to the unknown doesn't necessarily mean that you don't want to. Nor does it mean that you have to.

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 analyze 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.

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, gender may 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 it 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 feminize 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 as feminine, 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 (Klevius in Angels of Antichrist 1996). 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, for example, 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 rights 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 worth carrying the name. 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-sex 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.


Tuesday, July 22, 2014


Which one is weirder, Klevius (the main world critic of sex segregation/apartheid*) or sex apartheid?


* Admittedly Klevius seems also still to be the only one addressing the core issue of this monumental world problem. However, this fact is no more surprising than the fact that we live in a world where every girl has to assign herself to long hair, make up, "feminine" clothing etc cultural "femininity". And if she doesn't then she has to excuse herself by labeling herself a lesbian, a transexual etc or be labeled by others as "suffering" from the invented mental pathology of "gender dysphoria".


What is sex segregation - and what is it not?


According to soft brained Wikipedia: Sex segregation is the physical, legal, and cultural separation of people according to their biological sex. This is distinct from gender segregation, which is the separation of people according to social constructions of what it means to be male versus female.

According to hard brained Klevius: Sex segregation is the physical, legal (e.g. Sharia), and cultural separation of girls/women from boys/men according to social constructions of what it means to be male versus female.

Gender segregation is an impossible term in this context because the separation of people according to social constructions of what it means to be male versus female resides inside the brain not outside the body and can therefore not be called segregation. Segregation is the action or state of setting someone apart from other people or being set apart. In other words, segregation can only be imposed on you from outside with or without your consent. You cannot segregate yourself. Moreover, segregation implies a collective, not individual, action.



According to Carmen Hamilton (apparently a soft brained lawyer):  We’re born as either male or female and, generally, are raised to look and act as our society expects men and women to look and act (sic).

If a radical (sic) approach to eliminate gender segregation were adopted, we would see the complete eradication of gender segregation in all aspects of life. There would no longer be men’s and women’s washrooms, sports, or communal change rooms.

Still, a move to eradicate systemic gender segregation, would inevitably have fallout that would need to be addressed. There are legitimate safety concerns behind some gender segregation. Physical and sexual violence suffered by women at the hands of men continues to be a sad reality. It is difficult to see how women prisoners will be adequately protected if sex segregation is eliminated in prisons.

It also begs the question about whether we can eliminate sex segregation when we have not yet achieved gender equality (sic). Would such a movement nullify the gains fought for by feminists over the last century? There was a time when it was seen as a huge win for women in trades when employers were required to provide separate washrooms for women. Further, we cannot ignore the physiological differences between men and women that put women at a disadvantage in many sports. We would likely see far fewer female Olympians.

Klevius comment: 'We are generally raised to look and act as our society expects men and women to look and act' is a meaningless tautology because 'generally' and 'our society' both have the same meaning. Moreover, Carmen Hamilton seems to be deeply confused when she uses sex segregation and gender segregation as synonyms. What do your invisible gender thoughts in your brain have to do with physical threats from men? Isn't it your biological sex (or your signaling of a female body) that is visible, not your gender.

And why a 'radical elimination of segregation'? What's that anyway?! What would radical Human Rights mean? Would it mean that there exist some moderate Human Rights according to which just a little torture is ok?!

And why can't we have female prisons, washing rooms etc?  It has nothing to do with sex segregation/apartheid. We have parking spots for disabled people but not for women. And why can't women continue running 100 m separate from men? We don't call other effects of physical sex differences sex segregation either. Carmen Hamilton seems to seriously mix apples and pears on this topic. She represents a dangerous view that blurs women's right to full Human Rights equality.

Carmen Hamilton also asks 'whether we can eliminate sex segregation when we have not yet achieved gender equality'. What a non sense! 'Gender equality' is an oxymoron in many sense but here mainly because sex segregation is the opposite to "gender equality"! In other words a catch 22.

LGBT people have "gender rights" but 11-year old football girls have none (see below).

Klevius' sex tutorial: The problem with main stream* feminism is its "equal but different" separatism

* Folks, there are two main types of 'feminism' out there: One that is academic and based on segregation/separatism/apartheid (e.g. muslim feminism), and one that could be described as folk "feminism", i.e. the erroneous belief that feminism stands for equal rights when it in fact stands for separatism.

'Heterosexual attraction' is the only analytical concept you need - yet no one seems to use it as such except Klevius


The feminist fallacy of the double failure not to recognize heterosexual attraction while simultaneously keeping up sex segregation

Heterosexual attraction is the evolutionary logarithm that underpins heterosexual reproduction.

The only heterosexual human is a heterosexual man. If you don't understand/recognize this simple fact then you, just like feminists, have no say at all in discussions about Human Rights and the adverse effect of sex segregation.

Heterosexual attraction in humans resides in the male brain as the female body. Not the other way round. As a consequence only men can have heterosexual sex.

All men and women are different but equal according to Human Rights. However, according to feminists, only men and women are different from a rights perspective. So when Moi uses some 500 pages to tell us that only women, not men, can have women's experience, we can waive her next deep thought namely that women are different from other women.

Ever thought about why Mideast happened to be the birthplace of the most disgusting of cumber stones on humanity's road to Universal Human Rights (including women)? In Demand for Resources Klevius established the root origin of "general" sex segregation as connected to the transition from hunting/gathering to investment a la the neolithic revolution.

However, pure institutionalized sexism, i.e. sex segregation as apartheid, was born out of particular secondary circumstances and effects of sex segregation in the commerce between the new forms of production. The main birthplace for true sexism was Mideast due to its geographical location.You don't have sex religions in China, Japan etc.

When men traded and therefore travelled around, women became even more segregated than they were in the farming society where they at least had a daily contact over the sex barrier. Combine this development with slavery and defense against slavery and you end up with "the chosen people" whose survival was the institutionalized Vagina gate and whose (im)morality was sanctioned by "God".



Slowing down the process of de-sex segregation at an 'all deliberate speed' while treating sex segregation symptoms with hormones and surgery


'All deliberate speed' was a phrase used in the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which declared the system of legal segregation unconstitutional. However,  the Court ordered only that the states end segregation with ‘all deliberate speed', i.e. to weigh something in the balance.

Grace Kelly Bermudez is the plaintiff in a suit, which alleges Colombia’s military service requirement is discriminatory insofar as it only considers assigned sex — typically determined at birth by the presence of absence of external sex organs — and not gender identity – a 'lived internal and individual experience'.

While the military service requirement only applies to men, there is currently no statute governing cases of transsexuals who were assigned a restricting sex at birth and due to sex segregation weren't allowed to lead their lives as they wished.

Gender, as opposed to sex, is a “lived internal and individual experience,” according to an amicus brief filed on Bermudez’s behalf.

Trans persons’ ability to 'construct their gender in a determining fashion' is an implicit part of their “individual autonomy as human beings', an interpretation the Constitutional Court agreed with, argues the brief, when it ruled that all Colombians have the right to 'freely' define their 'association with any particular gender, as well as romantic orientation toward others.'

As a consequence it is argued that the current military exemption practice violates Bermudez’s 'right to gender identity and all related rights by denying her construction of identity, leading to the violation of her privacy, personhood, and right to live free of humiliations', reads the brief.

Klevius comment: So wrong! It is sex segregation that denies the construction of an identity that partly or fully falls outside this segregation, leading to the violation of privacy, personhood, and right to live free of humiliations etc. And sex segregation is already dismissed in the 1948 Human Rights declaration. Why not simply stick to Human Rights rather than upholding a ridiculous sex apartheid.


Jeff and Hillary Whittington presented a video showing little Ryland's female-to-male transition




Klevius comment: You can't possibly be born with a 'gender'. The popularity of LGBT rhetorics is largely due to the defense of sex segregation/apartheid. So ironically, LGBT people's fight for the freedom to lead their lives as they wish simultaneously restricts the playroom for non-LGBT girls and women. Again, Klevius simple answer is to empower girls'/women's Human Right to lead their lives without restrictions because of their sex. And if people don't stop bullying them then why not criminalize such bullying as a hate crime. That would in no time make people equally cautious as they are now about saying anything about muslims, wouldn't it.


John D. Inazu, associate professor of law at Washington University School of Law, an expert on the First Amendment freedoms of speech, assembly, and religion: In less than three decades, the Supreme Court has moved from upholding the criminalizing of gay conduct to affirming gay marriage. The tone of the debates has also shifted. Views on gender and sexual conduct have flip-flopped. Thirty years ago, many people were concerned about gender equality, but few had LGBTQ equality on their radar. Today, if you ask your average 20-year-old whether it is worse for a fraternity to exclude women or for a Christian group to ask gay and lesbian members to refrain from sexual conduct, the responses would be overwhelmingly in one direction.

Luke Brinker (in Bill O'Reilly's Dangerous Parenting Advice For Transgender Kids): O'Reilly has also encouraged parents to actively force their transgender children to conform to gender stereotypes.

Klevius: So it's not a 'gender stereotype' when 'activities and clothing more commonly associated with boys' is enough to deem a girl on a path toward physiological manipulation of her body rather than give her the right to perform these activities without sex apartheid.

Jack Drescher, a member of the APA subcommittee working on the revision of DSM: 'All psychiatric diagnoses occur within a cultural context.

Klevius comment: So when DSM 15 is out, can the male to female trans get their penis back, please?

Homosexuality was diagnosed in the DSM as an illness until 1973, and conditions pertaining to homosexuality were not entirely removed until 1987.
The new term 'gender dysphoria'  implies a temporary mental state rather than an all-encompassing disorder, a change that blurs the picture even more.

Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights: 'Having a diagnosis is extremely useful in legal advocacy. We rely on it even in employment discrimination cases to explain to courts that a person is not just making some superficial choice ... that this is a very deep-seated condition recognized by the medical community.'

Klevius comment: The only deep-seated condition in this appalling symptom of sex segregation  is the medical community and money.

Mental health professionals who work with trans clients are also pushing for a revised list of symptoms, so that a diagnosis will not apply to people whose distress comes from external prejudice, adults who have transitioned, or children who simply do not meet gender stereotypes.



Why is the sex segregated bullying of girls like Moa Thambert supported when it should, in fact, be classified as a hate crime?!







Parents used to shout 'boy' at me, says now 16-year old Moa Thambert.

Moa Thambert, 16, has always had short hair cut and been tough on the football pitch.

Moa Thambert, 16: It took me hard to be called a boy. Is still in the back of my head. As a child I didn't understand why they wanted to segregate me. But now I understand that it was because I dare to take my place and that I have a certain appearance. It makes me really sad.

When Moa was six she begun playing football and immediately got comments about her "inappropriate" sex appearance. 'It's so sick because there is no difference in how kids look like. One should really be careful not to do so. It strikes very hard.It shouldn't need to be like that.






Pia Sundhage (Sweden's football lady number one and former US coach): It's appalling. In the 1960s I had to pretend to be a boy to be allowed playing in a football team.

Pia Sundhage refers to a recent Swedish football tournament (Fotbollsfesten) for kids where 11-year old girls in Glumslövs FF/Lunds BK were accused of being boys by leaders and parents from Åhus IF.

Åhus IF coaches  were so aggressive and got the whole team with them, says
Jens Lindblom, father of 11-year old Agnes.

The girls cried while the sex abuse continued.


Klevius concluding comment: I've even written a PhD thesis about exactly  this (including in depth interviews with Pia Sundhage and other important female football personalities from the 1940s and on). However. now I want to publish my findings for the general public but hesitate to do so due to the slim interest (or is it just deep ignorance) in this the biggest of global questions. Football/soccer is the sport that seems to best reveal the medieval thinking about sex segregation.

Any hints on how to make the book more popular than this blogging?

And why isn't the whole world reading Klevius?

Anyone?




Some previous reflexions on the topic:


The shameful contamination of British universities with religious fanatism




Guardian:  The University of Leicester has launched an investigation into gender segregation (sic) at a public lecture held by its student Islamic society.

    The talk, entitled Does God Exist?, featured a guest speaker Hamza Tzortzis as part of an Islamic Awareness week. Seating at the event was segregated, with different entrances into the lecture theatre for men and women. . .

    In Leicester, more than 100 students attended the segregated event, which took place last month. A photograph passed to the Guardian shows signs put up in a university building, directing the segregation.

    A message on the group’s website says: “In all our events, [the society] operate a strict policy of segregated seating between males and females.” The statement was removed after the Guardian contacted the society.


Klevius comment: Again this confused and irrational oxymoron 'gender segregation'. The sign on the wall of Leicester University clearly states 'males' and 'females'. It means biological sex, not cultural gender!



Rupert Sutton, from the campus watchdog Student Rights: There is a consistent use of segregation by student of islamic societies across the country. While this may be portrayed as voluntary by those who enforce it, the pressure put on female students to conform and obey these rules that encourage subjugation should not be underestimated.

Klevius: Although islam is by far the worst culprit when it comes to sex apartheid, there is also a consistent low level general use of sex segregation "light" across the world. While this may be portrayed as voluntary by those who enforce it, the pressure put on females (not the least by other females) to conform and obey to sex segregation that encourages subjugation should not be underestimated.




 Leicester University is one of the world's most sexist (i.e. islamized) universities. You may not believe me but the truth is (an other professor witnessed it) that a female professor, Barbara Misztal (an East European immigrant? as BBC uses to put it), when presented with criticism against islam's rejection of women's full Human Rights via Sharia, said "Why don't you want to let women lead their lives as they wish". Yes, you got it right. She saw Sharia restrictions of women's rights as a right! Why hasn't anyone taught her that impositions are not rights, and that Human Rights don't hinder muslim women from choosing to live under these impositions whereas Sharia denies them the choice to freedom. Moreover, she also blamed the messenger for not allowing women to NOT HAVE THEIR FULL RIGHTS!

Barbara Misztal's  female students need to know this, and as usual, it seems that Klevius is the only one daring to really address this ultimate and extremely disastrous and even dangerous sexism.




Sharia sex segregation or Human Rights for girls/women?



In every possible form of Sharia girls/women are forced to lead their lives in sex apartheid of varying degrees. And that includes OIC's all muslims covering Sharia law via UN. But according to Human Rights every girl/woman has the right to decide herself what kind of life she wants to lead - incl. a sex segregated life if she so wishes. So to live in a society where Sharia rules doesn't really give any fair options.

In islam women and non-muslims are all "infidels", and the only thing that really distinguishes a woman as muslim is her "duty" towards islam to reproduce (physically and/or culturally) as many new muslims as possible - and of course to have the Sharia duty to serve as a sex slave for her muslim husband.

Isn't that funny, muslims need a law to get sex while for me such compulsory sex equals rape!



Thursday, January 17, 2013


Judie Foster! Hello there! You don't have "to come out". You've been out all the time according to Human Rights!


Article 2 of the Universal Human Rights Declaration

  • Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.


Klevius' explanation to those who can't read properly: In the non-islamic free world you can marry/cohabit or have friendship ties with anyone without having hetero-sex or sex at all! It's completely up to you as an individual.

Dear Jodie, for example, we don't expect hetero-couples "to come out" telling us they have never had sex, do we?!

Read more on What's sex segregation?

"The essence of her being ("the Woman") is sex, that she is a born prostitute, and that, on becoming older, she schemes to make young women follow the same path" (Otto Weininger some 100 years ago).


Klevius help for stupid readers: By "Woman" Weininger means the cultural construction, not the individual. Also remember that when Wittgenstein was criticized for having Weininger as one of his few idols he just pointed out that one could negate everything Weininger had written and still profit on him. And if you still feel confused please do ask for more help via comments.