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

Friday, June 30, 2017

Klevius considers sharia* muslim women like e.g. Sayeeda Warsi and Mishal Husain as having serious issues with their morality. So here's Klevius' moral tutorial for them.


* If Mishal Husain doesn't support Human Rights violating sharia, but only a "Westernized islam", she'd be better telling the rest of muslims about it. But she keeps silent while hiding behind the world's biggest microphone called BBC from behind which she can spit at Human Rights defending "islamophobes" and accuse the suffering in islamic countries not on islam but on the very same West her family preferred instead of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Why is it that it's only Klevius who wants to vomit when encountering this bigoted hypocrisy - or is it? 



Bigoted and deeply hypocritical (or just racist and Human Righsphobic) muslim sharia women enjoy the West's Human Rights freedom while islam ravages their muslim homelands as it has always done for some 1,400 years. How does it feel for suffering women in islamic countries hearing Mishal Husain bragging about not fasting during Ramadan but instead drinking some alcohol while giving the finger to any suggestion of islamic "dress code" etc., and boasting about how she can lead her life in the West (thanks to Human Rights - not sharia) without thinking about consequences familiar to her muslim sisters in muslim/islamic countries.

Moral and justice - and the mirror reflection called a "monotheist" "God".


As the world is and always has been in an unstoppable motion, every effort to try to stop it isn't only in vain but usually also dangerous. A car has a steering wheel so to follow the world - not vise versa. However, this function also facilitates an individual goal of the trip.

Moral is temporarily and locally fluid, yet always possessing a (moving) center point of gravity. It's against this background one has to understand "the old Greeks" and their analysis of the individual (the social atom), the state, and justice.

Justice is, according to Thrasymachus, established by the strong in order that the weak will serve her/his interests. The strong are therefore better off disregarding justice and serving their own interests.

However,

Would Klevius rape women he considers sexy if given the power to do so without consequences?

or

Would Klevius rob or otherwise hurt people if given the power to do so without consequences?

Klevius doesn't think so. Why? Because Klevius is afraid of being alone in whatever activity. This "cowardice" constitutes the very essence of Klevius being a human among other humans. If you don't understand this as yet please check out the reasoning behind the 'negative Human Rights', i.e. the difference between racist/sexist impositions and the freedom of the individual among other individuals. After that you won't no longer be able to defend islamic sharia or to hide its real essence by talking about "consensual contract" etc. when in reality sharia is part of the whole islam. This latter point is what Theresa May should have addressed in her sharia "investigation" if she really cared about those girls and women who suffer under this deception.

So what about the objection that one could  do unjustice together with others? Impossible, because Klevius would still feel alone, because he would be forced to assume that the others either are ignorant or suffering the same loneliness as Klevius would suffer in a similar context. In this respect there's no difference between islam and a gang.

So what about believing that something non human justifies unjustice? No problem, Klevius is a non-socialist Atheist, not because he has chosen to be so but because there's no alternative to negative Human Rights. Religion is always a lesser good in comparison - in fact, that's the very definition of a "monotheist" religion. And now someone less bright or just evil person might try to dismiss this by talking about "what we don't know about", i.e. what they think is "God" (and which is called the 'unreachable' in Klevius 1992 book Demand for Resources) but which in fact is they themselves (see chapter Existencecentrism in Klevius 1992 book).

The meaning of life is its own definition i.e. uncertainty (Klevius 1981) just like the meaning of football (no dude, I'm not talking about American handball) is its maximization of uncertainty by being the only sport where no tools or hands are allowed when the ball is in play inside the pitch.

Klevius moral formula is a bedrock you can't beat - so why not follow it:

1 There's no absolute and fixed moral.

2 Therefor we have to repeatedly agree on a minimum moral.

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

No comments:

Post a Comment