Peter Klevius' - the world's foremost expert (sad isn't it) on sex segregation - analysis on how it and heterosexual attraction* added to the fame and tragedy of Sinéad O’Connor's life struggle with mental illness.
* Heterosexual attraction (HSA) is the evolutionary implanted biological drive for reproduction that steers the sperm to the egg. However, in humans this drive has been added by various cultural superstructures (incl. language use) we may call sex segregation (not to be conflated with e.g. sex segregated sports etc.). As a consequence of sex segregation there has built up a statistical rift between the sexes due to separated life worlds which then is "explained" as "feminine" and "masculine" "gender" "characteristics - i.e. not female and male sex characteristics despite the fact that both rest on biology.
Sinéad Magda Shuhada Sadaqat Davitt Mother Bernadette Mary Marie O'Connor* - a restless multi-identity soul now resting in peace.
*
Why is it that on Wikipedia Cassius Clay is first presented as Muhammad
Ali but Sinead O'connor is not first presented as Shuhada Sadaqat?!
Peter Klevius has since his teens said the obvious, namely that all (biological) women are "gay"*. And although reproduction may follow from a rape, Human Rights respect may not.
*
Quotation marks only to be nice against those who want to call
themselves 'gay' without any real reason to do so. What except for
backward sex segregation and the law hinders people from living as they
like without putting a meaningless "gender name" on it? After all, every
sexual act or thought re. genitalia that isn't triggered by
heterosexual attraction (HSA) can be called 'gay' - even heterosexual
sex. Only males are biologically slaves under this HSA evolutionary
blessing/curse of reproduction, which needs females as its target. This
is why all biological women are biologically "gay". However, historical
sex segregation is a cultural hangover which plays together with HSA in a
sometimes insidious manner that both sexes uphold but of different
reason. However, human - not HSA - always ought to be the default state
between individuals in non-sexual everyday activities. This also means
that a woman can look as sexy as she likes in daily life without
islamist covering that offends others as "whores". It was completely
different a situation in early Christianity when some women chose to
becoming nuns by "marrying Jesus" instead of taking the only other legal
route, i.e. heterosexual marriage. We civilized men have no problem
with HSA, only fun - and we want women to be free from HSA harassment.
No covering of female beauty needed. A morally healthy man - as opposed
to a necrrophilic rapetivist - can only become a slave under lust with
the consent of both parties - i.e. no "pushing" for sex. This is also
why we men need to fully appreciate Art. 2 in UDHR of 1948 instead of
falling for ape behavior and anti-Human Rights ideologies such as, for
example, islam's sharia declaration CDHRI from 1990 which denies women
full Human Rights.
In late 1980s she was a sexy looking
young woman seen through Peter Klevius' and other men's evolutionary
heterosexual attraction eyes - and got extra sexy because of her
baldness which emphasized her feminine body attire. Moreover, her shaved
head was an assertion against traditional views of women, where
cultural prejudice based on sex (i.e. sex segregation) gets mixed with
muddled HSA reactions.
2016 Sinéad O’Connor posted suicidal
thoughts, went missing, and was chased by media on a live blog during
Mental Health Awareness Week.
In 2017, she "freed" herself "of the patriarchal slave names - free of the parental curses."
Peter
Klevius: Actually, she became a "slave" under racist islam, the real
patriarchy based on sharia laws and supported by the largest muslim
feminist movement. After her conversion to the Human Rights violating
ideology of islam (see OIC's CDHRI of 1990) in October 2018, she
condemned non-muslims as "disgusting" on Twitter. “But truly I never
wanna spend time with white people again (if that's what non-Muslims are
called). Not for one moment, for any reason. They are disgusting," she
wrote. She had been "triggered" by the "islamophobia" aimed at her, and
that she had been warmly embraced by the islamic community.
Peter
Klevius: Triggered by "islamophobia" and warmly embraced by the islamic
community. Sadly this is also the main inroad for evil islamists, and
perhaps the biggest civilian threat today.
"I wear the hijab when
I feel like it. I'm not at my age, required to wear a hijab. To me the
hijab is the same as when I used to wear a crucifix...it's a way of
identifying yourself with your family in the streets."
Peter
Klevius: Compare this to BBC's bigoted and hypocritical Saudi raised
"diversity" star Mishal Husain who doesn't use a hijab and who doesn't
fast ramadan (but can drink some alcohol) or who doesn't care about
mosque visits etc. Moreover, the hijab in islam is meant for younger HSA
women against the gaze of unrelated men, and in this respect functions
as a spit in the face of none muslim women - and Mishal Husain type
"muslims" get away with it by calling their way "a personaö choice".
However, why then flash "muslimhood" all over the place while licking in
the benefits of this bigoted hypocrisy when considering all the poor
girls and women whose career and life are fettered with real muslimhood.
Peter Klevius wrote:
Friday, March 05, 2021
Peter Klevius: Sex segregated feminism is a dead end* for achieving full Human Rights equality for women
*
Instead of diversifying the sexes, feminism and masculinism lead to
ever more segregation as we already witnessed with the 1990s "glamour
feminism" and emergence of the world's largest feminist "community" i.e.
sharia feminism.
Heterosexual attraction* is the only analytical tool possible to understand sex segregation and sexism - yet
no one except Peter Klevius seems to talk about it (sad, isn't it)!
* Peter Klevius, the foremost expert on sex segregation (sad isn't itÅ: Why is the most important subject, i.e. heterosexual attraction, avoided in sex education? Even a centenary woman who has never been with a man and who happens to have lost every possible female curvature in her body is still imprisoned by the cultural effects (sex segregation) of biological heterosexual attraction (the "patriarchal male gaze" in feminist mythology - but the basis of heterosexual reproduction in evolutionary biology). To analyze the relationship between the sexes only heterosexual attraction (HSA) fulfills the measure. Pregancy, delivery, suckling etc. has no defining bearing for such an analysis of relationship. Part of the answer is that women are complicite in using heterosexual attraction when it suits them while denying it when it suits them. This is why Peter Klevius use to say that chauvinists and feminists have much in common. HSA is biologically implanted in men but unlike what islamists think, doesn't mean men can't control their desire. Islam/OIC stipulates via sharia that women shouldn't have full Human Rights as in the anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration from 1948 which clearly states that sex should not be used as an excuse for limiting rights.
Drawing (1979) by Peter Klevius. For those Humanrightsophobes with really limited understanding or blinded with prejudice, do note that the DNA "ladder" has steel rivets (i.e. strong both for trapping as well as for escaping), and that the female curvature shadows transgress from below over painful flames into a crown of liberty.
Perpetua (203 AD): 'I saw a ladder of tremendous height made of bronze, reaching all the way to the heavens, but it was so narrow that only one person could climb up at a time. To the sides of the ladder were attached all sorts of metal weapons: there were swords, spears, hooks, daggers, and spikes; so that if anyone tried to climb up carelessly or without paying attention, he would be mangled and his flesh would adhere to the weapons.' Perpetua realized she would have to do battle not merely with wild beasts, but with the Devil himself. Perpetua writes: They stripped me, and I became a man'.
Peter Klevius: They stripped Perpetua of her femininity and she became a human!
The whole LGBTQ+ carousel is completely insane when considering that the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) art. 2 gives everyone, no matter of sex, the right to live as they want without having to "change their sex". So the only reason for the madness is the stupidly stubborn cultural sex segregation which, like religious dictatorship, stipulates what behavior and appearance are "right" for a biological sex. And in the West, it is very much about licking islam, which refuses to conform to the basic (negative) rights in the UDHR, and instead created its own sharia declaration (CDHRI) in 1990 ("reformed" 2020 with blurring wording - but with the same basic Human Rights violating sharia issues still remaining). The UDHR allows women to voluntarily live according to sharia but sharia does not allow muslim women to live freely according to the UDHR. And culturally ending sex segregation does not mean that biological sex needs to be "changed." Learn more under 'Peter Klevius sex tutorials' which should be compulsory sex education for everyone - incl. people with ambiguous biological sex! The LGBTQ+ movement is a desperate effort to uphold outdated sex segregation. And while some old-fashioned trans people use it for this purpose, many youngsters (especially girls) follow it because they feel trapped in limiting sex segregation.
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).
From 1979 to 2021 nothing has changed in Peter Klevius public* analysis of heterosexual attraction and sex segregation
* Already as a 14-year old Peter Klevius understood this although didn't publish it before 1979.
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.
Alternative to feminism
15 Mar 2003
by Peter Klevius, anthropologist without masculinity.
All
feminisms are reactionary and really variants of feminist separatism
because the basic idea is based on difference due to sex.
Pascalidou's
unusually naive and sex-confused column may be seen as a cry for help
for the girls / women who are trapped in "femininity". My own, not too
big daughter went through this period when she as a 7-9 year old in the
1990's played icehockey with the boys and was told that she will not be
as strong as the "boys" but that not all "boys" will be strong and some
girls may become quite strong depending on genetic profile/size, PE
environment, etc.
After this, she has been able to let go of sex
segregation completely in her own life, but of course experiences a
certain limitation when it comes to choosing activities and conversation
topics with "girly girls".
Pascalidou comes from an extremely
sex-segregated culture but grew up during a time when it was much more
common - than the golden age of "separatist feminism" today - with
"Tomboy" girls (what an idiotic reactionary term). In addition, it seems
that she never received the much-needed adult guidance that could have
explained the situation to her. And even though she herself thinks she
was "boyish" and cocky, she probably missed a lot because of her sex -
millions of technical and motoric skill experience that the boys were
not eliminated from because they had the "right" sex.
It's not
enough to play hockey or be cocky. Where a single mother's boy learns
from the other boys, the corresponding girl is not given a chance to
embrace the world of natural sciences and technology. She grew up in one
of the Western world's perhaps most sex segregated socieities where
there were almost watertight borders between the sexes when it really
matters. The exceptions confirm the rule. This was shown, among other
things, in Karin Sandqvist's Dad project, where she demonstrated how
girls with more dad and / or brother contact became more independent and
scientifically interested.
Sure, it's a pity that girls and
women who, due to feminized mothers and welfare state, have been
abandoned in a pink chamber without technology, etc., but it is also
quite stupid to deliberately continuing locking innocent young girls in
this very chamber. Replace the feminist word 'patriarchy' with 'sex
segregation' and the world will be seen in a completely different light.
Personally,
I have absolutely no idea about my own "masculinity" - except that I
find women more attractive than men - and I enjoy it very much. Being
able to talk and act with people without constantly keeping track of
what I or they have in their pants actually feels very liberating.
Let
go of "femininity" and "masculinity" as soon as possible so we can all
move on together! In fact, the world out there has long since abolished
sex segregation and that is precisely why it is understandable but at
the same time idiotic to cling to it. Sex stereotyping is like
nationalism - the less real the more constructed.
The original Swedish text:
Alternativ till feminism
15 Mar 2003
av Peter Klevius, antropolog utan manlighet.
All
feminism är reaktionär och egentligen varianter av särartsfeminism
eftersom grundtanken utgår från olikhet på grund av just kön.
Pascalidous
ovanligt naiva och genusförvirrade kolumn kan ses som ett rop på hjälp
för de flickor/kvinnor som fastnat i "kvinnlighetens" fälla. Min egen,
småväxta dotter gick igenom denna period då hon som 7-9 åring på
90-talet spelade hockey med killarna och fick förklarat för sig att hon
inte kommer att bli lika stark som "pojkarna" men att alla "pojkar" inte
heller blir det samtidigt som vissa tjejer kan bli det beroende på
genetisk profil och miljö, etc.
Efter detta har hon kunnat släppa
könssegregeringen totalt i sitt eget liv men upplever förstås en viss
begränsning då det gäller att välja aktiviteter och samtalsiområden med
"flickflickor".
Pascalidou kommer från en extremt könssegregerad
kultur men växte upp under en tid då det var mycket vanligare än nu
under "särartsfeminismens" gyllene epok med "pojkflickor" vilken
idiotiskt reaktionär term. Dessutom verkar det som om hon aldrig fick
den välbehövliga vuxna vägledning som hade kunnat förklara situationen
för henne. Och även om hon själv tycker hon var "pojkaktig" och kaxig så
missade hon säkert på grund av sin könstillhörighet, miljontals små
tekniska/motoriska upplevelser och erfarenheter som pojkarna inte
eliminerats från eftersom de haft "rätt" kön.
Det räcker inte med
att spela hockey eller vara kaxig. Där en ensamstående mammas pojke lär
sig av de andra pojkarna ges motsvarande flicka inte en chans att ta
till sig den naturvetenskapliga teknovärlden. Hon växer ju upp i ett av
västvärldens kanske mest könssegregerade system där det finns nästan
vattetäta skott mellan könen då det verkligen gäller. Undantagen
bekräftar regeln. Detta visade sig bland annat i Karin Sandqvists
Pappa-projekt där hon påvisade hur tjejer med mer pappa- och/eller
bror-kontakt blev mer självständiga och naturvetenskapligt intresserade.
Javisst,
det är synd om flickor och kvinnor som på grund av mammas och
socialstatens feminiserade uppfostran lämnats kvar i en rosa kammare
utan teknologi etc, men det är också lite korkat att med berått mod
stänga in oskyldiga flickebarn i denna kammare. Byt ut det feministiska
ordet patriarkat mot könssegregering så syns världen i ett helt annat
ljus.
Själv har jag absolut ingen aning om min egen "manlighet"
möjligen med undantag av att jag finner tjejer mer attraktiva än män och
jag trivs jättebra med det. Att kunna prata och agera med folk utan att
hela tiden hålla koll på vad jag eller de har i brallorna känns
faktiskt väldigt befriande.
Släpp "kvinnligheten" och
"manligheten" med det snaraste så vi alla kan gå vidare tillsammans!
Världen därute har faktiskt för länge sen avskaffat könssegregeringen
och just därför är det visserligen förståeligt men samtidigt idiotiskt
att klamra sig fast vid den. Könstillhörighet är som nationalism - ju
mindre verklig sådan desto mer konstruerad.
Peter Klevius wrote:
Tuesday, December 20, 2016
In Peter Klevius Yule* sex tutorial Geri Jewell reveals that "the denial was that the passion David had sexually I couldn't equal", and Michelle Thomson that when her friend raped her "it wasn't sexual".
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:
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':
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
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?
Klevius wrote:
Sunday, September 20, 2015
Islam, OIC - and Eurabia
Europe's fascist past reborn via religion
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!Tuesday, March 8, 2016
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?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.
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.
Comments
Post a Comment