Whereas classic sex segregation (read more Peter Klevius below to
better understand the concept) is imposed by circumstances,
religious/cultural sex segregation is what is imposed on girls/women
even when it's no longer necessary. In the latter case women have been
held back by men to an extent where incompetency outside "women's
sphere" increasingly became obvious. As a consequence grown up women
started internalizing this incompetency as "femininity" although the
only true femininity is defined by heterosexual attraction (read Peter
Klevius because you'll find nothing anywhere else so far - sad isn't
it).
1993 Peter Klevius wrote 'Daughters of the Social State', 1996
'Angels of Antichrist -social state vs kinship', 1998 'Warning against
Feminism' (Varning för Feminism). The central theme in these was
criticism against separatism (e.g. sex segregation) that tramples the
individual under the foot of "communities".
2003 Peter Klevius
wrote 'Alternative to feminism'on the web
(http://sourze.se/2003/03/15/alternativ-till-feminism__78142). Peter
Klevius asked one commentor how she could be so sure about what it meant
to be a woman? She answered: "I see it in the mirror every morning".
This
happened about the same time as the Swedish public radio censored half
of what I wanted to say about sex segregation and islam. Today "feminist
Sweden" is the 6th worst country on Earth when it comes to women facing
rape etc. hate crimes based on sex.
Islamic/muslim feminism makes complete sense because like all feminisms it feeds on segregation.
* Yule is old Swedish (spelled 'jul')
meaning wheel (which comes from the same word 'hjul') of the year, i.e.
Vinter solstice around 21 December, and in modern times "Christmas"
celebration although it has nothing to do with religion.
Klevius: All women are gay*. However, not every woman has realized it as yet...
Women, from a male point of view, have
wonderful assess - just like feamale dogs from a male dog's
perspective. And not only that, women have the potential to reproduce.
And when women are receptive there are usually no lack of providers. So
women should really not have anything to complain about in this respect.
Other than, of course sex segregation/apartheid.
The sperm has
to be attracted to the egg in some way. That's biological 'heterosexual
attraction'. Testosterone is an important hormone in this task. However,
the measurements are not easily compared between men and women because
labs tend to (why?!) state the percentage of free testosterone for men,
but give a measurement in pg/ml for women. Or the male measurements will
be in ng/dl requiring a mathematical conversion for direct comparison
to the "normal" range of the opposite sex. The level readings between
men and women are so vastly different because the number represents a
percentage of the TOTAL testosterone. Women naturally start with a much
lower total amount, so 2.5% of 40ng/dl is going to be much less than
2.5% of 800ng/dl in a man.
However, even 20 times more
Testosterone doesn't mean a man is necessitated to sex - merely that he
is always potentially ready for sex (at least Klevius - the "extremely
normal" - is and has always been since his adolescence). In other words,
Klevius proposes that we lay to rest the old imposing "dog sex" culture
and instead all treat each other as humans, not as sexual beings.
However, to achieve this we need to teach young girls (and boys) about
the only real difference between the sexes, namely heterosexual
attraction, so it won't be confused with sexual acts (which people
should of course be allowed to perform without any other restrictions
than what the law says added with full and informed consent - just like
most other civilized behavior. Moreover, and perhaps most importantly,
we need to end the mostly male "push for sex" culture, i.e. dog
behavior. Asexuality should be the default state of interaction.
And
to avoid unnecessary confusion re. Klevius sex analysis, do understand
that unlike physical reproduction in the female body (which is
completely independent from the male one), heterosexual attraction needs
both sexes although the female one is in this respect the passive one.
At this point someone (especially women) might have problem reconciling
this with the fact that many women do enjoy sexual acts without
possessing the male type gaze for HSA. Klevius then repeats that
although all women are gay, not all women do or enjoy sex, which fact
should be respected equally as respecting that Klevius has never needed
drugs or alcohol for being happy or having good sex, nor has he ever
deliberately thrown white pepper around just for the pleasure of
sneezing (rest calm, Klevius won't ever criticize you if you do).
And
you, if you think this analysis is just Klevius opinion then you
haven't understood it at all - read and think again. It's the same logic
as 2+2=4.
1 HSA isn't sexual acts per se but a biologically
inplanted interest for being attracted to having sex with females.
Whereas dogs seem to be more excited by the smell of a female dog's
pheromones, human males seem to be more interested in the shape of the
female body. In fact, analytically there's no difference between gay sex
and hetero sex if HSA isn't a factor (however, it would be enough to
term it HSA sex if the male at least think about a physical woman -
compare e.g. heterosexual men unknowingly being attracted to males
disguised as women).
2 Males have way more potential urge for
sex than women because of some 20 times more testosterone. And please,
don't confuse this with what Klevius calls "rubbing sex", i.e. just
stimulation of the genitals without HSA (compare the case of white
pepper and sneezing).
3 Being pregnant and having a baby has nothing to do with sex segregation at all because it's entirely a woman affair.
4 This means that all women, incl.
asexual and achild ones ought to be treated equal with males. And as a
consequence, this analysis also benefits men who want to get rid of
their macho masculinity label as well as those who unnecessarily feel
they're lacking one.
Peter Klevius drawing 'Woman' from 1979:
Drawing (1979) and photo (2012) by
Peter Klevius. For those Humanrightsophobes with really limited
understanding (i.e. PC), do note that the DNA "ladder" has steel rivets
(i.e. strong both for trapping as well as escaping).
Whereas classic sex segregation (read more Klevius to better understand
the concept) is imposed by circumstances, religious/cultural sex
segregation is what is imposed on girls/women even when it's no longer
necessary. In the latter case women have been held back by men to an
extent where incompetency outside "women's sphere" increasingly became
obvious. As a consequence grown up women started internalizing this
incompetency as "femininity" although the only true femininity is
defined by heterosexual attraction (read Klevius because you'll find
nothing anywhere else so far - sad isn't it).
Peter Klevius 1979 poem 'My Friend':
Ett synintryck
en beröring
ord som diffusa budbärare
speglar en glimt av din tanke
i chifferform redan förvrängda
förrän de blivit sagda
av mig och din förväntan
min vän
A rough translation for those poor uneducated individuals lacking
Swedish, the origin of the English language (oh, perhaps you were
unaware of
English being a Scandinavian* language - my deepest condolences):
* The oldest Swedish is Old Nordic. To
call it "old Norse" wrongly associates it with Norway and Norwegian,
both of which weren't around as entities until after the Viking
age. As Klevius has always said: North Germanic, and probably Germanic
per se, was a late IE outcome between proto-Uralic and PIE (i.e. what
Klevius use to call "old Finland-Swedish").
A perception (see/se, track/tryck, i.e. see-in-track/synintryck)
a touch
words as diffuse messengers (words/ord, bid-bearers/budbärare)
mirror a glimpse of your thought (think/ing, tank/e)
in cipher form already distorted (fore wronged/förvrängd/a)
before they've been said (sagda)
by me and your expectation (fore waiting/förväntan)
my friend ( min frände, min vän)
Women on sex and work
Geri Jewell (top left), Nicola
Sturgeon and Michelle Thomson (below). Nicola Sturgeon says she would
not have suffered her career for a child. Michelle Thomson says she
didn't think her rapist (a teenage friend) had any sexual desire when he
raped her a night when she was 14 and they walked home together. This
she told in front of a tear filled UK Parliament (she has also recently
been questioned in a pending mortgage fraud case). However, Klevius
doesn't believe in rape without sexual desire - what was lacking was
respect for basic Human Rights equality, i.e. that her friend had been
brainwashed by sex segregation to an extent that he saw her only as an
object for heterosexual attraction, not as an other human being on an
equal footing.
Actress and comedian Geri Jewell, who has cerebral palsy (witch has not
affected her intelligence - only motorics), reveals in a new memoir,
I’m Walking As Straight As I Can
(alluding to her a-heterosexuality as well as her motoric disability)
how much she struggled growing up with a disability and how she wrestled
with her "sexuality" (or rather lack of it), and reveals she is a
"lesbian", which is a code word for not possessing male heterosexual
attraction genes nor same level of testosterone.
Geri Jewell was the first disabled actor to take a lead role in a sitcom
and she's gone on to challenge ideas about what is possible. She
describes the pressures on her to go into a job suited to her disability
and what made her rebel against such restricting expectations
Peter Klevius: Her rebellion against such restricting expectations as
created by cultural sex segregation is just stunning - although her
escape under an equally sex segregated cover ("lesbian", "gay" etc.) is
not. Why didn't she claim her Human Rights as described in the 1948
Universal Human Rights Declaration against fascism, which gives her the
right to lead her life as she wishes without having to "explain" it. Or
is it because she is an American, and the US Constitution still doesn't
give women full equality with men - hence necessitating labels?
US women fighting in vain for equality some 70 years after Finnish women got full equality.
Klevius wrote:
Islam, OIC - and Eurabia
As long as fascism is called good - how could we ever stop it? But
Klevius, as a critical European ("islamophobe" if you like) feels
extremely embarrassed in front of those true refugees escaping islam and
hoping for protection under Western Human Rights. Sorry!
Klevius (the world's foremost authority on sex apartheid - sad isn't
it) to all the world's women on women's day: Here's your main enemy
exemplified as a timid "mosque mouse"!
Sharia islam is never good for your Human Rights if you are a woman. But
willing whores and deceptive but off the point talks may well lure many
women still.
But the more important question is: Can you as a woman face your own sex apartheid history fully?
Drawing (1979) and photo by
Peter Klevius. For those Humanrightsophobes with really limited
understanding (i.e. PC), do note that the DNA "ladder" has steel rivets
(i.e. strong both for trapping as well as escaping).
Update: Learn more about heterosexual attraction and sex segregation/apartheid
here.
The origin of islam was plundering and raping booty jihad along Jewish slave trade routes.
Here's an approximate map of Judaism just before the origin of islam.
And below an approximate map of the violent muslim colonization in the foot steps of the Jewish slave trade routes.
The above maps could be almost
identical if produced with same techniques. This is no coincident but
due to the "mysterious" code (the Jews) that made Arab imperialism
possible and historical analysis impossible ("mysterious") if not
included.
Except for Khazaria, Jews were more business orientated than eager to
waive swords compared to their copycats the Arab Bedouins. However,
without wealthy and influential Jews leading the bloodthirsty and
illiterate Bedouins (compare Ibn-Khaldun's description) and paving the
way for the Arab looters (compare how the Jews used Turkic people in
Khazaria in pretty much the same manner) the "Arab conquest" would have
quickly dried out in the Arabian sand.
Dear reader. When reading Klevius analysis of the origin of islam, do always keep in mind the following important facts:
1 There was no Koran - only some Jewish/Christian text manipulations.
2 There was no Muhammad - only the old Jewish Messias (the
rescuer/saver/leader) myth. Muhammad as described by muslims is a later
invention snd doesn't appear in any official documents whatsoever before
Malik.
3 Conventional "descriptions" of the "Arab conquest" are impossible and
leave historians "amazed". Instead looting, booty, and sex slaves were
the main incentives for the Bedouins. What was new was a more tight
racist system of "we-and-the-other" which hindered (for a time) hindered
internal divisions. On top of this was the Dhimmitude taxation system
under the sword.
4 Understanding these point is also understanding that islam originated
as a parasite and therefore never functioned as inspiration in itself
for innovations etc. This is why every islamic colony has ended in
bachwardness. Africa is an example of how a parasitic ideology was able
to drain a whole continent.
Klevius will tell you much more later. Keep tuned and excited!
A little, timidly nonsense speaking Swedish "reformist" Shia muslim
"professor"* who rides on the non-muslim world's longing for "nice
muslims".
* Klevius uses 'professor' only re. scientific researchers. Mixing in a "god" isn't science.
Whereas few women believe in the Islamic State, some morons still
believe in the oxymoron "reformed islam". To understand the
impossibility of a civilized islam one only has to go to its evil origin
(as Klevius has done since 9/11). And if you for some strange reason
don't want to listen to the world's foremost expert on sex apartheid -
and therefore also islam -just take a closer lookj to what BBC and
others don't want to talk about.
And you may laugh this Saudi billionaire hoodlum away as a Saudi joke but then you miss the very point, namely that:
1 OIC's sharia includes both the Saudi sharia as well as any other
sharia that fulfills the lofty definition of the Cairo declaration.
2 The main reason (except for protecting the Saudi and other muslim
nations medieval systems) for OIC's sharia declaration was that the 1948
Universal* Human Rights Declaration gives women full equality with men,
which fact made it impossible for islam in whatever sharia form.
* There's a dumb view presented for
even dumber people that the UN declaration was "Western made" and
therefore biased. Nothing could be more wrong. The paper and the pen may
have been "Western made" but the content is from scratch made
deliberately "non-Western" i.e. universal. Educate yourself!
Unlike many other forms of sexism, muslim sexism is pure racism: Muslim
women in every single variant of possible sharia islam are always
treated as "the other".
A Shia muslim that is on the extreme fringe of Shia muslims and not even
considered a muslim by the majority of the world's Sunni muslims, incl,
most muslim so called "scholars".
A pathetic and disgusting Human Rights denier who "accuses" basic and
universal Human Rights for being bad "because they came out of the
West". Ok, cars etc. also came out of the West and yes, he could blame
them for some pollution etc. and call it "post-colonialism". But how on
earth could you possibly deny the logic of the negative (basic) Human
Rights, or deny them because they "came out of the West". Well the
reason "they came out of the West" is that the islam contaminated parts
of the world didn't give them a chance to come out there.
So is he an outright lier trying to camouflage islam's incompatibility
with the most basic of Human Rights- or is he, like so many muslims,
incredibly dumb/ignorant/brainwashed?
Mohammad Fazlhashemi, professor in islamism (aka "islamic theology") and
filosophy (sic)* at Uppsala University in Sweden: There are some
essential norms in the Koran that can be used to protect human dignity
in different ways depending on time and cisrumstances.
* As Wittgenstein already pointed out, philosophy is a difficult
discipline even without trying to squeeze in a God scheme in it. And
even more so when the "God" is totally out of reach and only exists as
differing human "interpretations".
Klevius: "Protecting" women from having access to full Human Rights? And
"human dignity" should be read "muslim male dignity" added by the
important "who is interpreted as being a true muslim" which could, as we
all know, vary quite a lot among muslims. Moreover, what about the
dignity of non-muslims? Either you let muslims "interpret" it or you
skip islam alltogether, because here lies the real difference between
Human Rights that gives every Atheist or whatever person (even muslims)
equal rights, and sharia islam which openly violates these rights, as
can be seen, for example, in Saudi based and steered OIC's (all muslim's
main world organization) official abandoning of Human Rights in UN.
Mohammad Fazlhashemi, professor in islamism (aka "islamic theology") and
racist/sexist "muslimn filosophy" can't possibly be unaware of OIC, the
muslim world's biggest and most important institution, can he!
Mohammad Fazlhashemi: That islam is good can be proved by comparing it to the illiterate Arab speaking bedouins.
Klevius: Is that really a good enough standard as reference?
Mohammad Fazlhashemi: There's no logical connection between a muslim's belief and a muslim's rights.
Klevius: Apart from the fact that most muslims completely disagree with
you, why do you then keep asking for muslim's rights? Why should
muslim's have special rights because of their "beliefs"?
And here's this small minded muslim reformist's Shia source:
Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari: I do not call for a separation of politics
and religion. Of course there should be cooperation between them.
Klevius: Cooperation between Human Rights violating sharia and
politicians representing Human Rights doesn't sound very reformist, does
it.
From an interview with Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari (spiced with Klevius
comments): The way of life in Medina and Mecca was quite simple. But
what took place then cannot be a model for today's world. Nowadays,
Muslims live in intelligent social systems, in which there is a wide
diversity of institutions. This requires us to develop a proper plan
with the aid of reason. This is not something that can be derived from
the Koran.
Klevius: At least he seems to admit that the slaughtering of all the
Jews in Medina wasn't a good "model". Or did he mean something else? The
muslim booty and sex jihad?
"During its Golden Age, Islam was known for highly controversial and
pluralistic debates. Today, the reality in many Muslim countries is
quite different. There is little freedom of thought.. What can be done
to promote more freedom of thought in Muslim countries?"
Klevius: The "golden age" was just the same as today, i.e. muslims
sponging on resources they haven't themselves created. Slaves back then -
oil and Western welfare today. More than 90% of the economy in Andalus
was based on slavery - fully in line with islam's original enslavement
formula: "Infidels" (i.e. non-muslims and women) could be enslaved
because Muhammad had heard Allah (via an angel though) saying so.
Shabestari: Freedom of expression all depends on whether a people has
politically developed to such an extent that it understands what freedom
is. Then it will demand freedom of expression. Even now there is a
great tendency towards freedom in Islamic countries. Yet, why it hasn't
truly developed is another question. This has to do with political
hurdles and the system of government in these countries. It is more of a
cultural difficulty than a difficulty related to Islam or religion in
general. Unfortunately, this is a retrograde cultural reality.
Klevius: Admittedly Hillary Clinton's sharia campaign against freedom of
expression represents "a retrograde cultural reality". However, how
could it possibly not be directly connected to islam itself when she
works for the world's biggest and most fundamental islam representing
organization, the Saudi based and steered OIC?!
"The Arab protest movements are associated by many people, both within
these countries and also abroad, with the hope for democracy. Others
(muslims) say that Islam fundamentally forbids democracy."
Klevius: Yet it's all islam and muslims - no matter what it stands for.
As a consequence it encompasses both the most evil of muslims as well as
those "muslims" who can't be distinguished from non-muslims other than
by name. And this state of affairs is of course most handy for the most
evil of muslims.
