Klevius CV

Are you or your representative(s) for or against basic Human Rights equality?

Peter Klevius global morality can only be challenged by violating the most basic of Human Rights.

Everything Peter Klevius writes (or has written) is guided by the anti-sexist. anti-racist, and anti-fascist Universal* Human Rights declaration of 1948. In other words, what is declared immoral and evil is so done as measured against the most basic of Human Rights (the so called "negative" rights - i.e. the rights of the individual not to be unnecessarily targeted with restrictions and impositions). Unlike the 1948 Universal Human Rights (UHR) declaration, islam denies Human Rights equality to women and non-muslims. And violation of such basic Human Rights can't be tolerated just by referring to "freedom of religion".

* This means accepting everyone - without exception due to e.g. sex, religion, lack of religion, "security" etc. - as equal in Human Rights. The individual is protected by negative Human Rights, but of course not against substantiated legal accusations - as long as these are not produced as a means that violates the basic Human Rights (compare "not necessary in a free, democratic country"). The legislator may not produce laws that seek to undermine some individuals rights. This also includes e.g. "freedom of religion", i.e. that this freedom doesn't give the right to unfree others, or cause others to be in an inferior rights position. If by islam you mean something that fully adheres to basic Human Rights equality, then you aren't targeted by Peter Klevius islam criticism. However, if you mean islam accepts violations of the most basic of Human Rights, then you may also call Peter Klevius an "islamophobe" - and he will be proud of it. And when it comes to "security" it can't mean "offending" opponents to basic Human Rights.

This is why any effort to twist or accuse the writings of Peter Klevius as "islamophobia" etc. can only be made from a standpoint against these basic Human Rights. As a consequence, no body of authority can therefore accuse, hinder etc. Peter Klevius without simultaneously revealing its own disrespect for these Human Rights. Conversely, Peter Klevius can not accuse anyone who agrees on these rights - i.e. this leaves e.g. "islamophobia" etc. accusations against Peter Klevius without merit.

Every effort against these basic Human Rights is treason against a country calling itself free and democratic.

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

* The son of one of Sweden's best chess-players and an even more intelligent Finnish mother. He was mentored by G. H. von Wright, Wittgensteins's successor at Cambridge. However, G H v Wright sadly didn't fully realize back then (1991) the true power of the last chapter, Khoi, San and Bantu, in Klevius book. Today, if still alive, he would surely see it.

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

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

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


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

Forerunners of the next iceage?

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

Warning for a muslim robot!

BBC means global faked/filtered "news"/"info" - and propaganda for Human Rights violating sharia.

BBC means global faked/filtered "news"/"info" - and propaganda for Human Rights violating sharia.

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

There's no true islam without Human Rights violating sharia (compare OIC)

There's no true islam without Human Rights violating sharia (compare OIC)

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

Peter Klevius 1986 zero budget experimental refugee video

Monday, September 7, 2015

The muslim Koran hoax in Birmingham - again! Slowly and in simple science English!


Deliberately mixing belief with science produces non-science and non-"scholars"!

Koran means 'recitation', i.e. repeating something. That something was Judeo/Christian (compare "Jews believing in Jesus") Syriac-Arabic texts spiced with Arianism, and used for keeping Arab bandit gangs together, and much later collected as a book and spiced with the hitherto unknown islamic Muhammad.

 When Klevius wrote that 'the biased and unscientific way the so called "Birmingham Koran" was handled and presented is deliberate forgery of facts', some people didn't seem to get it. So here's some more in simple science English:

1 The "islamic paradigm" (i.e. what muslims believe) is a non-historical system of myths completely segregated from scientific scrutiny. It's like "studying" ghosts, and when the ghost doesn't appear/make sense it's explained as tbhe "will of Allah".

In other words, the oxymoron "muslim scholar" is a pure charlatan in a scientific context. And if you insist in using "Allah" as your a priori axiomatic launch pad - it differs radically from e.g. Euclid's' axioms. Whereas "Allah" is a muddled and inscrutable abode for human wishes and fears built on sand, Euclid is clear and open and functioning as a bedrock for logical conscusions drawn from his axioms/postulates - incl. Popper's falsification test.

And unlike other myths and legends, the muslim navel string was never cut off, leaving the rotting placenta contaminating the future via a mummificated canal from the dark ages to date.

2  The historical reality was Jewish/Christian texts (Jesus was a Jew) used in a Syriac-Arabic linguistic environment where Arabic took its first stumbling steps in the written world that the non-Semitic Sumerians had entered some 4,000 years earlier.

3 There was no historical Muhammad. Before Abd al-Malik (caliph 685-705) Muhammad (allegedly dead 632 but see Pourshariati who beyond doubt shows the historical impossibility of such a death date) is never mentioned on any official document whatsoever. The simple truth is that a mythological Judeo-Christian Messiah figure was applied to or used by one or several leaders, and later, under  Malik, turned into a "muslim Messiah".

Islam is rooted in an eastern Jewish-Christian schism. Jews and Jews believing in (a monophysitism inspired Christianity) MHMD (anointed/Messiah) didn't only offer the wealthy background against which barbaric (according to islam's foremost historian Ibn Khaldun) Bedouin Arabs were enslaved and/or submitted/enrolled, but also constituted the missing fifth columnist historical link to the "unexplained" success of early islamic terror "conquest".

 4 The only logical/historical explanation to islam's expansion out of the Arabian desert is parasitism. Ironically, that's also the explanation the Koran gives - albeit strongly denied by PC people.

Conclusion: There was no Muhammad nor a Koran at the alleged time of the so called Birmingham Koran. So the only way to desperately try to make sense of what doesn't make sense, is to rely on unhistorical muslim mythology.

So, first you had a severe pillage inflammation in the narrow slave tracts through the desert. And the longer they got the bigger the gang which needed even more booty and women. Some three quarter of a century after the initial attacks (the slaughtering of the Jews in Medina etc.) the first Koran was edited together. More than hundred years after the alleged death of Muhammad the first sharia emerged.

So all of this has certainly nothing to do with that Koran "science" nonsense in Birmingham, which babbles about a non existing Koran written down at a time of a non-existing "prophet"!

Christoph Luxenberg's reading of the Koran


According to Christoph Luxenberg, the Koran was not written in Arabic but in a mixed Arabic-Syriac language, the traders' language of Mecca and it was based on Christian liturgical texts. When the final text of the Koran was codified, those working on it did not understand the original sense and meaning of this hybrid trading language any more, and they forcefully and randomly turned it into classical Arabic. This gave rise to a lot of misinterpretations. Something like this can only have happened if there was a gap in the oral transmission of the Koranic text.

Luxenberg remarks that the Koran contains much ambiguous and even inexplicable language. He asserts that even muslim scholars find some passages difficult to parse and have written reams of Quranic commentary attempting to explain these passages. However, the assumption behind their endeavours has always been, according to him, that any difficult passage is true, meaningful, and pure Arabic, and that it can be deciphered with the tools of traditional muslim scholarship. Luxenberg accuses Western academic scholars of the Koran of taking a timid and imitative approach, relying too heavily on the biased work of muslim scholars.

According to Luxenberg, the Koran was not originally written exclusively in Arabic but in a mixture with Syriac, the dominant spoken and written language in the Arabian peninsula through the 8th century.

“What is meant by Syro-Aramaic (actually Syriac) is the branch of Aramaic in the Near East originally spoken in Edessa and the surrounding area in Northwest Mesopotamia and predominant as a written language from Christianization to the origin of the Koran. For more than a millennium Aramaic was the lingua franca in the entire Middle Eastern region before being gradually displaced by Arabic beginning in the 7th century.”

Luxenberg argues that scholars must start afresh, ignore the old islamic commentaries, and use only the latest in linguistic and historical methods. Hence, if a particular Koranic word or phrase seems meaningless in Arabic, or can be given meaning only by tortured conjectures, it makes sense – he argues – to look to the Aramaic and Syriac languages as well as Arabic.

Luxenberg also argues that the Koran is based on earlier texts, namely Syriac lectionaries used in the Syriac Christian churches of Syria, and that it was the work of several generations who adapted these texts into the Koran we know today.

Klevius advise: You might be better off without your belief in ghosts. However, you will certainly be better off with a conscience resting on Universal Human Rights freedom (for you and others) than with limiting and imposing sharia that is also uncontrollable because different users can interpret it differently due to its   that violates Human Rights of others and opens up for parasitism, racism and sexism.

Measured by basic Human Rights standard islam is extremely uncivilized. And this is the only logical in islam. Born out of evil always evil. And when you disinfect islam from its evil it's no longer islam.

 Klevius wrote:

Friday, July 24, 2015


The laughable Birmingham Koran forgery* doesn't qualify on Klevius science blog. Maybe Klevius should start a joke blog...

* The biased and unscientific way it's handled and presented is deliberate forgery of facts.



Some readers have urged Klevius to write about the "Birmingham Koran" scandal. However, as it has absolutely nothing to do with science Klevius politely refers you to Origin of islam - the worst racist sexist hate crime ever against humanity.



Klevius wrote:

Tuesday, June 26, 2012


The laughable oxymoron "islamic science", how could anyone possibly take it seriously?!

The  oxymoron "islamic science" is utter defamation of science, and is rooted in ignorance about the origin of islam! 

Klevius science tutorial for Seyyid Hossein Nasr and others

Seyyid Hossein Nasr (“professor” of Islamic Studies at Georgetown University) at MIT Islamic Students Association (sponsored by the Pakistan Study Group, the MIT Muslim Students Association and “other groups”): “Science has its own world-view. No science is created in a vacuum. Science arose under particular circumstances in the West with certain philosophical presumptions about the nature of reality. As soon as you say, m, f, v, and a, that is, the simple parameters of classical physics, you have chosen to look at reality from a certain point of view. There is no mass, there is no force out there like that chair or table. These are particularly abstract concepts which grew in the seventeenth century on the basis of a particular concept of space, matter and motion which Newton developed. The historians and philosophers of science in the last twenty [or] thirty years have shown beyond the scepter of doubt that modern science has its own world view. It is not at all value free; nor is it a purely objective science of reality irrespective of the subject you study. It is based upon the imposition of certain categories upon the study of nature, with a remarkable success in the study of certain things, and also a remarkable lack of success [in others], depending on what you are looking at.”

Klevius: Listen to this utter crap! “Science has its own world-view. No science is created in a vacuum”. Two cardinal flaws in just twelve words! Does this muslim fella also believe that "the Western interpretation" 2+2=4 has a corresponding Sharia compliant islamic version?! The choice to look at reality from a certain point of view isn't science, just like what you choose to do with your power tool isn't the power tool!

OK, science doesn’t have its own world-view, that’s for sure. If it had it wouldn't be science anymore. This is the very definition of science. Just as Negative Human Rights don’t have a world-view either, simply because they are supposed to protect you from “world-views”.

Science is pure logic* and shouldn’t be confused with the scientific process, i.e. including its non-scientific parts, such as choice of topic, background/pre-understanding etc., and the interpretation of results from the scientific part of the scientific process. Nor should flaws in the scientific process (such as e.g. errors, deliberate or accidental) be blamed on scientific logic. And yes, logic could be described as “a vacuum” just like Negative Human Rights is the eliminating of impositions. Logic that is dependent on a worldview is per definition not logic at all, and Human Rights that are dependent on an ideology/world-view (e.g. Sharia) aren’t (negative, i.e. the basic freedom rights) Human Rights at all.

As Klevius use to put it: Our most holy duty is to NOT fill the freedom Human Rights with anything! You shouldn’t have the positive Sharia “right” to, for example, be raped by your husband; instead you should have the negative right to choose not to have sex. Even a child understands that this latter right doesn't deny you from having sex, only protects you from imposed compulsion. The difference is, as you can see, is mind blowing if you have been raised within an islamic "world-view".

And this is the reason why the islamofascist muslim world organization/Umma, Saudi initiated and based islamofascist OIC with its fanatic Turkish Fuhrer/caliph Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu 1) has abandoned Human Rights and REPLACED THEM WITH SHARIA, and 2) criminalized scrutiny/criticism of islam (the worst racist/sexist hate crime ever against humanity) and calls any critical scrutiny "islamophobia" or "defamation of religion".

* as Klevius has explained in Demand for Resources (1992) pure logic is the pointing out of conceptualized deterministic chains (e.g. 2+2=4) in a universe that is deterministic yet chaotic in the sense that our existence-centrism excludes us from "a total, god-like overview" (see Origin of Universe").


Here's what Klevius wrote about "islamic science" a couple of years ago


Everyone who understands islam (e.g. by reading Klevius, or by digging history records with open eyes) knows there's no such thing as "islamic science". This is because of islam's inborn parasitic nature (the open historical "secret" of islam's original fuel: booty, sex and slavery) and due cultural and technological impotency. So when someone talks about "islamic civilization" you definitely know s/he lies! Sadly, most people don't check these lies and haven't all read Klevius as yet.

One example is the Medieval Indian/Persian Al Beruni whom the notorious islamic mass murderer and enslaver (one of the worst known to history - also called the plunderer of India), Mahmud of Ghazna, imprisoned and let stay alive as long as he submitted to islamic Mohammedanism.

But BBC, Wikipedia etc. happily present this islamic hostage as a "muslim scientist" (sic)!

The bloodthirsty Mohammed is the evil and only pope of islam - and needs to be pierced by Enlightenment so his ignorant followers may be released and his deliberate followers may be ashamed. However, a strategy based on naming evil good seems less appropriate for this task, doesn't it.

It's truly sad that the descendants of islam's victims through 1400 years continue defending their bully!?

No comments:

Post a Comment