The world's biggest fake media BBC's "news" presenter Evan Davis exemplifies its insidious way of cheating its less awake listeners with the most disgusting and hate spreading mis- and disinformation.

A recorded public time-line of Peter Klevius original research on evolution, consciousness, existencecentrism, anthropology and sociology 1979-2012 - and some thoughts about self-citation  

Read Peter Klevius Origin of the Vikings from 2005 - now again available after Google deleted it 2014 and again in February 2024. 

Read how climate change made human evolution possible in SE Asian volatile archipelago - not on a continent like Africa. 

Peter Klevius opposite reading and correction of Greenland data compared to researchers biased with climate hysteria.

 Read how two craniopagus twins born 2006 solved the "greatest mystery in science" - and proved Peter Klevius theory from 1992-94 100% correct. 

Evan Davis is clearly the most streamlined disinformer among BBC's otherwise openly clumpsy ones. This is why Peter Klevius thinks he is one of the best examples of BBC's evil tactics, not the least because he's got a way of nice sounding talking that dupes most people.  

Here's just a tiny but revealing example so to see how the insidious mechanism works almost unnoticed.

How many tragedies has BBC's racist and militaristic Sinophobe Evan Davis anti-China ranting from the world's biggest platform caused among Chinese people in UK and elsewhere - and of course never or rarely reported by BBC?!

* When UK's (already outdated quality disaster - compare the US controlled costly Trident and Aukus quality failures) aircraft carrier was launched Evan Davis complained that UK had 'only two' to attack China (sic). Talking about a megalomanic mouse with underlying inferiority complex. Btw, at that time China had only one in service because it focused more on peaceful trade and cooperation than militarism. However, precisely due to US aggression China had to prepare itself. So China's latest (and several forthcoming ones) is superior to US best, in a class UK can only dream about - no matter how much warmongers like BBC's Evan Davis push for robbing even more money to useless and needless military equipment from already poverty stricken UK people.

UK is 28th on the per capita list.

20241219 17:00 On BBC's "News" Putin said: 'Russia's GDP is fourth in the world in terms of purchasing power parity, and first in Europe. I don't think UK is even in the top five.'To this BBC's warmonger* Evan Davis pukes: 'I think Russia's per capita GDP is a great deal lower than UK. I don't know what metrics he was referring to when he said 'we're ahead of UK'. Peter Klevius: Really! How could you possibly miss that? And that UK's per capita GDP is heavily inflated by London's gold and finance flow that little benefit ordiunary UK people. In China the situation is the very opposite. There are a couple of hundred millions of rural population that pulls down China's overall per capita GDP but simultaneously greatly benefit from the 105 cities with more than a million people (UK has one and US 9) whose per capita GDP is much higher than China's general. Also do note that China's Macao has a per capita GDP which is more than double that of UK.

 

Peter Klevius wrote:

Is BBC/Jonny Dymond committing, or complicit to, war crimes/crimes against humanity* by deliberately misleading the public via the world's biggest fake news media platform?

November 26, 2024

* In the context of international crimes, falsehoods — ranging from selective reporting of facts, deliberate mischaracterization of events and adversaries, or even plain fabrication and lies — constitute a breeding ground in which incitement to support the committing of violence (i.e. war) can thrive. While disseminating such falsehoods does not constitute a direct call to commit physical violence, it nevertheless sows the seeds for mass atrocities. The outer limits of International Criminal Law (ICL) — defined by the principle of culpability — depends on whether campaigns of disinformation in the context of mass atrocities could ever give rise to individual responsibility. On the basis of the Fritzsche, Gvero and Mbarushimana cases, liability for disseminating disinformation might in principle be engaged before, during and even after the commission of such crimes. Concerns about the role of media may also pose the question whether media or their personnel may be liable for amplifying disinformation campaigns.

News media fascism, hate incitement, misinformation and warmongering far from impartiality: BBC's Jonny Dymond used the main Sunday news (20241124) together with Nato's former Assistance Secretary General Baiba Braze - a notorious war hawk - pushing for censoring critics of the war that US/Nato started as a result of Obama's 2013 plan to place US nukes around Russia's military base Sevastopol/Crimea (see below).

However, Dymond and Baiba didn't mention with a word that more than half of western Ukrainians (eastern Ukrainians and Crimeans overwhelmingly support Russia but weren't asked) now want negotiations and peace with Russia. In other words, BBC/Dymond not only produced deliberate disinformation, but thereby also committed war crime** and crime against humanity by inciting hate from UK's biggest state media outlet.

BBC "news" is a modern global copy of Goebbel's domestic Nazi propaganda.

Background (but see a more in depth analysis below).

February 9, 1990. James Baker III, US Secretary of State, said to Mikhail Gorbachev, NATO will not move one inch eastward if you agree to German unification, basically ending World War II. And Gorbachev said, that’s very important. Yes, NATO doesn’t move, and we agreed to German unification. The US then cheated on this, already starting in 1994 when Clinton signed off on, basically a plan to expand NATO all the way to Ukraine.

2008 Angela Merkel laid the foundation for a prosperous Germany/EU by approving Nord Stream gas supply from Russia - thereby going against dollar freeloader (since 1971) US pressure.

2013 Obama threatened Russia with his plan to place US nukes around Russia's miltary base at Sevastopol/Crimea. Obama's meddling started by arranging a rough Gallup poll among Crimeans which, to his disappointment, clearly revealed that an overwhelming majority didn't want to belong to Ukraine at all but wanted to be part of Russia. However, Obama didn't care but instead continued to puch for Ukraine's Nato membership - and thereby also US nukes (compare the Cuba crisis 1962). So Putin arranged a full referendum which overwhelmingly supported Russian annexation.  

2014 US toppled Ukraine's elected Russia friendly president and started the US supported civil war against Russians in eastern Ukraine which culminated in Russia's intervention in late February 2022.

In April 2022 Ukraine was ready for negotiations with Russia but was stopped by US (via UK PM Johnson's intervention).

Olaf Scholz tried to stop the war and reopen Nord Stream. This led to US destroying three of the four Nord Stream pipelines after Biden publicly promised to do so.

2024 US/Nato escallated the war by using US most sophisticated military neans - in a flagrant opposition to the will of the majority of Ukrainians.

The Nord Stream gas supply was essential for Germany, EU and Russia - so how could it be in Russia's interest to not participate peacefully?! However, dollar thief (since 1971) US had a main interest in destroying EU-Russia relations.

The Nord Stream gas supply was essential for Germany, EU and Russia - so how could it be in Russia's interest to not participate peacefully?! However, dollar thief (since 1971) US had a main interest in destroying EU-Russia relations. 

Read Peter Klevius' recorded public timeline about his original scientific breakthroughs on evolution, consciousness, the dynamics of human societies, sex segregation/heterosexual attraction, psychoanalysis, and sociology.

Read Peter Klevius Origin of the Vikings from 2005 - now again available after Google deleted it 2014 and again in February 2024.

Read how climate change made human evolution possible in SE Asian volatile archipelago - not on a continent like Africa. 

Read Peter Klevius opposite reading and correction of Greenland data compared to researchers biased with climate hysteria.

Read how two craniopagus twins born 2006 solved the "greatest mystery in science" - and proved Peter Klevius theory from 1992-94 100% correct.

How US robs the world since it 1971 by violated the Bretton Woods agreement and then started printing dollar costed by the rest of the world. Relase US fiat bomb by clicking it.

The Obama Regime’s Plan to Seize the Russian Naval Base in Crimea

November 2, 2019 

by Eric Zuesse

Clear and convincing evidence will be presented here that, under U.S. President Barack Obama, the U.S. Government had a detailed plan, which was already active in June 2013, to take over Russia’s main naval base, which is in Sevastopol in Crimea, and to turn it into a U.S. naval base. There can now be no question that the war in Ukraine started, and resulted from, the U.S. Government’s plan to take over all of Ukraine, and especially to take over that Russian naval base, in Crimea, which then was in Ukraine.

The war in Ukraine didn’t start at the time when a lot of people think that it did, with the overthrow of Ukraine’s President Viktor Yanukovych. It was already underway considerably before that time, because it started in Washington, as the folloowing masterful 11-minute documentary makes clear — it started as a subterranean war by Washington to take over Ukraine, before it became an overt war (a “civil war”) within Ukraine:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWkfpGCAAuw

The CIA-edited and written Wikipedia claims that the war commenced in “a series of military actions that started in February 2014”; and, that, from the outset, it has been a “Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present)” — not any sort of American intervention in Ukraine. However, to the extent that Russia has been involved in the Ukrainian war, that involvement came later, and was a reaction against what the U.S. Government and its agents had done to Ukraine (which nation is, of course, on Russia’s doorstep, and so Russia inevitably did respond). Therefore, the propagandistic function of Wikipedia must be acknowledged, even though Wikipedia is adequate for providing an introductory overview of some non-geostrategic subjects.

The U.S. regime, under Barack Obama, had been planning, ever since June 2011, a takeover of Ukraine, in order to become enabled ultimately to place its nuclear missiles within less than five minutes flying-time to a first-strike blitz destruction of the Kremlin (thus preventing any effective Russian counter-attack). However, things didn’t work out quite according to the plan for the takeover of Ukraine, and here is how the war in Ukraine actually began:

We’ll open by describing the planning for the conquest of Russia’s key naval base, in Sevastopol in Crimea. Crimea was inside Ukraine during 1954-2014, but had otherwise been inside Russia, going all the way back to 1783. (During 1954, the Soviet dictator, Khrushchev, arbitrarily transferred Crimea, from Russia to Ukraine, even though the vast majority of Crimeans considered themselves to be Russians, and their native language was Russian — but, after all, the Soviet Union was a dictatorship. Crimeans had no say in the matter.)

The U.S. regime prepared for its planned takeover of Crimea by commissioning Gallup to poll Crimeans in 2013 to find out whether the residents there considered themselves to be Ukrainians (which would make the U.S. regime’s job in Crimea easier), or instead still Russians (which would foretell resistance there); and the findings were that Crimeans overwhelmingly still considered themselves to be Russians, definitely not Ukrainians. Nonetheless, the plan for the takeover went forward — the U.S. team, it is clear, decided that the residents of Crimea could be dealt with, in such ways as is shown here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loKajkXoTBU

Some were clubbed to death, others became permanently disabled from their injuries, but this was a warning to Crimeans, to buckle under, and give up: be ruled from Kiev, by Washington’s regime. It didn’t work. A referendum was quickly held in Crimea about whether they wanted to be ruled by the newly installed Ukrainian government, and the results were in line with Gallup’s findings: Crimeans wanted to be ruled from Moscow, not from Kiev.

The U.S. then hired Gallup to survey Crimeans soon after the referendum. (Perhaps the U.S. regime was hoping to find that a scientific sampling of Crimeans would show a far smaller percentage favoring the breakaway of Crimea from Ukraine than the referendum had reported, which could greatly intensify international skepticism about the legitimacy of Russia’s takeover of Crimea. But, if that was the purpose, Gallup’s findings again turned out to be a disappointment.)

Here is what Gallup found in both its 2013 and 2014 polls of Crimeans:

When Gallup did their “Public Opinion Survey Residents of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea May 16-30, 2013” (which was called that because even when Crimea was part of Ukraine, it had a special status, as being an “Autonomous Republic” — not a province), only 15% (slide 8) of Crimeans viewed themselves as “Ukrainian,” but 40% said “Russian,” and 24% said “Crimean.” 53% (slide 14) wanted Crimeans to be part of the “Customs Union with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan,” but only 17% wanted Crimeans to be part of “The European Union.” 68% (slide 15) said their feelings toward “Russia” were “warm,” but only 6% said their feelings toward “USA” were “warm.

When Gallup in April 2014 (right after the referendum) polled Crimeans again (slide 25), 76.2% had a “negative” view of the United States, and 2.8% had a “positive” view of it; 71.3% had a positive view of Russia, and 8.8% had a negative view of it. Asked whether (slide 28) “The results of the referendum on Crimea’s status likely reflect the views of most people there/here,” 82.8% said yes; 6.7% said no. 89.3% in the poll expressed an opinion on this matter, and 93% of those who expressed an opinion said that the referendum “likely did reflect the views” of Crimeans. That was almost exactly the same percentage as those who in the referendum had voted to rejoin Russia. It couldn’t have been stronger verification of the referendum-results, than that. The Gallup poll findings (like its predecessor) were hidden from the public — not broadcast to the public by the regime’s propaganda-media. After all: the U.S. Government is a regime — it’s not a democracy. All of the formalities, now, are just for show. Both of its political parties are imperialists (“neoconservative”). Only their style differs.

So: the U.S. regime knew that it wasn’t, at all, wanted nor welcomed by Crimeans, but that Russia very much was. The U.S. regime thus moved forward on the basis that the government of Ukraine owned that land; the residents who lived there did not, and should have no say about what government owned it and would rule them. The idea was that, if the people there didn’t like it, they should emigrate to Russia (and, according to a Russian source, “4.4 million went to Russia” — removed themselves from Ukraine — after the coup).

The U.S. regime, clearly, wanted the land, not  the people who were living on it. The expectation, as soon as Ukraine was under U.S. control from the coup, had been that America would get the entirety of Ukraine, including Crimea; but, then, Russia’s Vladimir Putin stepped in and protected Crimeans who were clamoring to hold a referendum in order to express their collective will on this matter; and this referendum was held, on 16 March 2014, and it produced over 90% voting for Crimea to be a part of Russia, such as Crimea had been before Khrushchev transferred it to Ukraine.

So: the U.S. regime failed to get the naval base that it had expected to get in Sevastopol in Crimea. That was a crucial failure for Obama.

Those events — the coup and, three weeks later, the Crimean referendum — occurred in 2014, but the planning for the coup had already been going on for years, and it wasn’t being called off once Gallup reported in 2013 that most Crimeans loathed the U.S. The active operation to take over Ukraine had started actually on 1 March 2013 inside the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, which was almost 9 months before Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, on 20 November 2013, rejected the EU’s demand that Ukraine must bear the full $160 billion cost of abandoning its existing trading relationships with Russia and its allies, in order to join the EU. Wikipedia says that the overthrow of Yanukovych started on 21 November 2013 when he said no to the EU, but actually it started on 1 March 2013; and the planning for it had started by no later than June 2011. And it may be said to have begun even prior to that, when, near the very start of Obama’s Presidency, Obama called the then-Ukrainian-Presidential-candidate Yanukovych to Washington in order to sound him out on — if Yanukovych would become the winner — getting Ukraine into NATO, America’s anti-Russian military alliance. Getting Ukraine into the EU was really just to be a steppingstone to getting it into NATO so that U.S. nuclear missiles could be placed there against Moscow. This is what everything was really about. On 7 January 2010, the Kiev Post bannered “Yanukovych: Ukraine will remain a neutral state” and this is what actually sealed his fate. Yanukovych, with that now in his platform, won the Presidential election on 7 February 2010. So: he was in Obama’s gunsight even at the very moment when he won the Presidency.

There was no question as to whether Ukrainians wanted to be in NATO: they did not. During 2003-2009, only around 20% of Ukranians wanted NATO membership, while around 55% opposed it. In 2010, Gallup found that whereas 17% of Ukrainians considered NATO to mean “protection of your country,” 40% said it’s “a threat to your country.” Ukrainians predominantly saw NATO as an enemy, not a friend. But after Obama’s February 2014 Ukrainian coup, “Ukraine’s NATO membership would get 53.4% of the votes, one third of Ukrainians (33.6%) would oppose it.” The coup turned what remained of Ukraine sharply against Russia. NATO is the key; the EU is more like an excuse for Ukraine to be admitted into NATO.

In June 2013 (well before the ‘democratic revolution’ in Ukraine started), NAVFAC, the U.S. Naval Facililities Engineering Command, published on its website, a “Project Description” for “Renovation of School#5, Sevastopol, Ukraine,” under the euphemistic title “EUCOM Humanitarian Assistance Program”. EUCOM is the U.S. European Command — it is purely military, not “humanitarian,” at all. The 124-page request for proposals (RFP) showed extensive photos of the existing school, and also of the toilets, floor-boards, and other U.S.-made products, that the U.S. regime was requiring to be used in the renovation (by some American corporation, yet to be determined) of that then-Ukrainian school in Crimea, which at that time was a Ukrainian Government property, not at all American-owned or operated. So: why were U.S. taxpayers supposed to fund this ‘humanitarian’ operation, by the U.S. military?

A remarkably full description, of what that extraordinary RFP was about, was provided on 24 April 2014 by a “Lada Ray,” under the headline “Breaking! US Planned to Turn #Crimea into Military Base Against Russia”, and here is its opening:

—

Breaking! US Planned to Turn #Crimea into Military Base Against Russia

24 April 2014, Lada Ray

A couple of weeks ago Crimea and Sevastopol almost unanimously voted to re-join Russia. The Crimeans said: we had been unappreciated guests, now we are returning home after a long voyage. More about that in my articles:

Why is Crimea Overwhelmingly Pro RE-Unification With Russia? https://futuristrendcast.wordpress.com/2014/03/17/why-is-crimea-overwhelmingly-pro-re-unification-with-russia/

Prediction: Crimea Independence Vote https://futuristrendcast.wordpress.com/2014/03/15/prediction-crimea-independence-vote/

The information coming to the surface now shows that if Crimea stayed as part of Ukraine, it would have become a huge NATO/US military base. I seriously doubt that the people of the Crimea would have stood for that, but if such a thing did happen, it would have meant WWIII as Russia would never allow it. From this perspective it’s especially clear why NATO, USA and EU were so shocked that Russia decisively accepted Crimea back. They already considered it theirs.

The city of Sevastopol is the prized possession. This is one of the best harbors in the world. But the entire Crimea is of huge strategic importance – first and foremost, if you want to attack Russia. In addition, Crimea is important for the control over other countries, including Iran and Turkey. As they say, he who controls Crimea, controls the Black Sea.

At least one hospital in Crimea’s capital Simferopol and at least one school in Sevastopol were targeted by the US/NATO just recently. They were planning on turning the hospital into a base for their troops after a massive renovation. One of the high schools (a gymnasium) in Sevastopol the Kiev authorities were about to sell to the US to be repurposed as a school for spies, targeting Russia. It was planned that the kids going to that school would be learning languages and spying techniques since an early age.

It appears Americans wanted to turn the Crimea into a massive military/navy/intelligence complex. The famous, one-of-a-kind Soviet underground submarine base in Balaklava, which is now the Museum of the Cold War, was visited in the past several years by at least 25 delegations from the Pentagon, US Navy, NATO, and Western political circles. Kiev gave them access to super-secret Russian/Soviet sectors of the base, which were supposed to be off limits. They studied with great interest the secret documentation and technology.

In Sevastopol, called “the city of the Russian glory” and the “hero city,” the NATO and US navy ships and military have been present for years. The population greeted them with constant protests, which prevented some of the planned joint military exercises between NATO and Kiev. Sometimes, the NATO ships had to leave because of the population’s resistance (protest footage on video below at 1:54). US/NATO ships in the Sevastopol harbor tried many times to “park” right in front of the Russian ships stationed there just out of spite. As we know, for 23 years, since the breakup of the USSR in 1991. Russia has been leasing its own base on its historic land for $100mln a year from Kiev.

Sevastopol had been the important base of the Russian Fleet since 1776. Sevastopol is a large and beautiful city populated with ethnic Russians, many of whom are retired navy officers and their families. These people dreamed for 23 years of going home – and by home they always meant Russia. Add to that that Kiev constantly attacked Russian language, little by little taking away the right of the Russian-speakers to speak their native language.

In Crimea, the US financed very generously various media, NGOs, and politicians, who would essentially become their agents. Of course, much of that was styled as support for democracy.

People of the Crimea felt deeply insulted by such attitude by the bought-and-paid-for Kiev and such disrespect of their heritage and wishes by the US/NATO.

—

You didn’t see that information in the New York Times, Washington Post, London Times, Telegraph, Guardian, or any other U.S.-regime propaganda-organ; and, so, the facts that are told there might be surprising (or even shocking) to readers under the U.S. regime; but they are true, and the propaganda isn’t.

Then, Ukraine’s far eastern Donbass region, which had voted over 90% for the democratically elected President of Ukraine whom Obama had overthrown, also broke away. Here is how that happened:

Ukraine started its war against resisters by drafting everyone they could grab, and sending them in tanks into the south and east, in order to prevent any more secessions than Crimea had already done. The draftees were terrified, and didn’t want to kill. On 16 April 2014, the Kiev Post bannered “A day of humiliation, as Ukrainian military offensive stalls, six armored vehicles seized”. It opened: “On April 15, Ukraine’s military began an anti-terrorist operation against Kremlin-backed insurgents who have taken over numerous government buildings and police headquarters in several cities of Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine’s most populous region where 10 percent of the nation’s 45 million people live.” The residents in Donbass were now officially (by gther Obama-installed government) called “terrorists,” and Ukraine called its war to exterminate them the “Anti-Terrorist Operation” or ATO. Its objective was to eliminate as many of Yanukovych’s voters as possible (and Donbass having voted over 90% for Yanukovych meant that all of it was now a free-fire zone for Ukraine’s soldiers and bombers), so that the new regime would be able to win future elections (by eliminating the government’s opponents).

On 2 May 2014, thugs who were organized by the newly installed American regime in Kiev burned to death an uncounted number, perhaps over a hundred, individuals inside the Odessa Trade Unions Building, who had been distributing flyers against the coup-regime. Some of the massacre’s key organizers had friends inside the Obama White House. That event set off a panic throughout the eastern and southern half of Ukraine, where Yanukovych had overwhelmingly won the Presidency. The secession movement in the areas where Yanukovych had won (southern and eastern Ukraine), formed, and during 4-9 May 2014 took over some government buildings. Donbass, where Yanukovych had won by over 90%, seceded. The bombings and cannonades against Donbass — and sometimes even firebombings against them— took over.

That’s how the war started.

The U.S. regime and its supporters imposed severe sanctions against Russia for responding.

The accounts that have been given about the Ukrainian war by U.S.-and-allied ‘news’-media have been boldly blatant lies.

 

Peter Klevius wrote:

Same day as China's Chang'e 6, as the world's first ever, had landed back on Earth with samples from the far side of the Moon, BBC's radio troll Sarah Montague didn't manage with a word to mention it in her 45 min "news"!

June 26, 2024

 

See how US stole the world-dollar 1971 - and how China's rise challenges US stolen dollar hegemony.

The US demonized China has nothing to do with the real China, but all to do with US dollar embezzlement that makes it possible for US to spend despite constant trade deficit. US is the world's biggest counterfeiter - and a dangerous loser!

To understand US fear of China (the "China threat"), you need to understand 1) the background, i.e. US enormous 1971 dollar theft and its escalating consequences now, 2)  the fact that China is already superior in every area* of tech and science, as well as meritocratic real democracy.  Moreover, China has no reason to start wars - while US whole existence (the stolen dollar hegemony) depends on warmongering (militarization), and starting and continuing wars. And to understand how low the US led West has sunk, just consider BBC implying Russia deliberately targeting a children's hospital (why would Russia ask for more negative news?!) while not mentioning with a word Israel's slaughtering in Gaza and West bank the same day - not to mention the more than 40,000 Palestinians already murdered - most of them children and innocent adults!

* Both US and China itself try to downplay China's success - for different reasons.

 Watch how US stole the dollar. When Nixon 1971 admitted US dollar theft (while lying it was temporary) said 'your dollar may not give you as much abroad as before", that statement actually defined the amount of US embezzlement, because when the US dollar was no longer pegged to gold - only pegged to the whims of US Federal Reserve - it meant that the world dollar (outside US) had to pay for US deficit. So the Bretton Woods (1944) all world currency dollar that was pegged to gold under the custodianship of the Fed, after the theft 1971 (i.e. US violation of the gold connection) the dollar became split in two: a US dollar covering US deficit, and a world dollar that pays for it - both under the custodianship of US. What the US Fed is doing is controlling both currencies while favoring the US dollar.

 

 US is the real enemy - and modern meritocratic high tech China is the real friend for any country that chooses peace and prosperity instead of militarism, war and misery!

 

 

 

Read Peter Klevius Origin of the Vikings from 2005 - now again available after Google deleted it 2014 and again in February 2024.

Read how climate change made human evolution possible in SE Asian volatile archipelago - not on a continent like Africa. 

Read Peter Klevius opposite reading and correction of Greenland data compared to researchers biased with climate hysteria.

Read how two craniopagus twins born 2006 solved the "greatest mystery in science" - and proved Peter Klevius theory from 1992-94 100% correct.

Sarah Montague's hateful and racist Sinophobia is part of BBC's perverted anti-China propaganda that not only clashes with English consumers and companies* interest, but is also dangerous because it goes now in desperate $-embezzler US lead.

* Except of course military ones. However, because China is the technological world leader, Western (i.e.US made or controlled, with Chinese parts) military equipment is already outdated in an accelerating tempo.

People in England have to pay a compulsory fee to BBC under threat of penalty, no matter if they like its misleading propaganda or not. The only thing worth listening on BBC are a few consumer and private economy programs. All the others are BBC in-house propaganda added with out of house* propaganda - which are promoted in ads equally annoying and frequent as on commercial media. And BBC's s.c. "science" programs constitute a joke

* Usually oligarchially connected to already well-off BBC staff.

Cherry picking hate

BBC impartiality: Although BBC's radio troll Sarah Montague is extremely eager on "reporting" made up negatives about China, she always completely misses positives! 

If BBC's Sarah Montague is so dumb that she doesn't get what she's doing, then Peter Klevius will of course forgive her. However, then she shouldn't be rewarded by BBC for spreading misleading propaganda.

Apart from BBC's Sarah Montague & Co's fake "news" and deliberate lying by choosing guests bolstering BBC's lies, BBC also violates every journaistic communication rule:

BBC's Sarah Montague & Co appeal to force or threat is a form of communication meant to support violence/militarism against China.

BBC's Sarah Montague & Co try to force compliance with words as weapons, directly intended to exert power.

BBC's Sarah Montague & Co use name calling instead of engaging in fair arguments, and  don't engage substantive reasons or arguments, hence clearly aiming to amplify feelings of conflict against China.

BBC's Sarah Montague & Co's objectification makes it easier to defend violence/militarism against China/Chinese.

BBC's Sarah Montague & Co's reification of Chinese, their government etc. steals from the Chinese people their humanity and complexity in order to amplify perhaps alredy existing emotional disdain in the listeners.

BBC's Sarah Montague & Co overgeneralize in a distorted way and draw conclusions that are too broad to be justified. The purpose of this distorted thinking and communication is to advance a Sinophobic position that strengthens an us/them division and amplifies emotions directed toward the absolute majority of Chinese people.

When innocent Julian Assange was released from UK jail (jailed on order from US that its puppet "ally" UK obeyed), 

 

The plea deal was a ploy by the US Government to avoid embarrassment - but BBC continues following criminal US lead by implying guilt.

Julian Assange never risked anyone's life - but he told the world that US both risked and did murdered and tortured innocent people.

Peter Klevius judicial criticism of plea deals: 

A plea deal is a medieval form of torture that US has reinstated (to its other forms of torture) - and some other countries have followed. Even though Assange has accepted a plea deal to avoid trial, a truly independent judge could still change the sentence proposed in the plea deal. So if the sentencing judge accepts it, one may ask why? This constitutes the weak link because if the judge is independent as s/he should be, then what value does a sentencing proposal in a plea deal really have?

Fascist* fake media BBC missed this: When Chinese AI/LLMs proved to be superior to US ones, then US accuses them for not repeating US lies about Tiananmen "protesters" 1989 who were actually violent terrorists supported by US!

* I.e. classic Nazi anti-communism - now against China.  Fake news or information disorder is false or misleading information (misinformation, disinformation, propaganda, and hoaxes) claiming the aesthetics and legitimacy of news.

A recorded public time-line of Peter Klevius original research on evolution, consciousness, existencecentrism, anthropology and sociology 1979-2012 - and some thoughts about self-citation  

Read Peter Klevius Origin of the Vikings from 2005 - now again available after Google deleted it 2014 and again in February 2024. 

Read how climate change made human evolution possible in SE Asian volatile archipelago - not on a continent like Africa. 

Peter Klevius opposite reading and correction of Greenland data compared to researchers biased with climate hysteria.

 Read how two craniopagus twins born 2006 solved the "greatest mystery in science" - and proved Peter Klevius theory from 1992-94 100% correct. 

The US supported protesters in China were very wrong. Deng Xiaoping's reform policy away from Maoism and Xi Jinping's meritocratic anti-corruption campaign has easily outperformed US "democracy" on every front. So the only reason to propose "democracy" in China is to weaken it and open it for US robbing. But China says no - and US criminal behavior is doomed!

US "democracy" is extremely bad compared to modern China's people supported meritocracy. This is why US spends billions (trillions?) on smearing China via US media and web monopoly. 

China's one child policy (except for Uyghurs who were allowed to have more) has saved massively on global resources, and gave Chinese women more time for career. But presented as a problem by US led media.

And today China is the most successful nation adopting world's best green technologies. And when other countries want to buy it, then US and US steered politicians say no and call it "overproduction" and a "threat".

We never hear about US spread of missiles and censored dis- and misinformation via its media and finance monpoly and due weaponized web control and total spying as a threat, do we.

China's capitalist reform got severely hit 1988-89 because of US Feds chock rate increase. That caused havoc in a still extremely vulnerable China on its path out from Maoism.

Unarmed soldiers were sent to keep order but were murdered by armed protesters supported by US.

Do understand that $-thies US China smear is all about keeping its "allies" onboard in its criminal authoritarian dictatorship resting on its stolen gains from the world dollar it stole 1971.

 Peter Klevius wrote:

Thursday, May 23, 2024

Media's US led deception of the 1989 Tiananmen "democracy"* riots in China is as far you can get from the truth. 

* Even if some of the violent rioters really believed that "democracy" would be better for China, history now tells them how wrong they were. Moreover, just consider dollar embezzler (1971-) US reaction if China had become even stronger technologically, economically, politically and morally (if the latter is even possible for a 1.4 billion country)? That wouldn't have extended US stolen hegemony, right. 

$-freeloader US extreme anti-China cognitive, financial, militaristic warfare is made possible with US 1971 stolen world dollar hegemony and is a crime against humanity and most people are too busy/ignorant to understand the danger of the cornered US - but instead fear China which offers best consumer goods, infrastructure etc, without imposing its system as US does! 

 Sadly, many haven't understood the enormity of US financial fraud 1971. And US economists - and some stupid US puppets called "allies" - just "explain" away how US as the only country in the world can prosper and militarize the rest of the world despite constant trade deficit. "We're just so good" is Bloomberg's and others answer!

When US 1971 stole* the world dollar it could manipulate it as it wanted and have the world pay for its trade deficit. However, China is now back and challenges it with superior tech which makes consumers happy. China's capitalist reform got severely hit 1988-89 because of US Feds chock rate increase. That caused havoc in a still extremely vulnerable China on its path out from Maoism.

 * 1944 Bretton Woods "agreement" pegged the world dollar to US dollar which was then pegged to gold under US Feds custodianship. 1971 US was bankrupt and arbitrarily violated the gold connection but kept the custody over the world dollar. Although it hit poor countries the most, China was especially vulnerable because it was in an intensive opening-up trade development following Deng Xiaoping's capitalist reform policy. 

Peter Klevius analysis of the US controlled media massacre of the truth about the Tiananmen square incident by neglecting cause and effect while producing anti-China* smear. 

* No, it's not just CCP! Undemocratic Christian theocracy US uses Sinophobia as synonymous with "democracy", well knowing that the absolute majority of Chinese people don't share the US view on "democracy", although young Chinese in the late 1980s realized the difference in living standard between US and China after Deng Xiaoping opened up the China that Mao had closed. So when US again manipulated the world dollar it hit hard (up to 19% 1989 inflation from 7% 1987) on China's economy. 

 Peter Klevius agrees with Klaus Schwab (WEF) who said "I respect China's tremendous achievements … over the last forty years. China could act as a role model for many countries, but in the end, each country should be left to make its own decision regarding the system it wants to adopt. We should be very careful in imposing systems but the Chinese model is certainly a very attractive model for quite a number of countries." Peter Klevius: Especially for US!

Wu'er Kaixi (aka Örkesh Dölet) Of Uyghur heritage from Xinjiang had a leading role during the 1989 protests.

Peter Klevius: What did he think about the old Uyghur jihad battle cry "kill the Han and the Hui"?

Summary of Peter Klevius Tiananmen analysis: There were two distinct and mutually exclusive groups of protesters who were not distinguishable by their appearance. 

The absolute majority were peaceful protesters. However, the rest were intent for violence, and their leaders even openly admitted that they wanted to provoke PLA to also use violence "so the world could see it". But even this wasn't enough. As crit­ics of Chai Ling’s role in the move­ment point to the infam­ous “last words” interview she gave to US journ­al­ist Philip Cun­ning­ham on May 28, just days before the riots. With the move­ment facing an uncer­tain future, a deeply pess­im­istic and fear­ful Chai gave video testi­mony to Cun­ning­ham in which she described her intention to leave the square, adding “I want to live”. But, other stu­dents would have to stay until the square was “washed with blood,” she said.

Much of the rioters brutality was the result of Beijing’s decision on June 2 to send in unarmed soldiers to clear the Square. The unarmed soldiers  were set upon immediately by rioters around the Square waiting for the chance to attack the soldiers. Beijing’s armed battalions were sent in later.

US Embassy daily reports of what was happening at the time.

The US Embassy report for June 4 notes:

    “the beating to death of a PLA soldier, who was in the first APC to enter Tiananmen Square, in full view of the other waiting PLA soldiers, appeared to have sparked the shooting that followed.”

So it was the rs, not the government soldiers, that started the bloody confrontation.

State Department chroniclers continue their unbiased summary of events:

    “.. the initial moves against the students suggested to many that the Chinese leadership was still, as of the morning of June 3, committed to a relatively peaceful resolution to the crisis.”

From there we go to:

    “fascinating eyewitness accounts of the disorganized and confused retreat of PLA soldiers from the center of Beijing after their advance on Tiananmen Square was halted by crowds of demonstrators on the morning of June 3.’ ..the soldiers were ridiculed by Chinese citizens and scolded by elderly women who called them “bad boys” and “a disgrace to the PLA.”

On the day after, on June 4, however: “thousands of civilians (rioters - not peaceful protesters) stood their ground or swarmed around military vehicles. APCs were set on fire, and demonstrators besieged troops with rocks, bottles, and Molotov cocktails.”

Media reports confirmed this rioters violence.

According to the Wall Street Journal of June 4:

    “As columns of tanks and tens of thousands soldiers approached Tiananmen many troops were set on by angry mobs … [D]ozens of soldiers were pulled from trucks, severely beaten and left for dead. At an intersection west of the square, the body of a young soldier, who had been beaten to death, was stripped naked and hung from the side of a bus. Another soldier’s corpse was strung at an intersection east of the square.”

Even ABC, later to one-sidedly dramatize cruelties by government forces, describes how in front of the Australian embassy a PLA solder was beaten to death, disembowelled and left with his penis stuck in his mouth.

But those who condemn government violence  at Tiananmen need to explain the seeming hatred of the government among protesters that triggered Tiananmen events .

Chai Ling, like many other Tianamen rioters became Christian and welcomed in US. Listen to her video to measure her bloodthirstiness - and cowardice.

The "tank man" hoax* 

* The photographer used Peter Klevius favorite film camera (before F4) Nikon Fe2. 10 years earlier Peter Klevius bought a Nikon Fe because of its fast (for fill in flash) titanium shutter, which also handled better in cold than Canon's slow and cold sensitive fabric shutter. Moreover, whereas Canon A1 was useless with low battery (which was also really expensive), Nikon Fe (and Fe2) could still do B and 1/90 mechanically. Double exposure and good depth and field control also helped. However, the best thing was the wonderful metering system with both manual and auto relative to each other on the side of the viewer.

Although the "tank man" photo is authentic, its usage is almost never. As Peter Klevius has always said: Cameras never lie - pictures do. And in this case it's the presentation against a background on an extremely distorted Western presentation of the "Tiananmen massacre", that completely eliminates the "hero" against the "evil CCP" mantra - at a time when CCP had abandoned everything Maoist. 

Peter Klevius was first reluctant to even mention the "tank man" in the post because he thought most people already understood the silliness in it. However, a brief check revealed that BBC and other fake media still uses it deeply tendentiously and polemically. According to Peter Klevius, the incident clearly shows that PLA had strong orders to be careful with non-violent people no matter what they did. Otherwise any army would hav just taken the guy for interrogation - as a ny police would have done in any other country. Moreover, his strange behavior can only be described as either mad or just joking in front of the crowd. There was nothing to "protest" against - or did he want them to park on a normally busy street, or even worse, return to Tiananmen square?! 

1) 5 June 1989 everyone in Beijing knew that PLA wouldn't hurt non-violent civilians. Yes, that happened accidently in the chaotic battle the day before with the rioters who deliberately started the violence (already 3 June) against unarmed PLA soldiers whom they burned alive and hanged etc. That the PLA may have used excessive force is in line with any army in a similar situation. Just listen to Chai Ling and understand how deliberate the provocations from the rioters side were. Btw, also check the Waco siege and similar incidents in US.

2) It didn't happen at Tiananmen square, and the tanks were not going against protesters but just the contrary, i.e. back home.

3) Little, or nothing is publicly known of the man's identity or that of the commander of the lead tank. 

4) An endless list of "theories" have been put forward. Shortly after the incident, London newspaper Sunday Express named him as "Wang Weilin" (王维林), a 19-year-old student who was later charged with "political hooliganism" and "attempting to subvert members of the People's Liberation Army." This claim has been rejected by internal Chinese Communist Party documents, which reported that they could not find the man, according to the Hong Kong-based Information Center for Human Rights. One party member was quoted as saying: "We can't find him. We got his name from journalists. We have checked through computers but can't find him among the dead or among those in prison."

There are several conflicting stories about what happened to him after the "demonstration". In a speech to the President's Club in 1999, Bruce Herschensohn, former deputy special assistant to US President Richard Nixon, alleged that he was executed 14 days later; other sources alleged he was executed by firing squad a few months after the Tiananmen Square protests. In Red China Blues: My Long March from Mao to Now, Jan Wong writes that she believes from her interactions with the government press that they have "no idea who he was either" and that he is still alive somewhere on the mainland. Another theory is that he escaped to Taiwan and remains employed there as an archaeologist in the National Palace Museum. This was first reported by the Yonhap news agency in South Korea.

The Chinese government has made few statements about the incident or the people involved. The government denounced him as a "scoundrel" once on state television. In a 1990 interview with Barbara Walters, then-General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party Jiang Zemin was asked what became of the man. Jiang first stated (through an interpreter), "I can't confirm whether this young man you mentioned was arrested or not", and then replied in English, "I think [that he was] never killed." The government also argued that the incident evidenced the "humanity" of the country's military.

In a 2000 interview with Mike Wallace, Jiang said, "He was never arrested." He then stated, "I don't know where he is now." He also emphasized that the tank stopped and did not run the young man over.

Cui Guozheng, was an unarmed cook in the 348th Regiment of the 116th Division. He was murdered by rioters because he did not stay close enough with the other troops.

Listen to this bloodthirsty "protester for democracy"

 The Chinese government sent unarmed soldiers to guard the protests precisely so to not instigate more violence. However, they were attacked and murdered in their vehicles by organized militant "protesters" who used Molotov cocktails etc, weapons. Only later armed officers were used against the militant terrorists on the streets leading to the Tiananmen square - were nothing actually happened except for the public thanking the soldiers and feeding them.
Chine

.

BBC "missed" this: According to Peter Klevius, who 1992 defined jurisprudence as the 'ultimate science'*, Trump's "hush money" case was made official by the judge's own ruling.

 * Because it starts with the answer (the law) and checks if the case fits the question, i.e. the prosection (1992:43).

A recorded public time-line of Peter Klevius original research on evolution, consciousness, existencecentrism, anthropology and sociology 1979-2012 - and some thoughts about self-citation  

Read Peter Klevius Origin of the Vikings from 2005 - now again available after Google deleted it 2014 and again in February 2024. 

Read how climate change made human evolution possible in SE Asian volatile archipelago - not on a continent like Africa. 

Peter Klevius opposite reading and correction of Greenland data compared to researchers biased with climate hysteria.

 Read how two craniopagus twins born 2006 solved the "greatest mystery in science" - and proved Peter Klevius theory from 1992-94 100% correct. 

The essence in the case was blackmailing resting on the foundation of the official nature of the presidential election campaign.

Trump has asked Judge Juan Merchan to dismiss the entire New York criminal case as a result of his November election victory. Judge Merchan didn't rule on that argument. In his ruling, Merchan sided with prosecutors from the Manhattan district attorney’s office who said that while the U.S. Supreme Court granted presidents wide latitude in having immunity for presidential actions, the activities for which Trump was convicted were unofficial – not official – conduct.

Peter Klevius: What could be more official than a presidential election?

Merchan wrote in his 41-page ruling that the actions Trump took for which he was convicted were “decidedly personal acts” including falsifying business records that posed “no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch,” including Trump’s actions as president. Those “unofficial” actions included steps Trump took to falsify records related to payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, who was threatening to go public with claims of having had affairs with Trump just before the 2016 election, Merchan concluded.

Peter Klevius: The election campaign was the very (possibly only) fuel to the blackmailing.

Merchan ruled, “It is therefore logical and reasonable to conclude that if the act of falsifying records to cover up the payments so that the public would not be made aware is decidedly an unofficial act, so too should the communications to further that same cover-up be unofficial.”

Peter Klevius: In other words, Merchan nullifies his own ruling. Peter Klevius rests his case.

Why has BBC neglected women's football (by boosting stupid cricket) and Lily Parr, the world's best football player ever, and who didn't need a penis to play the beautiful game - just the courage to oppose sex segregation.

The images on the August 20, 2023 posting: Peter Klevius congratulates Spain for winning football World Cup 2023 - pure football elegance won over physicality used to be the most popular. However, suddenly they just completely disappeared! So here they are again.

Peter Klevius opposes genital mutilation of children - under whatever name. Don't let sex segregation* hinder girls from leading their lives in freedom in accordance with Art. 2 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from 1948.  

* Sex segregation/apartheid is the sexist cultural pressure on girls to behave in accordance with outdated sex roles - to a point where she has to choose between mutilating her sex (biology) or her "gender" (relative to religious or historical views). Do realize that heterosexual attraction (the "male gaze") is the only biological difference between the sexes that matters relationally, and therefore should not be pushed on women without their wish and clear consent for it. In other words, although Peter Klevius since his teens has strongly felt the power of heterosexual attraction in women, if he were a woman he wouldn't stand to be seen as a sex object - a sort of necrophilia - in ordinary life. This is why (negative) Human Rights are so important, i.e. that no matter of appearance, age, and sex (or no sex or ambiguous sex) we need to treat each other as fully human without extra connotations or prejudices. Yet so little thought about this seems to enter the surface in these last convulsing years of "gender" stupidities, wher we went from equal feminism to sex segregated glamour feminism to an extent that painting one's face with chemicals and wearing what Peter Klevius sees as the most unsexy, unhealthy and ridiculously stupid high heeled stiletto "shoes". Peter Klevius wants to enjoy the personhood of a woman without laughing at her stupid choice of shoes. Moreover, no one should need to feel being taller (or shorter) than they are. How did we end up calling biological sex "gender"?! Gender is neither biological nor distinct, but different and continuously changing in every person and every particular time and setting.

The final desperate convulsions to defend outdated sex segregation before freeing girls and women from it

 

Peter Klevius wrote:

Peter Klevius congratulates Spain for winning football World Cup 2023 - pure football elegance won over physicality.

August 20, 2023

  

After 20+ years blogging with highly intelligent Human Rights based content and groundbreaking scientific revelations, with thousands of postings and images, Google still has monumental problem finding Peter Klevius - while Gimp, Duckduckgo etc. easily find him.

 

A recorded public time-line of Peter Klevius original research on evolution, consciousness, existencecentrism, anthropology and sociology 1979-2012 - and some thoughts about self-citation 

Read Peter Klevius Origin of the Vikings from 2005 - now again available after Google deleted it 2014 and again in February 2024.

Read how climate change made human evolution possible in SE Asian volatile archipelago - not on a continent like Africa. 

Read Peter Klevius opposite reading and correction of Greenland data compared to researchers biased with climate hysteria.

Read how two craniopagus twins born 2006 solved the "greatest mystery in science" - and proved Peter Klevius theory from 1992-94 100% correct. 

See how US stole the world-dollar 1971 - and how China's rise challenges US stolen dollar hegemony.

The US demonized China has nothing to do with the real China, but all to do with US dollar embezzlement that makes it possible for US to spend despite constant trade deficit. US is the world's biggest counterfeiter - and a dangerous loser!

To understand US fear of China (the "China threat"), you need to understand 1) the background, i.e. US enormous 1971 dollar theft and its escalating consequences now, 2)  the fact that China is already superior in every area* of tech and science, as well as meritocratic real democracy.  Moreover, China has no reason to start wars - while US whole existence (the stolen dollar hegemony) depends on warmongering (militarization), and starting and continuing wars. And to understand how low the US led West has sunk, just consider BBC implying Russia deliberately targeting a children's hospital (why would Russia ask for more negative news?!) while not mentioning with a word Israel's slaughtering in Gaza and West bank the same day - not to mention the more than 40,000 Palestinians already murdered - most of them children and innocent adults!

* Both US and China itself try to downplay China's success - for different reasons.

 Watch how US stole the dollar. When Nixon 1971 admitted US dollar theft (while lying it was temporary) said 'your dollar may not give you as much abroad as before", that statement actually defined the amount of US embezzlement, because when the US dollar was no longer pegged to gold - only pegged to the whims of US Federal Reserve - it meant that the world dollar (outside US) had to pay for US deficit. So the Bretton Woods (1944) all world currency dollar that was pegged to gold under the custodianship of the Fed, after the theft 1971 (i.e. US violation of the gold connection) the dollar became split in two: a US dollar covering US deficit, and a world dollar that pays for it - both under the custodianship of US. What the US Fed is doing is controlling both currencies while favoring the US dollar.

 

 US is the real enemy - and modern meritocratic high tech China is the real friend for any country that chooses peace and prosperity instead of militarism, war and misery!

 

  

Click here to see the video that reveals how much US has stolen from the world since 1971 (after violating the gold pegging of the dollar - especially from poorer countries - and still does in an accelerating tempo paced by US Fed!

Japan and Spain had the most technical teams in the World Cup - and they should really have met in the final. 

Read a recorded timeline of Peter Klevius' original scientific breakthroughs.

Read Peter Klevius Origin of the Vikings from 2005 - now again available after Google deleted it 2014 and again in February 2024.

Read how climate change made human evolution possible in SE Asian volatile archipelago - not on a continent like Africa. 

Read Peter Klevius opposite reading and correction of Greenland data compared to researchers biased with climate hysteria.

Read how two craniopagus twins born 2006 solved the "greatest mystery in science" - and proved Peter Klevius theory from 1992-94 100% correct.

How much does the allowing of "physical" playing hurt the beautiful game? Yet elegance survives crude body bumping. Lionel Messi 169 cm won the World Cup 2022.

Peter Klevius wrote:

Peter Klevius, the world's foremost expert on sex segregation (sad isn't it) to Jenni Hermoso - and all the world's women: Patriarchal ape behavior is history!

August 26, 2023

Evolutionary heterosexual attraction (HSA) is biological - as are its targets, biological women - but basic (negative) Human Rights are civilized and human!

Outdated cultural pushing (rapetivism and sex segregation/apartheid) ape behavior against the best player (together with Aitana Bonmatí) in the World Cup 2023.

Luis Rubiales may well have had no sexist intentions but this doesn't remove the sexist cultural heritage under which he acted in an emotional outburst because of the convincing Spanish World Cup win 2023 over England. 

Although disgusting fake media BBC every time repeated "1-0" so to lure its compulsory fee paying listeners to think it was an even match, fact is that Spain's playing was in a totally different league above England?. Spain missed a penalty, had many more chances, completely outperformed the English players who only manage to get to the ball by being physical instead of technical - which isn't really what "the beautiful game" should be about.

* Perhaps England's women still suffer from (except of BBC and others footballphobia)  the 50 year ban on them playing football - see below. After all, BBC makes its utmost to play down and demonize football with exaggerated injury and whatever it can dig up "reports" etc.  while constantly boosting stupid (in comparison) cricket, netball and rugby. BBC "news" "reports" utilizes whatever reason to fill it with cricket but not football - especially not women playing football, except of course when BBC feels it has to, e.g. when the England team with much more luck than skills (and somehow half-blind referees and VAR) managed to reach final - and much due to good couching by Sarina Wiegman.

 It's precisely because of football being the world's most multifaceted and challenging sport (no hands and no tools while handling a round external object together with 21 other players on a 100mx50m pitch)) that women were supposed to be "inferior" to men and therefore shouldn't really play football (see below).

 

 Peter Klevius wrote:

Peter Klevius obituary over the best ever: RIP, the worlds best football player, Lily Parr - and the next best, Pele.

January 05, 2023

Although both scored more than 1,000 goals, Lily Parr did so in headwind!

Lily Parr's grave and Pele's cemetery

No one can be more vulnerable for female sexual beauty (i.e. heterosexual attraction - ask women who know him) than Peter Klevius - and no one male can be more ignorant about sexual beauty when seeing a woman playing football and on the arena becoming human instead of woman. Just like the early Christian St. Perpetua who said before she faced death on the gladiator arena 203 AD: 'And I was stripped (for death), and I became a (hu)man*', i.e. no longer fettered by womanhood/femininity.

* A time when a man was considered the only fully human.

A sport of nature - or a fact of nature?

Social convention based on a commonsense reaction to the ‘palpable menace of sexual desire among all human beings, and, most especially, to the known
seductiveness of women’ (i.e. heterosexual attraction) was, at Tertullian’s* time, i.e. the latter part of the Second Century, shared by pagans and Christians alike. According to Tertullian, it was a fact of nature that women were seductive, and Christian baptism did nothing to change this fact (Brown 1988: 68, 81). However, we are not informed why the fact that women are seductive, necessarily should imply restrictions on her. We might guess that a number of Tertullians transferred to a modern Western secular city might have diverged in a similar pattern of opinion as would contemporary people. If women were defined by marriage, by its sexual and procreative roles and by the sex-based labor assigned to married women, then their refusal of marriage might move them into a category that transcended womanhood. Only in the arena of martyrdom can we view these transcendent women unfiltered by the lenses of male observers (McNamara 1985:104). Perpetua, a Roman matron, faced the lions in Carthage on March 7, 203. She recorded her experience in prison which led her to a new vision in which all her mortal persona was burned away. An unknown spectator' possibly (most probably) Tertullian , rescued these documents and appended an eyewitness account of her death, resulting in an authentic female voice recording the emergence of her 'autonomous spiritual being from the cocoon of her womanhood' (McNamara 1985:105). Perpetua renounced everything that made her a Woman. She stripped away the emotions and the constraints of the feminine role she had once fully played. On the night before her execution, she dreamed that she had entered into the arena to fight the beasts. There she was confronted by a certain “ill-favored -Egyptian" who challenged her to fight with him. Also, there came to me comely young men, my helpers and aiders. 'And I was stripped, and I became a man' (McNamara 1985:105).

At the foot of the ladder lay a dragon of enormous size, and it would attack those who tried to climb up and try to terrify them from doing so.

* Tertullian has been called "the father of Latin Christianity" as well as "the founder of Western theology".

Not "women's football" but human's football - or just football*!

* You don't say about a child that s/he plays "children's football", do you. If it's a girl you say 'she plays football' and if it's a Finnish girl you say 'hän pelaa jalkapalloa', where 'hän' is a sexless personal pronoun (as in most other language families except IE and semitic) and therefore not translatable to the indoeuropean sex segregated s/he. And when divided by biological sex then it should also say 'men's football', right.

As Peter Klevius for long has stated, evolutionary (i.e. biological) heterosexual attraction (the only analytically relevant distinction between the sexes, according to Peter Klevius - and islam) has to be "civilized" in our daily encounters - but without islamic sex segregation*. And the tool for this was given 1948 with Art. 2 of the Universal Human Rights declaration (the world's most translated document), which main purpose is to stand as the bedrock not only for legislation but also as a bulwark against sexism hiding in culture. In other words, we need to get rid of sex segregation. No matter of biological sex one should be free to lead once life as one wishes - which also means that you have the right to appear "feminine"/"masculine" (whatever that means) without being in any way criticized by e.g. Peter Klevius - as long as it's not part of sexism/racism against others.

Lily Parr, the world's by far best* football player ever - no matter of sex!

* If Marta (six times chosen as the world's best football player) when she was at her best, had time travelled and played against Lily Parr she would probably have outperformed her in dribbling although perhaps not in kicking. However, that's not a fair comparison - just think if Lily had stopped smoking and got the same training etc. possibilities as modern top players! And compared to Lionel Messi, who as a teenager was taken care of by the world's then best football club Barcelona FC, Lily Parr got just the very opposite - a ban on her putting her feet on any English football ground for the rest of her career!

Lily Parr was born in St Helens in 1905 where she as a child learned to play football in games with her brothers. At 5ft 10ins tall, Lily was said to have a 'fearless streak' and 'robust frame'. As a teenager, her first games were with her local side, St Helens Ladies.

There was a growth in interest in women's football in the late 19th century and early 20th because of the huge popularity of men's football combined with the fact that so many young women met football playing men in factories etc.

Dick, Kerr & Co was such a factory where women worked making munitions.

When in 1917 office worker Alfred Frankland saw the girls beating their male factory co-workers in an informal lunch-time match, he decided to be their manager, hence unleashing them on the general public, resulting in a game-changing and instantaneous success.

This really shows how sex segregation had kept girls/women back.

Dick, Kerr Ladies F.C. was one of the earliest known women's football teams, and  remained in existence for some 50 years, from 1917 to 1965, playing 833 games, winning 759, drawing 46, and losing 28. Nettie Honeyball's team in 1895 was possibly the first.  

The matches attracted anywhere from 4,000 to over 50,000 spectators per match. In 1920, Dick, Kerr Ladies defeated a French side 2–0 in front of 25,000 people that went down in history as the first international football game played by women. On the request of female physicians and others the English Football Association (FA) banned women from using fields and stadiums controlled by FA-affiliated clubs for 50 years (the rule was only repealed in 1971). There were 150 women's football clubs in 1921 when on 5 December same year the FA ban was announced.

Dick, Kerr’s Ladies was also the first female team to play wearing shorts.

'Big, fast and powerful', Lily Parr was said to 'take corner kicks better than most men' and she scored 'many goals with a left foot cross drive which nearly breaks the net', according to her profile in a programme of 1923.

A team-mate described her as 'having a kick like a mule'.

 
There were 150 women's football clubs by 1921 when on 5 December the FA decided to ban females from playing on its members' grounds. As a consequence the women's game declined but Lily Parr and other female players continued to play on non-FA pitches.

 

 

Dick, Kerr’s Ladies became Preston Ladies in 1926. Parr became a psychiatric nurse at Whittington Hospital but continued to play for Preston, finally ending her long playing career in 1951.

Why the "beautiful game" is also the hardest to master well

Although Lily Parr was taller than the average woman, most of the best players have been below average height, like Pele, Maradona, Marta, Messi, Modric etc.. However, Ronaldo is 187 cm and a former top player like Crouch is 203 cm. This just emphasizes the greatness of "the beautiful game" - a sport that fits everyone, yet is the hardest of all sports to master because it eliminates tools and hands while keeping the feet busy with multitasking with running and manoeuvring while also controlling the ball with the same feet.

The page below in this book made Peter Klevius wipe tears several times

How Sweden was an accomplish to the death of English football for women - and how Lily Parr & Co's heritage created the world's best football team in the 1970s in a forgotten rural setting in Sweden.

Peter Klevius has written a book with an in depth analysis about the history of England's hostility against women playing football. Although Sweden played an important role behind the scene, this has never before been scientifically scrutinized. After all, it's all about supporting girl's and women who want not only to play football but also to lead their lives as they wish without sex segregation sexism.

Many (not you dear reader, but really dumb people) have the strange idea that de-sex segregation means "making women men".

Drawing (1979) by Peter Klevius. For those Humanrightsphobes 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.

 

Peter Klevius wrote:

Peter Klevius, the world's foremost expert on sex segregation (sad isn't it): US women were smarter than Kamala Harris! A vagina without a brain isn't enough.

November 06, 2024

Peter Klevius analysis of the problem with sex segregation: Biological/physical heterosexual attraction* as a career tool may be used by some less capable women to outperform more capable ones.

* The evolutionary forces that resulted in heterosexual reproduction is based on heterosexual attraction (long before we got a brain and culture such as e.g. sex segregation) which means physical - not "romantic" as Google tries to spin it. The opposite to heterosexual is homosexual which is also only physically defined. Everyone, no matter of sex or lack thereof, can have "romantic" relations.    

Sperms have no brains but have heterosexual attraction to the egg - and we men are our sperms "sex slaves".

Since Peter Klevius reached puberty (and realized he was biologically attracted to women) he has repeated the question 'why is the more attractive sex so busy trying to make itself more attractive'? And although Peter Klevius possess a well functioning brain it was a no-brainer to understand it was all about sex segregation. Women in general (although not e.g. Peter Klevius daughters) have been fostered to rely on heterosexual attraction (aka "femininity") instead of de-sex segregation (as the negative right in art. 2 in UDHR of 1948 - UN's very foundation - would give them right to). 

Many (not you dear reader, but really dumb people) have the strange idea that de-sex segregation means "making women men".

Drawing (1979) by Peter Klevius. For those Humanrightsphobes 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.

Google's disinformation on heterosexual attraction 20241106:

Google: People who are heterosexual are romantically and physically attracted to members of the opposite sex: Heterosexual males are attracted to females, and heterosexual females are attracted to males. Heterosexuals are sometimes called "straight." Sexual Attraction and Orientation (for Teens) - Kids Health

Peter Klevius: Heterosexual is physical, period! Adding non-physical attributes to a table doesn't change its physicality, does it.

Google: People also ask

Is Sapiosexual the same as heterosexual?

Sapiosexuality means that a person is sexually attracted to highly intelligent people, so much so that they consider it to be the most important trait in a partner. It is a relatively new word that has become more popular in recent years. Both LGBTQ+ people and heterosexual people may identify as sapiosexual.5 Jul 2023

Peter Klevius: Yes, some women and men have been attracted by my intelligence - but some have also thought me being "too intelligent".

Google: Is heterosexual the same as straight?

The word “straight” is often used to mean “heterosexual.” It can also mean “heteroromantic.” Heterosexual means you're sexually attracted to the opposite sex only. Heteroromantic means you're romantically attracted to the opposite sex only.

Peter Klevius: What a sexist nonsense! Why would "romantic" necessitate "heterosexual"?! Saying "heteroromantic" as opposed to e.g. "homoromantic" is like saying "tableromantic" to distinguish it from e.g. "chairromantic". 'Hetero' or 'homo' or 'table' stand for pointed out physical properties. So the only reason 'hetero' is used is to physically distinguish it from e.g. 'homo' etc. physicality, which leads back to a particular physicality rather than e.g. "personromantic". However, behind this confusion is the desperate defense of cultural sex segregation. We live in a world where non physical words like 'gender' now is also used as a synonyme for physical a physical world like 'sex'.

 

  

After 20+ years blogging with highly intelligent Human Rights based content and groundbreaking scientific revelations, with thousands of postings and images, Google still has monumental problem finding Peter Klevius - while Gimp, Duckduckgo etc. easily find him.

 

Peter Klevius wrote:

Peter Klevius, the foremost expert on sex segregation (sad isn't it) defends J K Rowling's Human Right to be a woman.

April 01, 2024

Read Peter Klevius Origin of the Vikings from 2005 - now again available after Google deleted it 2014 and again in February 2024.

Read how climate change made human evolution possible in SE Asian volatile archipelago - not on a continent like Africa. 

Read Peter Klevius opposite reading and correction of Greenland data compared to researchers biased with climate hysteria.

Read how two craniopagus twins born 2006 solved the "greatest mystery in science" - and proved Peter Klevius theory from 1992-94 100% correct.

 

However, as evolutionary heterosexual attraction* (HSA) is (mis)used to uphold backward cultural sex segregation/apartheid in a time when we ought to respect basic (negative) Human Rights, there are two options: 1) to culturally de-sex segregate**, or 2) like Perpetua, get rid of unwanted HSA, by changing one's body***. 

* Heterosexual attraction is the genesis of our existence as sexually reproducing creatures. However, heterosexual biological bodies have been culturally generalized into
a problematic cultural sex segregation that keeps the sexes apart to an extent that the non-biological division becomes a self-fulfilling "truth".  

** Meaning everyone ought to respect everyone else no matter of sex (art. 2 UDHR), i.e. a sex neutral approach that doesn't sexify the other.

*** Males as sperm carriers, are biologically tuned to be attracted by the female body. However, because Peter Klevius (the extremely normal), since his teens has been an admirer of the female body, while never been caught pushing for sex or sexifying women he has met - other than when the woman invites to it.

The first option seems to be the only defendable solution. And we civilized men have already passed the test. We don't need to force ourselves on women, but can treat them as similar human beings as ourselves, i.e. to have integrity and be respected.  

LGBTQ+ or whatever, is all about defending outdated sex segregation which has led to the ridiculous situation that we trap people's behavior to their genitals, and the only escape route is to "change sex", i.e. to mask one's original sex. "Gender" is a loose and arbitrary ever changing cultural prejudice on how a certain sex ought to behave, and at every moment there are endless varieties of what this cultural sex segregation implies. However, they are always tied to biological sex in one way or another. Cultural sex segregation is the very referens point for this unnecessary conandrum.     

Islam's origin and very existence hangs on cultural sex segregation (sharia). Could that have anything to do with the new Scottish law overseen by Scotland's muslim leader?

A male can medically get his "male gaze" removed (but why would he), and a woman can similarly alter her appearance so not to be a potential target for HSA. But when these twp meet the problem remains for the woman unless the man has a sign stating "no HSA".

However, according to Peter Klevius, a much easier and better way is to stop sexifying each other.

Criminalize sex segregation instead of JK Rowling!

 

Klevius wrote:

Friday, April 18, 2014

Gender schizophrenia

Covering up the world's biggest problem (sex segregation/apartheid) in gender babble - but when will the bubble burst?

 Oxford Dictionaries definition of 'gender': The state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).

However this kind of non sense use of 'gender' is more and more common:

Of course there are no 'gender-bending' insects. If a female insect possesses an organ that can pick up semen from a cavity in a male insect, that has nothing to do with gender at all.



Klevius clarification for his dear but sometimes mildly confused readers:

John Money introduced the distinction between biological sex and gender in 1955. Before his work, it was uncommon to use the word gender to refer to anything but grammatical categories. However. In the 1970s feminists embraced the concept as a distinction between biological sex and the social construct of gender. Today, the distinction is strictly followed in some contexts, especially the social sciences and documents written by the WHO. In many other contexts, however, even in some areas of social sciences, the meaning of gender has undergone a usage shift to include sex or even to replace it. This gradual change in the meaning of gender can be traced to the 1980s. The APA's psychoanalytically contaminated Diagnostic and Statistical Manual first described the condition in the third publication ("DSM-III") in 1980 and this was then followed by the so called 'glamour feminism' which has ever since trapped girls/women in a continuing web of cultural 'femininity' that functions as a barrier against those ("tomboys") who dare to try to escape it - leaving no other options than either to conform or to become a so called "transsexual". Why do people have to alter their biology when we have Human Rights that should give everyone the right to live as s/he wishes without restrictions imposed because of one's sex?

It's also noteworthy that the pathological pathologizing of a girl's wish to be free from sex related constrains (a freedom guaranteed adult women in the Human Rights declaration) is a violation of Human Rights but is made possible because minors (and their parents/custodians other than the state) have no legal say (compare what is said in Klevius' thesis Pathological Symbiosis).

It's still an open question how much this disastrous and monstrous sex apartheid has helped islam (the worst crime ever against humanity measured in deaths and enslavements) to exist among civilized people (compare what Klevius wrote in Rapetivism from Freud to bin Laden more than a decade ago). Evil and Human Rights violating islamic tenets that would have been completely unthinkable two decades ago are now defended!

 

Peter Klevius wrote:

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.

August 13, 2023

* 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.

Read how climate change made human evolution possible in SE Asian volatile archipelago - not on a continent like Africa.
 Read how two craniopagus twins born 2006 solved the "greatest mystery in science" - and proved Peter Klevius theory från 1992-94 100% correct. 

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 feminist movement, i.e. the muslim one. 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".

* 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) 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).

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.