Peter Klevius 1992: Jurisprudence is the perfect science, and 2018: Human Rights need to be negative, global and sex independent to avoid religious, nationalist or "community" imposed exceptions.

ECHR, Elisabeth Sabaditsch Wolff, Peter Klevius, Jurgen Habermas - and the incompatibility of sharia with Human Rights

It was wrong and cowardice by the  European Court of Human Rights to (in practice) agitate* for more Human Rightsphobia among muslims. And the reason is what Klevius calls the "Mishal Husain-syndrome"**.

* ECHR hid behind "margin of appreciation" (see below) and utilized some less elegant patterns of speech by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, hence again blinking the clear connection between islamic teachings and muslim assaults on "infidels" and Human Rights. Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff could have got away with calling Mohammad (not to be confused with Mohammad Salman) a pedophile by just saying it in a slightly different way (see ECHR verdict below). So in short, ECHR hid behind multiple barriers: 1) margin of appreciation 2) utilizing clumpsy wording by the accused 3) utilizing a diffuse "the rights of muslims (which muslims? not Mishal Husain I gather - Mohammad Salman?!) to have their religious feelings protected". Moreover, the fact that muslim sharia isn't compatible with Human Right is the very allure of true evil islam. because it paves the way for allowing open racism and sexism. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali used to say: We shouldn't tolerate intolerance.

BBC's  presenter Mishal Husain says she's a muslim but doesn't follow sharia, i.e. she doesn't fast during Ramadan but rather drinks some alcohol, nor does she use veils or similar muslim attires.  So when she also says "I don't feel any threats against my way of life" Klevius considers it deeply offensive against all those women who have their Human Rights crashed because of muslim sharia.

** "Michal Husain-syndrome" stands for presenting islam and muslims as a Potemkin village, i.e. painting muslims and islam as something true sharia muslims/islam is not. Also compare the evil Saudi "prince" and "custodian of islam" and war criminal etc. muslim terrorist Mohammad Salman who wants to "justify" his Western way of life while calling himself a muslim and utilizing the world's muslims and islam for his hegemonic efforts. No wonder he since many years back has been called the word's most dangerous muslim".

However:

Annual Report on 2003 of the European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe, re. sharia incompatibilty with Human Rights:

    Noting that the Welfare Party had pledged to set up a regime based on sharia law, the Court found that sharia was incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy as set forth in the Convention. It considered that “sharia, which faithfully reflects the dogmas and divine rules laid down by religion, is stable and invariable. Principles such as pluralism in the political sphere or the constant evolution of public freedoms have no place in it”. According to the Court, it was difficult to declare one’s respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverged from Convention values, particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, its rules on the legal status of women and the way it intervened in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.

Three member countries of the Council of Europe have ratified both the European Convention on Human Rights and the Cairo Declaration, which is a declaration of Human Rights compatible with the sharia. These countries are Albania, Azerbaijan and Turkey. One must add that the Russian Federation and Bosnia and Herzegovina have not signed the Cairo Declaration but are members observers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and they have signed the ECHR.

OIC's Cairo Declaration of 5th August 1990 stipulates inter alia that “islam is the religion of unspoiled nature”. It does not contain a right to freedom of religion, does not confirm the equality before the law of all humans regardless of their sex, religion or no-religion, and Article 25 stipulates that “The islamic shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration”. In other words," Human Rights can go to Hell" as many muslims write on their posters.

Klevius answer: Only if it wants to be as close to Universal Human Rights as possible.

Dear reader, if you wonder why Klevius doesn't use capitals on muslims and islam - take a look at BBC which doesn't use capitals for Atheism, although the latter is way closer to Human Rights moral than sharia muslims/islam. There are also technical/grammatical reasons but Klevius has no time right now to also explain that. 

 Drawing called 'Human Rights rather than religion' by Peter Klevius 1979.

Many  of the principles stated in muslim sharia contravene the principles which are recognized as Human Rights, and first of all, freedom of/from religion, women's rights and the one way marriage system which leads to ever more muslims through birth (compare Obama who is technically an apostate).

According to muslim sharia, a muslim does not have the right to change his religion to another religion or to Atheism. If he does so, he is an apostate, which generates his civil death (opening of his succession) and deserves a death penalty or in some muslim "communities" just expulsion, condemnation etc. racist/sexist abuse. When it comes to women it really doesn't matter if she is muslim or not except that she under sharia always has to foster the kids to become muslims.

Saudi war criminal "prince" and Mohammad al Issa "reform" islam to fit Saudi islamofascism against Human Rights by demanding EU to condemn "islamophobia" i.e. Human Rights.

  Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff: On Thursday, 25 October 2018 the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights) ruled that my conviction by an Austrian court for discussing the marriage between Prophet Mohammed and a six year old girl, Aisha, did not infringe my rights of freedom of speech.

    I was not extended the courtesy of being told of this ruling. Like many others, I had to read it in the media.

    The ECHR found there had been no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights and that right to expression needed to be balanced with the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected, and served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria.

    In other words, my right to speak freely is less important than protecting the religious feelings of others.

    This should ring warning bells for my fellow citizens across the continent. We should all be extremely concerned that the rights of Muslims in Europe NOT to be offended are greater than my own rights, as a native European Christian woman, to speak freely.

    I am proud to be the woman who has raised this alarm.

    I am also optimistic. Since giving my seminars in Austria in 2009, we have come a very long way.

    Ten years ago the press labeled me a “confused doom-monger” and I was compared to Osama Bin Laden. Now, Islam is being discussed in every sphere of life and people are waking up to the reality of a culture so opposed to our own.

    The cultural and political threat posed by Islam to Western societies is now widely recognized and discussed. It is fair to say European society, as well as the political realm, is undergoing an enlightenment, as it is more awake than ever to the need to defend our own Judeo-Christian culture.

    I believe my seminars in 2009, and subsequent work have contributed to strong push back against an Islamic culture which is so at odds with our own. And note with interest that only one sentence out of 12 hours of seminars on Islam was a prosecutable offense. I assume the remaining content is now officially sanctioned by our Establishment masters.

    It is obvious to me that public education and discourse on the subject of Islam can have a fundamental and far-reaching impact, even if our state or supra-national authorities try to stifle or silence it, in order to appease a culture so foreign to our own.

    This fight continues. My voice will not and cannot be silenced.

European Court of Human Rights and its decision which neglects the (negative*) rights of non-muslims to have their feelings protected - or no protection on an equal basis, which still would leave muslims with a problematic (religious) tendency to actively imply supremacy in accordance to Koranic interpretations and acts by Maohammad.

* see Klevius tutorial on Negative Human Rights.

Background: ECHR judges are elected for a non-renewable nine-year term. The number of full-time judges sitting in the Court is equal to the number of contracting states to the European Convention on Human Rights, currently 47. Judges cannot hear or decide a case if they have a family or professional relationship with a party. So what about religion?

Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,
any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges
considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final
judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.


Decision of the Court

Article 10 ((freedom of expression)

The Court noted that those who choose to exercise the freedom to manifest their religion under
Article 9 of the Convention could not expect to be exempt from criticism. They must tolerate and
accept the denial by others of their religious beliefs. Only where expressions under Article 10 went
beyond the limits of a critical denial, and certainly where they were likely to incite religious
intolerance, might a State legitimately consider them to be incompatible with respect for the
freedom of thought, conscience and religion and take proportionate restrictive measures.
The Court observed also that the subject matter of the instant case was of a particularly sensitive
nature, and that the (potential) effects of the impugned statements, to a certain degree, depended
on the situation in the respective country where the statements were made, at the time and in the
context they were made. Accordingly, it considered that the domestic authorities had a wide margin
of appreciation in the instant case, as they were in a better position to evaluate which statements
were likely to disturb the religious peace in their country.

The Court noted that the domestic courts comprehensively explained why they considered that the
applicant’s statements had been capable of arousing justified indignation; specifically, they had not
been made in an objective manner contributing to a debate of public interest (e.g. on child
marriage), but could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad
was not worthy of worship. It agreed with the domestic courts that Mrs S. must have been aware
that her statements were partly based on untrue facts and apt to arouse indignation in others. The
national courts found that Mrs S. had subjectively labelled Muhammad with paedophilia as his
general sexual preference, and that she failed to neutrally inform her audience of the historical
background, which consequently did not allow for a serious debate on that issue. Hence, the Court
saw no reason to depart from the domestic courts’ qualification of the impugned statements as
value judgments which they had based on a detailed analysis of the statements made.

Klevius analysis of ECHR's ambiguous decision: 

As Klevius has written since the early 1990s, ECHR's main jurisprudential fuse* is the problematic 'margin of appreciation' - see e.g. Angels of Antichrist (1996), several judgements were Klevius has represented the claimant, as well as many of Klevius articles on the subject. And perhaps most importantly, do read Klevius analysis in Demand for Resources (1992:50-51). Here's a short example where Peter Klevius sides with Jurgen Habermas in a match against misdirected state power:

* In Demand for Resources (Klevius 1992:43, ISBN 9173288411) in a chapter dealing with science and citations, jurisprudence is pointed out as "the perfect scientific project" due to the fact that it, instead of searching for answers, starts with an already existing answer, i.e. the law. And in difficulties interpreting the legislator most nations ask their Supreme Court which can either correct or send it back to the legislator for a better distinction. However, ECHR's fuse is "the margin of appreciation", i.e. to excuse themselves by referring to national law.

Original Swedish text from Demand for Resources (Klevius 1992, ISBN 9173288411):

Jag tar mig friheten att citera några lösryckta men i sammanhanget intressanta citat av Jurgen Habermas:

Habermas: "Det lidande som orsakas av kontingenserna i ett okontrollerat förlopp får en ny kvalitet i den mån vi tilltror oss förmågan att kunna ingripa förnuftigt i det. Detta lidande är då negativet till ett nytt behov."

Klevius: Denna process, d.v.s. följden av den till synes goda tanken att lägga tillrätta sociala fenomen som betraktas som oönskade, leder till nya, okontrollerade "motsvängningar" som i sin tur kräver nya insatser i en kumulerande, aldrig sinande ström.

Habermas: "Då eftersträvas nämligen överhuvudtaget inte längre en förnuftig konsensus medborgarna emellan om hur de praktiskt skall behärska sina livsvillkor. I dess ställe kommer försöket att på teknisk väg uppnå kontroll över historien i form av en fulländad förvaltning av samhället."

Klevius: Till detta ändamål styckas verkligheten upp i mer och mer sofistikerade utbildningslinjer i vars slutända tjänsteprofilen mejslas fram i symbios och växelverkan med lagstiftning.

Habermas: "Det ena värdets företräde framför det andra, alltså värdets anspråkpå att vara bindande för handling, kan helt enkelt inte berättigas. Ideologikritik på denna nivå bevisar ofrivilligt att en fortskridande erfarenhetsvetenskaplig rationalisering, som är begränsad till teknisk kontroll, betalas med en proportionell tillväxt av irrationalitet inom själva området för praxis."

Klevius: Irrationaliteten yttrar sig rent konkret i att verksamhetens nettoresultat blir negativt (vägt efter de värderingar som initierade processen).

Habermas: "Men eftersom fördomen hämtar sin egenartade objektivitet ur denna sammanbindning av undanhållen autonomi, förnekad frihet och förhindrad tillfredsställelse, kräver en kritisk upplösning av den existerande osanningen, av villfarelsen som substans, i sin tur något som går utöver den förnuftiga insikten. Framför allt krävs kardinaldygden mod."

Klevius: Verksamhetens negativa nettoresultat förnekas med hänvisningen till att verksamheten växt fram som en produkt av dess inneboende välvilja. Att kritiskt granska denna verksamhet blir följaktligen inopportunt (Klevius 1992:50-51).Google translation with just some minor corrections of the worst - Klevius is a lazy (or healthy, as he himself prefers to call it) guy. Btw, who will support a good English (and perhaps other languages as well) translation of the whole tiny book?:
I take the liberty of quoting some loose but in the context, interesting quotes by Jurgen Habermas:

Habermas: "The suffering caused by contingencies in an uncontrolled process is given a new quality to the extent that we think we have the ability to intervene sensibly in it. This suffering is then the negative for a new need."

Klevius: This process, i.e. the consequence of the seemingly good idea of ​​correcting social phenomena considered unwanted leads to new, uncontrolled reactions which in turn require new efforts in a cumulative, never-ending stream.

Habermas: "At the very least, there is no longer a sensible consensus between the citizens as to how they will practically master their living conditions. Instead there's the attempt to technically gain control over history in the form of a total management of society."

Klevius: To this end, reality is split up into more and more sophisticated lines of education in which the final bureaucratic profile is hammered out in symbiosis and interaction with legislation.

Habermas: "The privilege of one value over an other, i.e. the claim about a value to necessitate action, simply can not be justified. Ideological criticism at this level will inevitably prove that progressive experiential rationalization, limited to technical control, leads to a proportional increase in irrationality in the very field of practice itself."

Klevius: This irrationality reveals itself in terms of a negative net result (weighted by and against the values ​​that initiated the process).

Habermas: "But because the prejudice retrieves its peculiar objectivity from this interlink of retarded autonomy, denied freedom and prevented satisfaction, a critical dissolution of the existing misunderstanding, of the error as substance, in turn requires something beyond reasonable insight - it requires courage (here Google suggested that 'cardiovascular wear is required' - which is indeed an interesting point of view)."

Klevius: The negative net result of the activity is blinked by referring to the fact that the activity emerged as a product of inherent goodwill. Critically reviewing this activity therefore becomes inevitably unwelcomed (Klevius 1992: 50-51).

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.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

John Hawks again missed (since 1992 in a book and since 2003 on the web) Klevius' original science contribution re. social evolution of human societies.

Among serious anthropologists John Hawks' blog is the most read while Peter Klevius' blog is the least* read. Why? Is it because of Klevius' "Saudiphobia"/"islamo(fascism)phobia"?

 * So have patience with Klevius self-citations (and do read the chapter Science and References in Demand for Resources) which clearly are more important for general science than for Klevius own satisfaction.

 See Klevius 1992:40-44.

Richard Lee's The !Kung San: Men, Women, and Work in a Foraging Society came 1979 and was the main trigger of Klevius first letter to Georg Henrik von Wright (Wittgenstein's successor at Cambridge) on the topic and Klevius 1981 article Demand for Resources and 1992 book with the same title.

Out of respect and as support for Lee's work Klevius also bought the expensive  Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunter-Gatherers (1999), which, of course, was of no practical use for Klevius.

Here's John Hawks recent blog-post:

Hawks writes:

He (Lee) has written an article in this year’s Annual Review of Anthropology that examines both uses and misuses of hunter-gatherer ethnography in theory-building about human nature: “Hunter-Gatherers and Human Evolution: New Light on Old Debates.”

In the introduction to the article, he recounts a story involving his “Man the Hunter” co-editor, the late Irven DeVore:

    Senator William Fulbright of Arkansas, a brilliant US legislator in the 1960s and the founder of the scholarship program that bears his name, was just one public figure struggling to come to grips with the import of Lorenz’s theses. I vividly remember the late Irven DeVore coming into my office at Harvard University. “I just got off the phone with Senator William Fulbright calling from Washington,” Devore said. “He asked me ‘Professor DeVore, if Konrad Lorenz is right, how are we ever to negotiate a nuclear arms reduction treaty with the Soviet Union?’”

    DeVore reassured Fulbright that Lorenz’s views were far from universally accepted among anthropologists, that violence in human history was a variable not a constant, and that its causes and expressions were far more complex than could be explained simply by pure animal instinct.

    DeVore’s disclaimers appeared to calm Senator Fulbright’s nerves, and in fact the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) went on to successfully negotiate a series of nuclear arms reduction treaties over the years. Nevertheless, the question of violence in human history continued to animate the debate within anthropology, fueled by Robert Ardrey’s “killer ape” hypothesis in his books African Genesis (Ardrey 1961) and The Territorial Imperative (Ardrey 1966). Interest was sustained by Napoleon Chagnon’s (1968) influential ethnography of the “fierce” Yanomamo and more recently by the writings of Wrangham & Peterson (1996), such as Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence. I have labeled this persistent thread within anthropology and related disciplines as the “Bellicose School” (Lee 2014).

I am spending some time reading this review and taking notes, and it bears close reading. Lee’s theme is that many people who use “hunter-gatherers” as a category are actually lumping things that are quite different from each other. If you want to use ethnographic studies of today’s people to say anything about prehistoric people, you need to understand that any living group may be like ancient people in some ways, and very different from ancient people in other ways.

Klevius writes: When it comes to Konrad Lorentz I share Lee's view - as clearly stated on page 20 in Demand for Resources (1992):

Det finns ett flertal delikata kulturantropologiska fördomar som fått starka grepp på allmänheten. En sådan gäller föreställningen om människans aggressivitet som en oemotståndlig negativ biologisk kraft som måste få utlopp. Att hävda detta och samtidigt förorda kanaliserad aggressivitet i syfte att förmildra verkningarna av densamma innebär i själva verket att man kulturellt skapar och stimulerar beteendemönster av negativ karaktär. Fysiskt våld mot artfränder är liksom utvidgat resursbegär en inlärd egenskap. Den organiserade form av fysiskt våld mot artfränder som krig innebär verkar inte vara äldre än det utvidgade resursbegäret. Troligen hänger de intimt samman.

And translated from original English, i.e. Swedish, to modern English:

There are several delicate cultural-anthropological prejudices which have got a strong grip on the public. One is the view about human aggression as an irresistible negative biological force which has to be released. To argue this while simultaneously proposing channeled aggressiveness for the purpose of mitigating its effects, in fact, means that one culturally creates and stimulates patterns of negative behavior. Same species violence is, like expanded demand for resources, a learned behavior. The organized form of violence, i.e. war, seems not to be older than expanded demands for resources. They are likely intimately connected.

Demand for Resources by Peter Klevius (1992).

The civilized wo/man walks
back in her/his foot steps,
strikes a light and lets her/himself be enlightened
and glorified
Only the forgotten suffering,
and the shadow behind her/him,
hovering over the future,
are greater (P. Klevius 1992, title page).

"The archeologist of knowledge finds
in his/her digging
often him/herself"
(P. Klevius 1992:7)

The concept of freedom is created,
like diamonds,
only under pressure
(P. Klevius 1992:33)


More from Demand for Resources (1992, ISBN 9173288411):


So called civilized societies can be described as dynamic, hence contrasting against the more static appearance of the economic setting (lack of investment) of e.g. hunter-gatherers.

A re-classification of human societies departing from C. Levi-Strauss idea about "warm" and "cold" societies (Klevius 1992):

A  Without 'extended demands for resources' (EDFR).
B  Affected by EDFR but still retaining a simplistic, "primitive" way of life.
C  Civilized with EDFR

These categories are, of course, only conceptual. Applied to a conventional classification the following pattern appears:

1  The primitive stage when all were hunter/gatherers (A, according to EDFR classification).
2  Nomads (A, B, C).
3  Farmers (B, C).
4  Civilized (C).

As a consequence EDFR is here used as a concept tied to civilization (and its preliminary stages) The above also suggests a critique against our conventional conception of a simplistic connection between intelligence and performance as (wrongly) exemplified by C. Popper's scenario of a World 1-3 transition of human cultural development.

 (Implications of this view can be seen in Klevius theory of mind EMAH, The Even More Astonishing Hypothesis, which deals with the mind/body "problem" and the closing gap between not only humans and other living things but also betweenhumans and machines).

Here's the last part of the chapter Khoe, San and Bantu (in Demand for Resources, Klevius 1992). 

For those who don't master original English there are some modern English words as well in the text:

I begreppet San inryms de tre grupperna !Kung, !Xu och G!wi vilka alla har egna närbesläktade men självständiga språk. Av dessa grupper är det G!wi som kan antas stå närmast det klassiska samlar/jägarsamhället även om egentligen inga grupper i dag återfinns i de kulturmönster som förekom ännu på 50-60-talet.

En uppskattning av de traditionella egenskaperna i kulturmönstret hos San (konventionellt grupp 1, URB-grupp A) inkluderar frånvaro av domesticering, lös sammanhållning, ofixerad, icke hierarkisk beslutsordning samt i det närmaste obefintlig materiell status (undantag utgör t.ex. jaktvapen och byten före den oundvikliga fördelningen).

Patricia Draper har i anslutning till "The Harvard !Kung Bushmen Study Project" gjort en undersökning om skillnader i könsroller hos kringvandrande klassiska samlar/jägargrupper och stationära "mångsysslande" !Kung grupper. Hon fann då bl.a. "that !Kung society may be the least sexist of any we have experienced" samt att detta märks genom "women's subsistence contribution and the control women retain over the food they have gathered, the lack of rigidity in sex-typing of many adult activities including domestic chores and aspects of child socialization; the cultural sanction against physical expression of aggression; the smaller group size; and the nature of the settlement pattern." Hon noterar vidare att "authoritarian behavior is avoided by adults of both sexes." Alla dessa egenskaper naggades enligt Draper i kanten hos de stationära grupperna.

En pionjär då det gällde att påvisa hur lite arbete som San samlar/jägarna lade ner på födoanskaffning och boende var Richard Lee som 1963 studerade den bland antropologer numera välkända Dobe Base Camp 12. Han levde med dem, noterade metodiskt allt han såg, mätte och vägde såväl mat som människor, tog tid på allt de gjorde och resultatet av hans, och senare även andras arbeten kan sammanfattas i Marshal Sahlins ord: "If the affluent society is one where all the people's material wants are easily satisfied this is the first affluent society." Han fortsatte: "The human condition must keep man the prisoner at hard labor of a perpetual disparity between his unlimited wants and his insufficient means... " och vidare "There is (instead) a road to affluence, departing from premises... that human wants are few, and technical means unchanging but on the whole adequate."

I mitten av 70-talet kunde bl.a. Diane Gelburd konstatera att bushmännens liv i Dobe hade ändrat karaktär sedan Richard Lee's fältstudier. Hyddorna var byggda av lera istället för av gräs och stod längre ifrån varandra. En del fick dörrar i takt med att de fylldes med personliga ägodelar. Man byggde stängsel för djuren som man nu införskaffat. Likadant var det med benresterna som tidigare enbart bestått av lämningar från vilda djur men 1976 till 80% bestod av benrester från domesticerade djur.

Samtidigt skedde förändringar i de interna sociala relationerna. Fördelning av tillgångar minskade och formerna för t.ex. äktenskap komplicerades p.g.a. nya, förut okända problem kring egendomsfrågor.

"What explains the shattering of this society"? frågade sig John Yellen från The National Science Foundation anthropology program. Han fortsätter: "It hasn't been a direct force, a war, the ravages of disease..." och svarar slutligen: "1t is the internal conflicts, the tensions, the inconsistencies, the impossibility of reconciling such different views of the world."

Till detta kan tilläggas att Khoi och San har levt i flera tusen år sida vid sida utan att de samlande/jagande San blivit boskapshållare. Dessutom har de jordbrukande ochboskapsskötande Bantufolken för åtminstone 500 år sedan invaderat Khoisan?folkens traditionella marker.

Det är alltså något mer som skall till för att knäcka ryggraden på ett typiskt San-samhälle. Handlar det om en kritisk punkt för försörjningsunderlag/befolkningsstorlek? Finns det en nedre gräns för antalet individer i en fungerande samlar/jägarkultur? I vilket skede exakt bryts det sociala immunförsvaret gentemot utvidgade resursbegär ner?

Oavsett om det finns en kritisk punkt eller om det är fråga om en långsamt ökande spänning som efter hand får det ena fästet efter det andra att ge efter så ser vi här uppkomsten av den spricka mellan kulturformer där det utvidgande resursbegäret med varierande framgång slagit rot.