The Saudi Fuhrer of Saudi based islamofascist OIC

Theresa May is for sharia and EU - but against EU's Human Rights Court which condemns sharia

Sayeeda Warsi like all sharia muslims is against basic Human Rights

If you don't agree on the most basic Human Rights, then you're a racist/sexist hater

Klevius is probably now the world's foremost expert on sex segregation (sad isn't it), and islam (the worst cime ever) is the foremost expression of sex segregation. By 'islam' Klevius means the same as true sharia supporting (and therefore against the most basic of Human Rights) muslims.

British muslim jihadists: Samantha Lewthwaite, Mishal Husain and Michael Adebolajo (who murdered Le

Monday, October 27, 2014

UK's problem isn't EU-citizens but muslims - and British racism*

* Few Brits dare to say anything critical in public about muslims - yet to shamelessly blame EU citizens is widespread from PM Cameron and BBC reporters to the lowest of British loosers. Reminds one of tales from Nazi Germany of the 1930s. As Klevius has always stated, islam is the global fascism of today. However, islam itself has always been fascist deom its origin.

Islam benefits the most* from the racist "foreign-born' expression

* The most common first name of newborn "Brits" is Muhammad.

The muslim (they are muslims, right?) Saudi wahhabist family Saud contains many (probably most) roots to islamic sharia and jihad atrocities around the world against non-muslims and "wrong-muslims". What is for sure however is that the Saudi dictator family lies behind OIC's coup-d-tat in UN that led to  

Already in 2011 some 40% of England's muslims lived in London, i.e. over a million (14%) of London's population of 8 millions. From 2% of the population in 2001 muslims now constitute way more than 5% (2011) of the UK population. And although most of the criminal money laundering that makes much of London's finance tick (and caused extra fees from EU) eminates from muslim countries, muslims are probably the proportionally biggest consumer of UK tax payers (incl. EU citizens) money.

Tommy Tomescu (All United Against Discrimination and Humiliation of the European Citizens): In the last years a part of the British media and politicians presented to the people a discriminatory image of the Romanians and Bulgarians. Unfortunately after the entrance of Romania and Bulgaria in the European Union we had to get used to successive attacks by a part of the British media. There were presented only the negative facts, which were caused only by a minority of citizens of these two states and the positive aspects of our community, were intentionally out looked.
The British mass media continuously sustained this discriminatory campaign with the purpose of selling more and more newspapers.
Mr David Cameron and many from the British political establishment have decided that is best to act in their self-interest and obtain a short political gain, even if on the long term they will hurt the UK interest by portraying the country as an unfair partner. The history has shown us that the politicians which are having as an electoral strategy the denigration of a group of people are losing on the long term.

Some 3 million British citizens are "foreign born"

but BBC's muslim sharia* presenter Mishal Husain is not considered "foreign-born" although her parents were born in Pakistan and she as a child grew up in two of the worst islamofascist countries in the world, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Apparently her parents migrated to UK and shortly after her baby year moved back to muslim countries.

* If she is a real muslim she has to abandon Human Rights for sharia according to OIC.

The UK population was 11.4% foreign-born and 7.2% non-British citizen in 2012 - most of them muslims

The share of foreign-born people in the UK’s total population increased by over 50% between 1993 and 2012, i.e. from 7 to nearly 11.4% (see Figure 3). During the same period, the share of foreign citizens rose from 3.6 to 7.2%, while that of recent migrants increased from 1.4 to 2.9%. There was a significant percentage increase in the share of foreign-born people in the UK’s total population during the 2004-2008 period.

Do the Brits in general love this islamofascist dictator equally much as their PM does?!

 The Shia guy with the white turban, Nimr Baqir al-Nimr, a Saudi born Saudi citizen, is about to be beheaded by the Saudis simply because he is a wrong-muslim Shia muslim.

According to Human Rights Watch, more than 1,040 people had been arrested at Shia protests between February 2011 and August 2014. At least 240 are still believed to be in Saudi detention.

Adam Coogle (HRW): 'I think the message that Saudis are saying is: 'We will arrest anybody. We don't care how high profile they are... nobody is above this. We don't have any tolerance. We don't have any flexibility'.

Sunday, October 26, 2014

You hypocritical and despicable islam supporting Klevius and Jews hater - take this!

A Google search today on 'muslim hate crimes against Jews' produces no hits. Are there really no muslims out there who hate Jews (check the map on the pic further down)?! However, without the usual 'did you mean' question Google's search engine seems made to avoid the very thought of muslims committing hate crimes. And this despite the fact that muslim hate crimes against non-muslims (including the millions of unreported/belittled "street jihad" hate crimes) long since have exceeded anything the German Nationalsocialists manage to do before and during the Holocaust.

Friday, October 24, 2014

EU and Human Rights the main obstacles in Cameron's Saudi steered sharia project?

Isn't it about time for both Brits and muslims to decide if they support sharia fascism or Human Rights?!

While BBC and its Human Rights violating* sharia presenter Mishal Husain continue trying to fool the Brits - this time by talking about how 'nasty the Nationalsocialist (Nazi) haters of Jews were (i.e. not any particular form of Judaism or Jews but just 'anti-semites'**)

* She poses as a muslim and as she is fully aware of OIC's equalizing of muslimhood and sharia, then she ought to openly tell if she is a "non-sharia muslim' i.e. not a muslim at all in accordance with Saudi based and Saudi steered OIC, all true muslims world organization via UN and OIC's Cairo declaration (sharia) which clearly states that the most basic of Human Rights constitute a crime against islamic sharia. Defending Human Rights is considered an 'act of terrorism' in some of Mishal Husain's former home countries (e.g. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia).

** Most of these Jews were not Semites at all but Jiddish speaking Caucasians/Russians who originated from the Jewish Khazarian slave trade empire more than a millennium ago and later, because of pogroms and/or financial benefits, moved to central Europe. Today islam is the main source of hatred against Jews around the world. Also consider the map further down om the posting.

Is UK Europe’s biggest criminal sharia money-launderer? And the worst islamofascist nation's closest ally!

Because Strasbourg has managed to partially resist the spread of Human Rights violating sharia islamofascism in  EU Cameron now seems to try to dope the Brits to abandon Human Rights by smearing them via cherry picked and tuned examples while opening the door fully for islamofascist sharia. Is this also the reason why he wants the Brits to abandon EU and EU immigration/free movement so that more muslims can be fitted in. Similar rhetorics against all the Brits living in other EU countries would most certainly render it racist there.

London, the murky sharia finance Capitol of the World

When London hosted the 2013 World Islamic Economic Forum PM David Cameron said: 'I want London to stand alongside Dubai and Kuala Lumpur as one of the great capitals of islamic finance anywhere in the world.'

In February 2014, London hosted the Euromoney Islamic Finance Forum, where then-Financial Secretary to the Treasury Sajid Javid MP ​said​: '…almost every international Islamic contract will touch London – or a London-based firm – in some way.'

London is becoming the first Western nation to issue an islamic bond (sukuk). The shariah-complaint banking sector is an est £1 trillion and growing, according to the Global Islamic Financial Review.

UK's sharia education in British schools resembles that of Saudi Arabia  

According to London Deputy Mayor Stephen Greenhalgh, muslim themselves were to blame. Both he and Mayor Boris Johnson had been briefed by British intelligence on cases in which primary school pupils have been subjected to islamofascist propaganda and extremist ideology by their families.

According to Greenhalgh, who oversees policing in the capital, London children under the age of ten are being trained to be junior jihadis in the growing islamofascist threat in the capital. 'It's pretty horrendous when you hear how some of these children are being radicalized. The threat of radicalization of young people is real and this is a problem that is going to be with us not just for a couple of years, but for the next generation.'

However, the Brits seem to differ with their PM

56% of Brits say they will vote to stay in EU, with 36% wanting to leave - most of them probably still ignorant about the real agenda and certainly not helped by BBC's compulsory license fee paid propaganda. This is the highest level of support for EU since 1991, according to IpsosMORI poll.
Since 2012 support for Ukip is up 13%, and for EU backing up almost the same, 12%.

Friday, October 17, 2014

Brits want more muslims and less EU citizens - and sharia instead of Human Rights - or?!

Is Cameron building an islamic British sharia state - aided by muslim vagina immigration?

Focusing on EU immigration instead of muslim immigration (including islamic vagina immigration), and the abandoning of Human Rights, hence paving the way for sharia, seems to be a recipe for even faster islamization. 

Cameron wants London to be the center for Human Rights violating sharia finance. Isn't it already with its 1,5 Million muslim millionaires/billionaires and benefit consumers?! A muslim man can have four wives simultaneously and as many he wishes during his life. A sharia divorce is simple for muslim men and every kid is a new muslim according to sharia.

Baroness Cox (apparently an "islamophobe"): ‘I know of muslim women being subjected to savage domestic violence, and then refused a divorce, while their husbands are free to enter into further marriages to women from overseas. Sharia treats women as second-class citizens, whether in inheritance rights or divorce. A woman’s word counts for only half the value of that of a man.’

However, proposed UK changes in the law hints at Saudi style attitudes. Are all Brits really aware of what's going on? Will some of the most basic Human Rights soon be criminalized in Britain because they conflict with sharia? As in OIC and Saudi Arabia where Human Rights are considered "extremism" and "terrorism". The Daily Telegraph reported in 2012 that 75% of all Muslim women are unemployed while 50% of all Muslim men are unemployed (67.5% total) - a staggering 350% rise from 13% for men and 18% for women in 2004. Muslims are also on sick leave more than anyone else, with 2001 figures revealing that 24% of females and 21% of males claim disability. Muslims are the most likely among all religious groups to be living in accommodation rented from the council or housing association (28%); 4% live rent-free (2004 figures). As if this is not enough, the total prison population in the UK amongst category A and B criminals (third degree criminals) is now 35-39% Muslim.

Since current statistics fail to clarify how many Muslims actually collect benefits, and whether unemployment figures include those on disability and in prison, only a crude estimate can be made. In spite of this our calculation is based only on basic, lowest payouts in Britain, meaning most additional paypits that Muslims would be entitled to are not included. The indications are nevertheless shocking: roughly 4.25 million Muslims, or more than 85%, live off tax payers (2012 unconfirmed estimate increased the Muslim population number from 3 million to 4.25). If we average this with a simple, quick calculation of the minimum benefit payment of £67 a week granted in Britain for adults, at least £ 284,750,000 per week  (£1.139 billion per month) is spent from taxpayers on Muslims who barely contribute anything whatsoever to Britain’s revenues – except making more Muslims.

The calculation is not detailed enough to include housing benefits, childcare support, medical care and other coverage. We can estimate that only in unemployment support, Muslims cost the British government at least £ 13+ billion a year.

Saturday, October 11, 2014

Malala's father considers her writings blaphemous against islam - as does one of Klevius' daughters about his writings against islam


If there, after islam's 1400 years of murdering, raping and genocides in the name of islam and in accordance with the text in the Koran, existed a "good islam" then how come that there never existed a "good Nationalsocialism" (aka Nazism)?

Whereas the disastrous German Nationalsocialism started as an offspring from socialdemocracy and with mainly good political intentions (except for its push against Jewish and other immigrants), islam started as pure evil robbing, raping pillaging, enslaving etc of the "infidels".

Without Human Rights violating sharia there is no islam. However, that a teenager doesn't know it is less worrying than the fact that so called "islamologs" don't know it either.

Spreading the deceitful message that islam is good through the mouth of a Nobel peace prize winner may cause more victims of islamic terror than if she had openly admitted the inborn evilness of islam - so well articulated in historical and news records as well as in the Koran. I could have added the evil examples of Muhammad to this sentence but didn't because there simply doesn't exist any proof of his existence at all. But what we had was a bunch of Arab mafia leaders and so called caliphs.

Atia Abawi & Conor M. Powell: The Taliban that welcomed al-Qaeda and continues to destabilize Afghanistan today exists only with the help of Pakistan. Taliban fighters continue to find refuge and training in Pakistan’s tribal areas. And the ISI (Klevius comment: Saudi funded and steered Pakistani secret intelligence "service") still acts as a go-between for the group and any organization and government that wants to deal with them.
In places like Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Wahhabis created and still fund madrassas, or Islamic schools, for impoverished children, offering incentives such as free room and board and even money. In these schools, extreme interpretations of the Koran are taught to vulnerable and uneducated children, indoctrinating them and fueling extremism.

And now (Klevius comment: Since long!) Wahhabism has seeped into some (many) mosques and communities in the West. For many years, Saudi Arabia has been donating free copies of the Koran, with a radical interpretation, to mosques around the world — including ones in the United States, Europe, and Australia.

The problem is that the interpretations printed by the House of Saud are injected with inflammatory words instilling hatred toward non-Muslims and Muslims who do not follow their extreme path. This ideology is the foundation for groups like the Taliban, ISIS, and al-Qaeda.

Surprised "islamologists"

Chris Merritt, Legal Affairs Editor Sydney: Like some other leaders of the Muslim community, Halim Rane, Deputy Director of the Griffith Islamic Research Unit and lecturer at the national Centre for Islamic Studies (sic* had been surprised by the push for sharia. He was also surprised it had originated with the president of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, Ikebal Adam Patel.

* As Klevius has pointed out so many times before: Islamic studies based on undocumented islamic myths and spiced with "blasphemy" and "islamophobia" avoidance can hardly qualify as "studies".

"I don't know Ikebal Patel to be inclined towards this type of discourse. I didn't think he was one of those promoting sharia, or separate laws or legal pluralism or anything like that," Dr Rane said.

Dr Rane, who specialises in relations between Islam and the West, believes sharia is not needed because state and federal law already meet "the higher objectives of Islamic law".

Dr Rane, who is also a lecturer at the National Centre of Excellence in Islamic Studies, said he was unaware of any significant push within the Australian Muslim community for sharia law (sic).

"I know other countries have played with this -- such as the UK and Canada -- but I think there needs to be a complete revision of all the Islamic laws before any country considers implementing them.

While he was opposed to introducing sharia in Australia, he believed the fact the issue was being debated revealed one of the great strengths of democracy.

"Ikebal Patel has expressed his view, but others from his own community have disagreed with that. And that is a healthy thing," Dr Rane said. "It shows that it is not something a majority of Muslims desire."

 Klevius comment: How stupid! There can't exist an islam without Human Rights violating sharia! Ask OIC!

Or if it sounds too rude for you then call it 'islam that doesn't comply with basic Human Rights'. But don't confuse by calling non-islam islam!

Here's what Klevius has written about Malala before:

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

Klevius islam tutorial for Malala Yousafzai

Islamic hate is not only abundant in the Koran but more importantly a handy way of covering up racism and sexism as "the will of Allah"

Today we would call it history falsification when Malik, long after the alleged Mohammed's death, made murdering, terrorism, looting, slavery, rapetivism etc a "religion". Hugh Kennedy (professor of Arabic language and Arabic history, especially the early muslim "conquests"): "Before Abd al-Malik (caliph 685-705) Mohammed (dead 632) is never mentioned on any official document whatsoever..."

Malala Yousafzai, the Pakistani schoolgirl who moved to Britain after being shot by the Taliban, vowed she was going to 'speak up for them until they are released'. However, she did not but instead defended the root cause of the abductions and other ideologically defended muslim atrocities.

Malala Yousafzai says the politically right thing: Islam is never evil - what is evil is not islam

Peter Klevius says the politically wrong thing: Islam is always evil - what is not evil isn't islam

Klevius defends his statement by showing that islam is incompatible with basic Human Rights. Can Malala Yousafzai really deny that Human Rights violating OIC (led by the Saudi Wahhabist Iyad Madani on the slave pic above) via its UN representation is the main representative today of the world's muslims?! OIC defends the introduction of Sharia and due criminalization of the most basic of Human Rights - such as for example women's Human Riights.

Malala Yousafzai presents no defense for islam but is herself a tool used by islam to cover up islam's misogyny. Her cherry picking of the Koran stays in sharp contrast to the direct reading the Taliban and other islamofascists use.

Islam is not being 'manipulated by islamic leaders' - islam IS evilness against Human Rights! Those "muslims" who don't participate in jihad against "infidels", "wrong muslims", and Human Rights have nothing to do with islam. Islam is meaningless without jihad and sharia.

An example of a critic who pinpoints some essentials about islam (yet misses rapetivism/sex apartheid) but still seems to think islam is 'manipulated'. However' the only manipulation of islam is when its original formula is denied.

Shenali D Waduge: Muslims the world over must introspect. There were no Americans, US State Department or CIA when the spread of Islam took place violently with the core mission to ‘kill infidels” or non-believers. Islam via sword cut across entire continents and destroyed entire civilizations. These natives did not even have time to defend against the attacks. Undeniably, the acts were not in self-defense and the use of sword were inspired by the Quran. It is these factors that raise the existential fears of non-Muslims once more. The fear of history repeating itself prevails when 95% of violent conflicts around the world involve Muslims even if these conflicts are mischievously ignited by Western Christian countries. These conflicts are drawn using Koranic verses by numerous Islamic groups.


Whatever context the verses are being argued on the claim that Islam is ‘misunderstood’ the fact is that there are verses that call for action against non-Muslims while ideological differences have enabled external factors to pit Muslims against Muslims.

There are over 100 verses that call Muslims to war with non-believers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some of these commands are graphic calling to chop off heads and fingers and kill non-believers wherever they are hiding. Quran (8:12) – I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”  There is nothing defensive about these calls – Muslims were not attacked by the Buddhist priests of Nalanda when they burnt to cinders the world’s first Buddhist learning center and library. Muslims were not attacked when they travelled to Maldives and beheaded all Buddhist monks and destroyed all Buddhist artifacts in their belief of iconoclasm and declared Maldives as Islamic. Muslims were not attacked when they raised all Hindu architecture built by Hindu emperors in India.

Over a period of 800 years, millions of Hindus were slaughtered by Muslims as infidels or converted by the sword.There are scores of other examples as well to depict that there was no excuse for the manner Muslims drawing Islam killed unarmed civilians and completely destroyed ancient civilizations. Islam destroyed inventions of others but have shown little of creativity themselves.

What has to be said is that Muslims are drawn to violence not because they are bad people but the bad ideology that engulfs them and it is on the basis of these that non-Muslims are appealing for the scrutiny of madrassas where Islamic leaders are able to play mischief with the minds of Muslim children indoctrinating them by using verses of hatred. This is where non-Muslim governments have failed to realize and take action upon.

Klevius comment: I've always been fascinated with human self deception. How come that when the only explanation of the rise of islam that fits historical as well as contemporary facts is the very one that ISIS and Saudi Arabia embrace people still try to believe in a less evil fantasy islam?!

Shenali D Waduge: Let us take Quran (2:191-193) – And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing…but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful.   And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone.  But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)” . There is nothing defensive in this passage too even in the historical context as Muslims had relocated to Medina. The verse is actually drawing Muslims to drive Meccans out of their own city – which they eventually did.

Madrassas and Muslim leaders can easily manipulate Muslims through Quran (2:216) – Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.”  The verse establishes that violence can be virtuous (again negating the oft quoted excuse of self-defense).

Muslims who do not wish to be part of violence are also ridiculed. Quran (4:95) – Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-” They are told that they are less worthy in Allah’s eyes.

That non-believers had little choice but to convert to Islam and pay tax is revealed in Quran (9:5) – So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.”

This clearly reveals the context of present day fears of non-Muslims knowing that when Muslims have power, if Muslim leaders use the violent verses of Koran they would not hesitate to convert or kill those who do not convert to Islam – peaceful Muslims have no say and no power to overrule this reality. With the number of Islamic factions rising, the number of Islamic groups calling for various jihads the looming dangers are great made worse by the West manipulating these leaders for their own agendas.

Quran (9:73) – O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.”  dehumanizes those who reject Islam and shows how Muslims can be easily led to show disregard for non-Muslims.

 Armed Muslims groups are all described as Islamists because they are using Islamic verses. Every killing of non-Muslims follows instructions taken from the Koran (whatever context it is read in). Since 9/11 there are said to have been over 20,000 acts of deadly Islamic terrorism.

Elements that define hate speech include drawing a moral distinction between one’s own identity group and those outside it. Devaluating and dehumanizing other groups drawing superiority of one’s own. Advocating different standards of treatment clearly established in categorizing believers and non-believers and thus calling to violence against them. 61% of the Quran s about non-Muslims 98:6. Non-believers are even compared to vile animals. Verse 7:176 compares unbelievers to panting dogs” with regard to their idiocy and worthlessness.  Verse 7:179 says they are like cattle” only worse. It is these verses that enable Islamic groups to call for jihads against non-believers. We can’t be faulted for claiming that Quran is about brotherhood of believers (49:10). We wonder what Minister Vasudeva Nanayakkara has to say about the verses that incite hate?

 Nowhere in the Quran does it say that Allah loves non-believers of Muhammad. However there are over 400 verses giving the torment for people of other religions. Moreover, in today’s context of affairs the 9 places in the Quran where believers are warned not to befriend non-Muslims can be easily seen in the manner Muslim children are not encouraged to even play with non-Muslims. O ye who believe! Take not for friends unbelievers rather than believers: Do ye wish to offer Allah an open proof against yourselves? (4:144).

In the present context of conflicts is it not time to question why Islam is at war with every major religion in the world when none of these religions are at war with each other? Is the reason not found in the Quran itself that shows non-Muslims to be inferior to Islam’s adherents and do Islamic groups and their leaders not draw upon Allah’s hatred for non-Muslims to wage these wars? The moderate Muslims have been totally powerless to control this aspect and have themselves become part and parcel not desiring to be outcasts of their religion. 

Entering the present, we see how far Islam has become easy to manipulate by the West with Osama bin laden himself part of the West’s agenda and continuing through various factions/associated entities of the Al Qaeda. The Muslim world itself is faced with the ISIS who are demolishing mosques and shrines and wonder who are responsible for making Muslims victims of their own faith.

Islam today suffers from within as well as because of external factors. On the one hand there are bizarre fatwas issues upon Muslims. Rashan Hassan Khalil, former dean of Islamic law at al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt forbid married couples to be naked in 2006. Saudi Arabia’s highest committee for Scientific research and Islamic law banned Pokmon video games and cards in 2001. Pakistan’s largest Islamist umbrella group, Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal banned immunizing children from polio in 2007 claiming it sterilized Muslims. Parents of 24,000 children refused to give polio vaccine to their children as a result. In the year 2005, an Islamic Organization Jamiat-e-Ulama-e-Hind based in Kolkata issued a fatwa warning ominously that Indian tennis star Sania Mirza would be ‘stopped from playing’ if she did not start wearing ‘proper clothes’.  Sheikh Muhammad Munajid, a former Saudi diplomat pronounced that Mickey Mouse was Satan’s soldier.  The head of the Moroccan Association for Jurisprudence Research” issued a fatwa allowing Muslim men to have sex with their just-deceased wives. The pretext of the ruling is based on nothing in Islam prohibits sex with corpses.  Egypt, Sheikh Amr Sotouhi, head of the Islamic Preaching Committee at al-Azhar, issued a fatwa prohibiting fathers from marrying their daughters to members of the formerly ruling National Democratic Party owing to their corruption.”

 It is not hard to imagine how non-prevalent issues have suddenly emerged giving Muslims a sense of grievance against non-Muslims for not accepting these new culture changes into non-Muslim majority societies. These factors have also become a means to create disharmony by encouraging non-Muslims to react against incursions.

 We can also imagine the mischief Western envoys are upto. On the one hand they would be encouraging the very elements that they know raises reactions by non-Muslims because these elements are perfect for the Western superiority to prevail.

 As examples we can take how hijab/nikab have been encouraged on the one hand while also shown as non-integrators and non-co-existence elements. We have seen how halal has become a mere commercial element for Muslims who have a choice to even eat haram items given the condition they are in. We also see how far incursions are encouraged through Western-partnered Islamic leaders/groups and even politicians for they become perfect ingredients to push other agendas even inside countries of the West too.

 Thus, even Britain is home to Islamic scare stories. The French had been wiser. Before announcing the ban on the face veil its survey estimated that not even 0.1% of Muslims wore the face veil. The French also showed how more Muslims were without the nikab than those wearing it. The French also highlighted the security concerns over ID and testifying in court, drivers license, as well as driving. 

 Essentially, anyone reading the Koran deserves to be told why these verses exist. It is because they exist and are uncontrolled Muslim groups are using these verses to create mayhem and the mayhem is funded by the West for their own corporate geopolitical agendas:

And slay them wherever ye catch them..” (2:191)

 ..But if they turn away, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.” (4:89).

    Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them(2:191)
    Make war on the infidels living in your neighboorhood (9:123)
    When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them (9:5)
    Kill the Jews and the Christians if they do not convert to Islam or refuse to pay Jizya tax (9:29)
    Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable (3:85)
    The Jews and the Christians are perverts; fight them (9:30)
    Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticise Islam. (5:33)
    The infidels are unclean; do not let them into a mosque (9:28)
    Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water; melt their skin and bellies
    Do not hanker for peace with the infidels; behead them when you catch them (47:4)
    The unbelievers are stupid; urge the Muslims to fight them (8:65)
    Muslims must not take the infidels as friends (3:28)
    Terrorise and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur’an (8:12)
    Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorise the infidels (8:60)

 Sri Lanka’s President recently declared those who condemn other religions bring disgrace to their own. The examples of the Quran are not to condemn Islam but to showcase that because these verses exist, they are open to interpretations by Islamic groups that are not controlled and end up destroying their own as well as destroying the harmony around the world.

It is no better a time than now to relook at these verses and for Muslim scholars to make a statement on the verses directly attributed against non-Muslims (non-believers) and the calls to destroy or convert them.

Klevius comment: Killing islam for good!

Thursday, July 10, 2014

Origin of islamic parasitism and rapetivism

Raymond Ibrahim: There is little new or original in the videos and communiques from the Islamic State. Just static Islamism.

If one turns to the speeches of other Islamic and jihadi groups around the world – from the African groups such as Boko Haram (Nigeria) and al-Shabaab (Somalia), to Asian groups such as Abu Sayyaf (Philippines) and the Islamic Movement (Uzbekistan) – it’s the same thing, same themes, same scriptures, same quotations, same exhortations, same condemnations. Only their temporal circumstances and vicissitudes of victory or defeat differ.

While the Western mentality, so used to seeing and hearing about the “latest” or “newest” fad, may deem the Islamist approach as static or insipid, it is, quite the contrary, immensely effective for its purposes, and thus dangerous.

Consider: It’s the same exact message – of supremacism, hate, and violence, capped off with divine sanctioning – repeated over and over again, from a myriad of sources and organizations, all of which claim authority.

One can think of few better ways to brainwash and indoctrinate young and impressionable minds – to the point that they eagerly embrace death, including through suicide (AKA “martyrdom operations”).

Nor is this message of jihad, conquest, and death-to-the-infidel, limited to the verbiage that transpires among terrorist organizations; instead, this sort of rhetoric has spread far and wide, thanks to modern technology – including the Internet and social media – and the rich Gulf States, chief among them Saudi Arabia, which have seen to it that the jihadi books and passages being quoted are available to all and sundry.

Indeed, and has been demonstrated repeatedly, such jihadi rhetoric is regularly used in mosques all throughout Europe and America – explaining why an inordinate amount of jihadis in Syria and Iraq, such as Abu Muthana, the aforementioned “Brit,” are in fact from the West.

If the West, in the name of “religious freedom,” is still too fretful to monitor and ban such sermons, in Egypt – a Muslim nation in the heart of the Islamic world – the post Muslim Brotherhood government has come to understand the necessity of outlawing “certain” kinds of rhetoric  from the mosques, specifically those about jihad against infidels and apostates.

The overwhelming majority of attacks on Egypt’s Christian Copts occur on Friday – the one day of the week Muslims congregate in mosques to hear sermons.

Ultimately, however, such a move from Egypt – an Islamic nation – is an indicator of just how problematic unregulated (i.e., jihadi) sermons can be: if “moderate” Muslims are fearful from the repercussions of “radicalized” sermons, shouldn’t we “infidels” be even more wary of them?

Klevius comment: The problem isn't rhetoric but islam! This author seems not to understand that "static islamism" is the very origin of islam whereas PC islam is "new and original". It’s the same exact message – of racist/sexist supremacism, hate, and violence, capped off with divine sanctioning - which made islamic parasitism successful in the first place!

Tuesday, October 7, 2014

Why didn't Klevius get the Nobel prize for his groundbreaking* brain research (EMAH)? And praise** from animal activists!

* You can't find anything earlier than Klevius on this topic - no matter were you search! It's original research and it fulfills the criterion of fitting in the gaps that existing research has failed to explain. When in 1994 Klevius tried to publish the text in scientific AI magazines, one rejected it as 'too philosophical' for their type of magazine and the other as 'too empirical'! Moreover, wherever Klevius has presented the theory he has always asked receivers to comment, question or challenge it. No one, except for one of Klevius sons (who argues that a fruit fly has "consciousness" as well), has done it so far.

** Just consider how many animals could have been saved from suffering and death by directing research in accordance with Klevius theory, hence avoiding a lot of unnecessary dead ends. 

Peter Klevius first in the world to explain why/how the Thalamus is at the center of your "consciousness", and more importantly, what "consciousness" really is

This text, based on Peter Klevius book Demand for Resources (1992 in Swedish) and presented for Francis Crick (1994-5), was made globally accessible on line in 2004. In today's communicative environment and with some additional findings Klevius would perhaps have honed it slightly differently although not altering the basis of the theory at all. However, here it is in its original form (main text from 1992 and 1994-5 plus the 2004 web introduction).

EMAH (the Even More Astonishing Hypothesis**)
Continuous integration in Thalamus of complex neural patterns without assistance of Homunculus constitutes the basis for memory and "consciousness"            

(*AI = artificial intelligence)
(** The EMAH title applied 1994 alluding to
Francis Crick's book
The Astonishing Hypothesis)

by Peter Klevius (1992-94, and 2004)

These links were on the original 2004 web page

Sex segregation from Freud to bin Ladin
Do you believe in Freud? See timeline describing his lifelong and populist "scientific" defense of sex segregation and how he treated/limited his wife!

KLEVIUS' INTERDISCIPLINARY NEWS BLOG: Increase in the dehumanization of women in mainly muslim countries


Basic Concepts in Depth


Klevius' Psychosocial Freud Timeline

Psycho State Marries the Social State

Main page with World Values Survey

Klevius' definition of religion  

Inside Klevius' mind

Introduction to EMAH made public 1992 (in Sweden, the home country of the Nobel prize)

Introduction to EMAH, the Even More Astonishing Hypothesis* - AI and the deconstruction of the brain by Peter Klevius

*compare Francis Crick's The Astonishing Hypothesis   

Translation from Resursbegär (Demand for Resources 1992 p 32-33).

A critique of Habermas' dichotomy observing/understanding:

Observing a stone = perception understood by the viewer
I observe a stone = utterance that is intelligible for an other person

Although I assume that Habermas would consider the latter example communication because of an allusion (via the language) to the former, I would argue that this "extension" of the meaning of the utterance cannot be demonstrated as being essentially different from the original observation/understanding. Consequently there exists no "abstract" meaning of symbols, which fact of course eliminates the symbol itself. The print color/waves (sound or light etc) of the word "stone" does not differ from the corresponding ones of a real or a fake (e.g. papier maché) stone.

The dichotomy observation/understanding hence cannot be upheld because there does not exist a theoretically defendable difference. What is usually expressed in language games as understanding is a historical - and often hierarchical - aspect of a particular phenomenon/association. Thus it is not surprising that Carl Popper and John C. Eccles tend to use culture-evolutionary interpretations to make pre-civilized human cultures fit in Popper´s World 1 to World 3 system of intellectual transition.

"Subliminal" selection of what we want to interpret as meaningful

The ever-present subsidiary awareness that lies behind the naive concept of "subliminal perceptions" is no more mystifying than the fact that we can walk and play musical instruments without paying direct awareness/attention to it.                                                                         

Representations and properties

Representations are dependent on properties but if there are no properties (and there is certainly a philosophical lack of any such evidence although the concept is still popular in many camps) then there are no representations either. What should be represented (see above and below)?

The lost ghost in the machine and the psychoanalytic chameleon Mr. Nobody

There has been an all time on-going development within biology, genetics, AI research and robot technology, which narrows our view on, not only the difference between animals and humans, but also the gap between what is considered living and dead matter. Not only free will, but also properties and representations/symbols are getting all the more complicated and vanishing as their subjective meaning seems less usable in a new emerging understanding of our environmental positioning. Although the psychoanalytic movement seems ready to confirm/adapt to this development equally fast as Freud himself changed his ideas to fit into new scientific discoveries (it was a pity he didn't get a chance to hear about Francis Crick) psychoanalysis is forever locked out from this reality. PA is doomed to hang on the back of development just as feminism and middle-class politics, without any clue on the direction (neither on the individual nor the collective/cultural level).

Psychoanalysis has survived just because of its weakest (in fact, absent) link, namely the lack of a border between folk psychology and itself. The diagnosis for psychoanalysis would consequently be borderline.

Sigmund's dream of a biological psychoanalysis was his biggest mistake.

The entire EMAH hypothesis (1994)

1991 presented for Georg Henrik von Wright, 1994 presented for Francis Crick and 2004 presented on the web* for the entire world.

*(this text used to be on Yahoo's Geocities which is now terminated)

Abstract: Thalamus is the least discussed yet perhaps the most important piece in the puzzle of mind, due to its central function as the main relay station between body actions and environment. A critical assessment of concepts such as: observation/understanding, mind/body, free will and language reveals an inescapable awareness in the Thalamic "meetputs". In conclusion memories hence may be better described as linguistic traps rather than as distinct entities. The continuity model proposed in EMAH also avoids the limitations of a "discrete packets of information" model.

Note. In some respect the neural network of "lower" systems such as the spinal cord and cerebellum by far outperforms the cortex. This is because of different tasks (fast motorics and slow adaptations) and due difference in processing. (Copyright Peter Klevius).


Understanding how social behavior and its maintenance in human and other forms of life (incl. plants etc) evolved has nothing to do with “the balance between self interest and co-operative behavior” but all to do with kinship and friendship. Although humans may be attributed a more chaotic (i.e. more incalculable) "personality", they are, like life in general, just robots (i.e. active fighters against entropy – see Demand for Resources - on the right to be poor). Misunderstanding (or plain ignorance of – alternatively ideological avoidance of) kinship (kin recognition), friendship (symbiosis), and AI (robotics) pave the way for the formulation of unnecessary, not to say construed, problems which, in an extension, may become problematic themselves precisely because they hinder an open access for direct problem solving (see e.g. Angels of Antichrist – kinship vs. social state).

The Future of a "Gap" (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

Human: What is a human being? Can the answer be found in a non-rational a priori statement (compare e.g. the axiomatic Human Rights individual) or in a logical analysis of the "gap" between human beings and others? The following analysis uses an "anti-gap" approach. It also rests on the struggle and success of research performed in the field of artificial intelligence (AI), robotics etc.

Signal: A "signal gap" is commonly understood as a break in the transition from input to output, i.e., from perception to behavior. Mentalists use to fill the gap with "mind" while behaviorists don't bother because they can't even see it.

Matter: Berkeley never believed in matter. What you experience is what you get and the rest is in the hands of "God" (i.e. uncertainty). This view makes him a super-determinist without "real" matter.

Mind: The confusing mind-body debate originates in the Cartesian dualism, which divides the world into two different substances, which, when put together, are assumed to make the world intelligible. However, on the contrary, they seem to have created a new problem based on this very assumption.

Free will: Following a mind-body world view, many scholars prefer to regard human beings as intentional animals fueled by free will. It is, however, a challenging task to defend such a philosophical standpoint. Not even Martin Luther managed to do it, but rather transferred free will to God despite loud protests from Erasmus and other humanists. Although Luther's thoughts in other respects have had a tremendous influence on Western thinking, this particular angle of view has been less emphasized.

Future: When asked about the "really human" way of thinking, many mentalists refer to our capacity to "calculate" the future. But is there really a future out there? All concepts of the future seem trapped in the past. We cannot actually talk about a certain date in the future as real future. What we do talk about is, for example, just a date in an almanac. Although it is a good guess that we are going to die, the basis for this reasoning always lies in the past. The present hence is the impenetrable mirror between the "real future" and ourselves. Consequently every our effort to approach this future brings us back in history. Closest to future we seem to be when we live intensely in the immediate present without even thinking about future. As a consequence the gap between sophisticated human planning and "instinctual" animal behavior seems less obvious. Is primitive thinking that primitive after all?
An additional aspect of future is that neither youth, deep freezing or a pill against aging will do as insurence for surviving tomorrow.

Observation and Understanding (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

If one cannot observe something without understanding it, all our experiences are illusions because of the eternal string of corrections made by later experiences. What seems to be true at a particular moment may turn out to be something else in the next, and what we call understanding hence is merely a result of retrospection.The conventional way of grasping the connection between sensory input and behavioral output can be described as observation, i.e. as sensory stimulation followed by understanding. The understanding that it is a stone, for example, follows the observing of a stone. This understanding might in turn produce behavior such as verbal information. To do these simple tasks, however, the observer has to be equipped with some kind of "knowledge," i.e., shared experience that makes him/her culturally competent to "understand" and communicate. This understanding includes the cultural heritage embedded in the very concept of a stone.

Categorization belongs to the language department, which, on the brain level, is only one among many other behavioral reactions. But due to its capability to paraphrase itself, it has the power to confuse our view on how we synchronize our stock of experience. When we look at a stone, our understanding synchronizes with the accumulated inputs associated with the concept of a stone. "It must be a stone out there because it looks like a stone," we think. As a result of such synchronization, our brain intends to continue on the same path and perhaps do something more (with "intention"). For example, we might think, "Let's tell someone about it." The logical behavior that follows can be an expression such as, "Hey look, it's a stone out there." Thus, what we get in the end is a concept of a stone and, after a closer look, our pattern of experience hidden in it.If the stone, when touched, turns out to be made of papier maché, then the previous perception is not deepened, but instead, switched to a completely new one.

One might say that a stone in a picture is a real stone, while the word "stone" written on a piece of paper is not. The gap here is not due to different representations but rather to different contexts.When one tries to equalize observation with understanding, the conventional view of primitive and sophisticated thinking might be put in question. We act like no more than complex worms and the rest, such as sophistication, is only a matter of biased views built on different stocks of experience. But a worm, just like a computer, is more than the sum of its parts.

Therefore, meaning, explanation and understanding are all descriptions of the same basic principle of how we synchronize perceptions with previous experiences. For the fetus or the newborn child, the inexperienced (unsynchronized, or uncertainty/"god" if you prefer) part of the inside-outside communication is considerably huge. Hence the chaotic outside world (i.e., the lack of its patterns of meaningfullness) has to be copied in a stream of experiences, little by little, into the network couplings of the brain. When the neural pattern matches the totality (meaningfulness) its information potential disappears. On top of this, there is in the fetus a continuous growth of new neurons, which have to be connected to the network. As a result of these processes, the outside world is, at least partly, synchronized with the inside, mental world. Heureka, the baby finally begins to think and exist! In other words, the baby records changes against a background of synchronized inputs.

* see "existence centrism" in Demand for Resources for a discussion abt a shrinking god and the allmighty human!

The Category of the Uniquely Human (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

A main difficultiy in formulating the concept of consciousness is our pride (presumably we should have been equally proud as mice) and our strong belief in "something uniquely human." However, if we try to follow the die-hard determinists, we would probably find free will and destiny easier to cope with, and also that the concept of "the unique human being" is rather a question of point of view. Following this line of thought, I suggest turning to old Berkeley as well as to Ryle but excluding Skinnerian Utopias. Those who think the word determinism sounds rude and blunt can try to adorn it with complexity to make it look more chaotic.Chaoa here means something you cannot overview no matter how deterministic it might be. We seem to like complexity just because we cannot follow the underlying determinism. Maybe the same is to be said of what it really is to be a human? A passion for uncertainty, i.e. life itself.Francis Crick in The Astonishing Hypothesis: "... your sense of personal identity and free will are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules."

This statement is easy to agree on, so let me continue with another, perhaps more useful, quote from Crick: "Categories are not given to us as absolutes. They are human inventions."I think these two statements create an efficient basis for further investigations into the mystery of thinking. Hopefully you will forgive me now as I'm going to try to abolish not only the memory but also the free will and consciousness alltogether. Then, I will go even one step further to deny that there are any thoughts (pictures, representations, etc.) at all in the cortex. At this point, many might agree, particularly regarding the cortex of the author of this text.
The main problem here is the storage of memories, with all their colors, smells, feelings and sounds. Crick suggests the dividing of memory into three parts: episodic, categorical and procedural. While that would be semantically useful, I'm afraid it would act more like an obstacle in the investigation of the brain, because it presupposes that the hardware uses the same basis of classification and, like a virus, hence infects most of our analyses.

Nerves, Loops and "Meetputs" (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

According to Crick, "each thalamic area also receives massive connections from the cortical areas to which it sends information. The exact purpose of these back connections is not yet known." In the following paragraphs, I will outline a hypothetical model in line with this question.The interpretation of the interface between brain and its surrounding as it is presented here has the same starting point as Crick's theory but divides thinking into a relay/network system in the cortex and the perception terminals (or their representatives in the thalamus) around the body like an eternal kaleidoscope. Under this model, imagination would be a back-projected pattern of nerve signals, equal to the original event that caused them but with the signals faded. This view suggests that there are not only inputs and outputs but also "meetputs," i.e., when an input signal goes through and evolves into other signals in the cortex, these new signals meet other input signals in the thalamus.

There is no limit to the possible number of patterns in such a system, and there is no need for memory storage but rather, network couplings. These "couplings," or signals, are constantly running in loops (not all simultaneously but some at any given moment) from the nerve endings in our bodies through the network in the cortex and back again to the thalamus. Of course the back-projected signals have to be discriminated from incoming signals, thereby avoiding confusion regarding fantasy and reality. But this process, though still unknown, could be quite simple and perhaps detected simply by the direction where it comes from. As a consequence of the loops, the back-projected pattern differs from the incoming signals, or the stimuli.Therefore, every signal from the body?perceptions, hormonal signals and so on, either finds its familiar old routes or patterns of association in the network (established experiences) or creates new connections (new experiences) that can be of varying durability. For example, if someone is blind from the moment of birth, he or she will have normal neuronal activity in the cortex area of vision. On the other hand, in case of an acquired blindness, the level of activity in the same area will become significantly lower over time. This is logical according to the EMAH model because, in the former case, the neurons have never become involved in association patterns of vision but were engaged in other tasks. In the latter case, the neurons have partly remained in previous vision patterns, which are no longer in use, while the rest has moved onto other new tasks.

It is important to note that human thinking, contrary to what today's computers do, involves the perceptions that originate from the chemical processes in the body's hormonal system, what we carelessly name "emotions." This, I think, is the main source behind the term "human behavior." The difference between man and machine is a source of concern but, as I see it, there is no point in making a "human machine." But perhaps someone might be interested in building a "human-like machine".

Body vs. Environment - a History of Illusions (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

According to the EMAH model, its nerves define our body. This view does not exactly resemble our conventional view of the human body. Thus, our hormonal signals inside our body, for example, can be viewed?at least partially?as belonging to the environment surrounding the EMAH-body.The meaning of life is to uphold complexity by guarding the borders and it is ultimately a fight against entropy. In this struggle, life is supported by a certain genetic structure and metabolism, which synchronizes its dealings with the surrounding environment. Balancing and neutralizing these dealings is a job done by the nerves.

A major and crucial feature of this "body-guarding" mechanism is  knowledge of  difference in the directions between incoming signals and outgoing, processed signals. On top of this, both areas changes continuously and thus have to be matched against each other to uphold or even improve the complexity. According to this model, people suffering from schizophrenia, just like healthy people, have no problem in discriminating between inputs and outputs. In fact, we can safely assume that the way they sometimes experience hallucinations is just like the way we experience nightmares. Both hallucinations and nightmares seem so frightening because they are perceived as incoming signals and confused as real perceptions. The problem for the schizophrenic lies in a defect in processing due to abnormal functions in and among the receptors on the neurons, which makes the association pattern unstable and "creative" in a way that is completely different compared with controlled fantasies. In the case of nightmares, the confusion is related to low and fluctuating energy levels during sleep.A frightful hallucination is always real because it is based on perceptions. What makes it an illusion is when it is viewed historically from a new point of view or experienced in a new "now," i.e., weighed and recorded as illusory from a standpoint that differs from the original one. In conclusion, one can argue that what really differentiates a frightful ghost from a harmless fantasy is that we know the latter being created inside our body, whereas we feel unsure about the former.

EMAH Computing as Matched Changes (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

EMAH does not support the idea that information is conveyed over distances, both in the peripheral and central nervous systems, by the times of occurrence of action potentials?

"All we are hypothesizing is that the activity in V1 does not directly enter awareness. What does enter awareness, we believe, is some form of the neural activity in certain higher visual areas, since they do project directly to prefrontal areas. This seems well established for cortical areas in the fifth tier of the visual hierarchy, such as MT and V4." (Crick & Koch, 1995a,b).  Hardware in a computer is, together with software (should be “a program” because this word signals programming more directly), specified at the outset. A high level of flexibility is made possible through the hardware's ability to unceasingly customize to incoming signals. This is partly what differs human beings from a machine. The rest of the differentiating factors include our perceptions of body chemistry such as hormones, etc. Programming a computer equipped with flexible hardware, i.e., to make them function like neurons, will, according to the EMAH-model, make the machine resemble the development of a fetus or infant to a certain extent. The development of this machine depends on the type of input terminals.

All input signals in the human, including emotional ones, involve a feedback process that matches the incoming signals from the environment with a changing copy of it in the form of representations in the brain's network couplings.Life starts with a basic set of neurons, the connections of which grow as experiences come flooding in. This complex body of neuronal connections can be divided into permanent couplings, the sum of experiences that is your "personality," and temporary couplings, short-term "memories" for everyday use.

A certain relay connection, if activated, results in a back-projected signal toward every receptor originally involved and thus creates, in collaboration with millions of other signals, a "collage" that we often call awareness. This is a constant flow and is in fact what we refer to as the mysterious consciousness. At this stage, it is important to note that every thought, fantasy or association is a mix of different kinds of signals. You cannot, for example, think about a color alone because it is always "in" or "on" something else (on a surface or embedded in some kind of substance) and connected by relay couplings to other perceptions or hormonal systems. "Meaning" is thus derived from a complex mix of the loops between perceptions and back-projected perceptions. This can be compared to a video camera system with a receiving screen and a back-projecting screen. The light meter is the "personality" and the aperture control the motor system. However, this system lacks the complex network system found in the cortex and thus has no possibility to "remember." The recorded signal is of course not equivalent to the brain?s network couplings because it is fixed.To save "bytes," our brains actually tend to "forget" what has been synchronized rather than remember it. Such changes in the brain?not memories?are what build up our awareness. This process is in fact a common technique in transmitting compressed data.

Short-Term Memories and Dreams (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

At any given moment, incoming signals, or perceptions, have to be understood through fitting and dissolving in the net of associations. If there are new, incomprehensible signals, they become linked (coupled) to the existing net and localized in the present pattern of associations. Whether their couplings finally vanish or stay depends on how they fit into the previous pattern and/or what happens next.

As a consequence of this coupling process, memories in a conventional, semantic meaning do not exist, because everything happens now. Consciousness or awareness is something one cannot influence, but rather, something that involves an ongoing flow of information to and from nerve endings through the brain (a relay station). For every given moment (now), there is consequently only one possible way of acting. One cannot escape awareness or decisions because whatever one thinks, it is based on the past and will rule the future. Memories are thus similar to fantasies of the future, based on and created by experiences.Regarding short-term memory, I agree with Crick's view and hypothesis. But I certainly would not call it memory, only weaker or vanishing couplings between neurons. Remember that with this model, the imagination of something or someone seen a long time ago always has to be projected back on the ports were it came through and thus enabling the appropriate association pattern. Although signals in each individual nerve are all equal, the back-projected pattern makes sense only as a combination of signals. The relay couplings in the cortex is the "code," and the receptor system is the "screen." Because this system does not allow any "escape" from the ever changing "now" which determines the dealings with the surrounding environment. Living creatures are forced to develop their software by living.

Dreams are, according to this model, remains of short-term memories from the previous day(s), connected and mixed with relevant association patterns but excluding a major part of finer association structures. This is why dreams differ from conscious thinking. The lack of finer association structures is due to low or irregular activity levels in the brain during sleep. The results are "confused thoughts," which are quite similar to those of demented people, whose finer neural structures are damaged because of tissue death due to a lack of appropriate blood flow. Thus dreams are relevantly structured but in no way a secret message in the way psychoanalysts see them, whereas patients with dementia tend to go back to their childhood due to the irrevocable nature of the physical retardation process.Investigating dreams and their meanings by interpreting them is essentially the same as labeling them as psychological (in a psychoanalytical sense). A better and less biased result would emerge if the researcher actually lived with the subject the day before the dream occurred. Rather than analyzing pale and almost vanished childhood experiences from a view trapped in theoretical prejudices that describe an uncertain future, the researcher should perhaps put more efforts in the logic of the presence.

Donald Duck and a Stone in the Holy Land of Language (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

Wittgenstein: "Sie ist kein Etwas, aber auch nicht ein Nichts!" (Phil. Untersuch. 304). Also see P. Klevius' analysis of a stone (in Demand for Resources - on the right to be poor, 1992).

Although Wittgenstein describes language as a tool it seems more appropriate to classify it as human behavior. Unlike tools language is a set (family) of a certain kind of bodily reactions (internal and/or towards its environment). We have to reject, not only t"he grammer which tries to force  itself on us", but also, and perhaps even more so, representations we, without any particular reason, assign to language.

Language is basically vocal but apart from that little has been said about its real boundaries. One could actually argue that the bestdefinition is perhaps the view that language is a human territory. The question whether animals have a language is then consequently meaningless. On the other hand, Wittgenstein denied the existence of a "private language" because applying it could never prove the validity of its products.We are trapped in words and connotations of language although these categories themselves, like language in general, are completely arbitrary  "language games," as Wittgenstein would have put it. (No offense, Mr Chomsky and others, but this is the tough reality for those trying to make sense of it in the efforts of constructing intelligent,talking computers). Furthermore, these categories change over time and within different contexts with overlapping borders.

Changing language games provide endless possibilities for creating new "language products", such as e.g. psychodynamic psychology. I believe this is exactly what Wittgenstein had in mind when he found Freud interesting as a player of such games but with nothing to say about the scientific roots of the mental phenomenon.Let's image Donald Duck and a picture of a stone. Like many psychological terms, Donald Duck is very real in his symbolized form but nonetheless without any direct connection to the reality that he symbolizes. In this sense, even the word stone has no connection to the reality for those who don't speak English. Words and languages are shared experiences.

It is said that a crucial feature of language is its ability to express past and future time. This might be true but in no way makes language solely human. When bees arrives to their hive they are able, in symbolic form, to express what they have seen in the past so that other bees will "understand" what to do in the future. Naming this an instinct just because bees have such an uncomplicated brain does not justify a different classification to that of the human thinking.If, as I proposed in Demand for Resources (1992), we stop dividing our interactions with the surrounding world in terms of observation and understanding (because there is no way of separating them), we will find it easier to compare different human societies. By categorization, language is an extension of perception/experience patterns and discriminates us as human only in the sense that we have different experiences. Words are just like everything else that hits our receptors. There is no principle difference in thinking through the use of words or through sounds, smells (albeit not through thalamus), pictures or other "categories." Ultimately, language is, like other types of communication with the surrounding world, just a form of resistance against entropy.

To define it more narrowly, language is also the room where psychoanalysis is supposed to live and work. A stone does not belong to language, but the word "stone" does. What is the difference? How does the word differ from the symbolic expression of a "real" stone in front of you? Or if we put it the other way round: What precisely makes it a stone? Nothing, except for the symbolic value derived from the word "stone." The term "observation" thus implicates an underlying "private language."When Turing mixed up his collapsing bridges with math, he was corrected by Wittgenstein, just as Freud was corrected when he tried to build psychological courses of events on a basis of natural science. Wittgenstein's "no" to Turing at the famous lecture at Cambridge hit home the difference between games and reality.

Archetypes and grammar as evolutionary tracks imprinted in our genes is a favorite theme among certain scholars. But what about other skills? Can there also be some hidden imprints that make driving or playing computer games possible? And what about ice hockey, football, chess, talk shows, chats and so on? The list can go on forever. Again, there is no distinguishing border between evolutionary "imprints" and other stimulus/response features in ordinary life.

"Primitive" vs. "Sophisticated" Thinking (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

The more synchronized (informed) something or someone is with its surrounding reality, the less dynamics/interest this something or someone invests in its relationship with that particular reality. Interest causes investment and social entropy excludes investment economy because economy is always at war against entropy. The key to economical success is luck and thus includes lack of knowledge. No matter how well a business idea is outlined and performed, the success or lack of success is ultimately unforeseeable.In Demand for Resources I discussed the possibility of some serious prejudice hidden in Karl Poppers' top achievement of civilization, namely the "World 3" and his and Eccles' assumption of an increasing level of sophistication from the primitive to the modern stage of development. It is of course easy to be impressed by the sophistication of the artificial, technical environment constructed by man, including language and literature, etc. But there is nonetheless a striking lack of evidence in support of a higher degree of complexity in the civilized human thinking than that of e.g. Australian Aboriginals, say 25,000 years ago. Needless to say, many hunting-gathering societies have been affluent in the way that they have food, shelter and enough time to enrich World 3, but in reality they have failed to do so.

Even on the level of physical anthropology, human evolution gives no good, single answer to our originality. What is "uniquely human" has rested on a "gap," which is now closed, according to Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin, among others. This gap is presumably the same as the one between sensory input and behavioral output mentioned above.From an anthropological point of view, it can be said that a computer lacks genetic kinship, which, however, is a rule without exception in the animate world, although we in the West seem to have underestimated its real power.

Deconstructing the Mind (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

A deconstruction of our underlying concepts of the brain can easily end up in serious troubles due to the problem with language manipulation. Wittgenstein would probably have suggested us to leave it as it is. If language is a way of manipulating a certain area - language - then the confusion will become even greater if we try to manipulate the manipulation! But why not try to find out how suitable "the inner environment" is for deconstruction? After all, this environment presupposes some kind of biology at least in the border line between the outside and the inside world. Are not behavioral reactions as well as intra-bodily causes, e g hormones etc. highly dependent on presumed biological "starting points"? How does skin color or sex hormones affect our thinking? Where do causes and reactions start and isn't even the question a kind of explanation and understanding?

Determinists usually do not recognize the point of free will although they admit the possible existence of freedom. Why? Obviously this needs some Wittgensteinian cleaning of the language. Unfortunately I'm not prepared for the task, so let's pick up only the best looking parts, that words as freedom, will, mind, etc., are semantic inventions and that they have no connections to anything else (i.e., matter) if not proved by convincing and understandable evidence. Does this sound familiar and maybe even boring? Here comes the gap again.Stimuli and response seen purely as a reflex is not always correct, says G. H. von Wright, because sometimes there may be a particular reason causing an action. According to von Wright, an acoustic sensation, for example, is mental and semantic and thus out of reach for the scientific understanding of the body-mind interaction. Is this a view of a diplomatic gentleman eating the cake and wanting to keep it too? To me, it is a deterministic indeterminist's view.

G. H. von Wright concludes that what we experience in our brain is the meaning of its behavioral effects. In making such a conclusion that it is rather a question of two different ways of narrowing one's view on living beings von Wright seems to narrow himself to Spinoza?s view.Is meaning meaningful or is it perhaps only the interpreter's random projection of himself or herself? Is it, in other words, based only on the existence of the word meaning?

Aristotle divided the world primarily into matter and definable reality (psyche). As many other Greek philosophers, Aristotle was an individualist and would have fitted quite well in the Western discourse of today. Berkeley, who was a full-blood determinist, however recognized the sameness in mind and matter and handed both over to "god". Consequently Philonous' perceived sensations in the mind were not directly aligned with Hylas' view of immediate perceptions. We thus end up with Berkeley as a spiritual die-hard determinist challenging materialistic humanism.

In conclusion one might propose a rethinking of the conventional hierarchy of the brain. What we use to call "higher levels", perhaps because they are more pronounced in humans, are in fact only huge "neural mirrors" for the real genius, thalamus (and its capability of two-way communication with extensions in the cerebellum, spine, nerv ends etc), i.e. what has sometimes been interpreted as part of the "primitive" system.. In other words, one may propose a view describing the "gap" between humans and animals as a quantitative difference in the amount/power of cerebral "mirroring" and communication with thalamus, rather than as a distinct qualitative feature. Nothing, except our "emotions", seems to hinder us from making a "human machine". And because these very "emotions" are lived experiences (there is, for example, no way to scientifically establish what could be considered "emotions" in a fetus) nothing, except the meaninglessness in the project itself, could hinder us from allowing a machine to "live" a "human life".

So what about human rights for a computer (Honda's Asimo robot) loaded with all possible human "emotions"? Is Asimo human or Klevius inhuman? Is death what ultimately unites humans? So what abt a hypothetical memory card containing a lifetime of experience? Or a fetus with hardly no experience at all?

Klevius comment: A thoroughly honest approach towards others combined with negative human rights seems to be the only acceptable framework for being really human. This approach hence excludes segregation as well as "monotheist"* religions (but see Klevius definition of religion).

Sunday, October 5, 2014

It looks like islam, it smells like islam, it behaves like islam. It's in the Koran. What could it be?

The Saudi fed mosque rat vs. the elusive "moderate" mosque mouse*

* The appropriate definition of a "mosque mouse" is a passive muslim as opposed to an active (i.e. "extremist") muslim. However, the danger of this passivity is that he thereby supports the active ones.

Theresa May (UK Home Secretary - an expert on islam?): 'The terrorists who murdered David Haines like to call themselves the Islamic State. But I will tell you the truth: They are not Islamic. Their actions have absolutely no basis in anything written in the Quran. '

Klevius comment: According to Theresa May most muslims are not extremists. May be, but it's really a close call when checked against the PEW stats referred to below.

The following is a negation (i.e. in line with historical facts - not wishful dreams) of Karen Armstrong's text:
To cultivate a distorted image of islam, to view it as inherently the friend of democracy and Human Rights values, and to revert to the bigoted views of the medieval islamic slave empire would be a catastrophe. Not only will
such an approach encourage an estimated half to one billion extremist* muslims with whom we share the world (or shouldn't Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Egypt etc count as muslim countries anymore), but it will also violate the disinterested love of truth and the respect for the sacred rights of others that characterize Human Rights but not islam.

* Based on a recent PEW report among muslims who say Sharia Law should be the law of the land and who favor stoning as a punishment for adultery. Would that suffice as making them 'extremist muslims'?

Here's Karen Armstrongs deeply flawed text in original: To cultivate a distorted image of Islam, to view it as inherently the enemy of democ-
racy and decent values, and to revert to the bigoted views of
the medieval Crusaders would be a catastrophe. Not only will
such an approach antagonize the 1.2 billion Muslims with
whom we share the world, but it will also violate the disinter-
ested love of truth and the respect for the sacred rights of
others that characterize both Islam and Western society at
their best.

Klevius comment: Since when has slavery (racism) and rapetivism (sexism) become 'sacred rights'? They are certainly not Human Rights!