Human Rights is diversity - sharia is the opposite

The evil of Sharia islam is what makes it incompatible with Negative Human Rights (i.e. why islamic OIC violates Human Rights by replacing them with Sharia, hence excluding women and non-muslims from equality). The evil of islam and its origin may be easier to grasp with historical examples, e.g. the Origin of the Vikings.

It's racism and sexism even if proposed by a "god"! Klevius altruistic virtual volunteering for the world community in defense of Universal Human Rights . Yes, I know, it's unfair. Klevius vs islam, i.e. Universal Human Rights vs Sharia (OIC) racism/sexism! Of course Klevius will win. The question is just how long we should allow the dying beast to make people suffer. (Negative) Human Rights is not a ”Western” invention! It’s where you end up when you abandon racism and sexism, idiot! After you have abandoned islam! Your confused islamophilia and ignorance about Human Rights make YOU an accomplice to islam's crimes! Whereas Human Rights work as egalitarian and universal traffic rules (no matter who you are or what you drive you have the same rights as everyone else) islam/Sharia differs between muslim men and the rest (women and "infidels")!

Ask yourself, why can't racist islam (OIC) accept Human Rights? The answer reveals the difference between totalitarianism and freedom. And even if everyone converted to islam we'd still have Sharia sexism.
Have you noticed that when the history of slavery is (PC) debated islam is always excluded/excused? Atlantic slave trade and Roman slaves are eagerly mentioned while the world's by far worst, longest and most extensive one is blinked, as is the fact that islam not only sanctions slavery but is itself built on slavery and sex slavery (rapetivism)! The core idea of islam is the most thoroughly elaborated parasitism ever, i.e. what in 1400 yrs has made it the by far worst crime ever. But thanks to islamic teachings muslims are kept extremely ignorant about the evil origin of islam (institutionalized parasitism based on slave finance, rapetivism and pillage). Ohlig: The first two "islamic" centuries lie in the shadows of history. Klevius: There was no islam or islamic Mohammad (that's why the Saudis have levelled Mohammad's "grave" etc), only the evil murdering, pillaging and raping Aramaic-Arabic Jewish("Christian") led illiterate Arab thugs chasing for booty and sex. The "success" of this formula became later institutionalized and codified as a one way (Koran/Sharia) moral excuse (Allah) for further racist/sexist genocides. The bedrock and currency of this system was racist slavery. However, with Enlightenment the new idea of individual (negative) Human Rights emerged (incl. abolishing of slavery) and were, much later (1948), written down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights according to which everyone is equal no matter of sex, beliefs etc. Just like in traffic! But unlike traffic rules no one really seems to care about guarding our most precious asset as human beings. Instead racist sexist islamofascism (OIC and the Cairo Sharia declaration) is protected by Human Rights while they strive to undermine and eventually destroy these Human Rights! And most people don't seem to get it. Always remember, there is no islam without Human Rights violating racist/sexist Sharia. So a "vote" for Sharia-islam is AGAINST democracy and the freedom part of Human Rights!

Sayeeda Warsi (UK's non-elected OIC/Sharia politician) in essence doesn't differ from those muslim Saudi women who approve of sex slavery etc, other than that she is either ignorant or a traitor (against democracy and Human Rights) of the worst kind.

Myth vs Truth

Mazda Luce 1800 (1968, same body as 1500, 1966 - already presented in 1964 at the Tokyo Motor Show it was in serial production 1965) was one of the fastest in its class in the 1960's (104 hp/1050 kg and an extremely long stroke but smoothly reving OHC engine with roller lifters etc) and one of the few cars faster than its speedometer. It also had the best manual gearbox. However, due to stupid Japanese consumer surveys some export models were slowed down with automatic and the interior destroyed with a front bench! Same car was also available with Mazda's own super fast, and functioning Rotary (not the non-functioning German Wankel) engine.
How come that Subaru in 1972 introduced 4WD almost a decade before the first European (the poor quality Audi Quatro in 1980)? And how come that Honda does the most advanced eco car (Clarity FCX) and the most advanced robot (Asimo - the one islamists drool over below) whereas BMW does nothing by itself?
How come that Japanese Nissan GTR ($84,000) easily outperforms Bugatti Veyron ($1,700,000) on Germany's foremost race track Nurburgring?! And that the world's best luxury sports car, Lexus LFA, is the fastest ever real car on the ring, beating the best Porsche by some 4 seconds!

Whereas Shinto, the world's oldest religion, has been the master of technology, islam has been the master of crimes and parasitism!
To deny the evil parasitic origin of islam is equally criminal as to deny the Holocaust!

Japan's Hayabusa landed and returned to Earth many years before Europe's Rosetta failed to do so.

The hotline closed since 1400 years - leaving muslims on their own

Klevius is probably now the world's foremost expert on sex segregation (sad, isn't it), and islam (the worst hate crime ever - now protected by sleazy OIC) is the foremost expression of sex segregation. Also compare Sharia as described by Bill Warner.

Klevius: If truth offenses muslims, should the truth then be forbidden?

Mohammed: I have never come across anyone more lacking in intelligence, or ignorant of their religion than women.

Warner: The Koran says that the Kafir may be deceived, plotted against, hated, enslaved, mocked, tortured and worse. The word is usually translated as “unbeliever” but this translation is wrong. The word “unbeliever” is logically and emotionally neutral, whereas, Kafir is the most abusive, prejudiced and hateful word in any language.

How an organization of islamic crimes (OIC) violates Human Rights

OIC (57 muslim populated nations) have agreed to replace UN Human Rights with islamic "human rights" (Sharia) so that girls and women shouldn't be allowed to be equally free as men! OIC now wants to get veto right in UN so to block any UN action critical against islamic Sharia racism/sexism!

How Islamofascism is boosted by BBC

This is Alwaleed bin Talal al Saud (nephew to the world's worst dictator), a "man" who has never worked but who at 56 was accused of raping a 20 year old, and who has spent much more Western oil money on islamic hate mongering propaganda etc than he has officially been given from the dictator house of Saud (which was founded on an Arab slave plantation and later stole the whole land with some handfuls of men and now prosper on oil that "Westerners" found and produced because of "Wests" superior technology)! It's ONLY because of "Western" oil money that this islamofascist Human Rights violating dictator/mafia family is allowed to enter civilized rooms! But should we really let this extreme hypocrisy and bigotry continue?!

Contrast this scumbag against those (incl. Klevius) who relentlessly volunteer for spreading knowledge about Human Rights and are called "islamophobes" simply because islam doesn't submit to Human Rights (this is why the islamofascist organization OIC has openly abandoned Human Rights and replaced them with islamofascist Sharia).

We're all born unequal - that's why we need Human Rights, not islam!

Friday, May 26, 2017

Will the islamofascist Saud dictator family attack England again during Ramadan?


Klevius question to Theresa May: Do Saudi Salafist values comply with "British values"? And if not, is it really good for England to threaten Russia, which has never attacked England, while having one's worst enemy source, Saudi, as a "close ally"?! Has Klevius missed something...





If you dislike Nazi ideology then you easily qualify for disliking Saudi ideology as well.

Could anything be more worthy of disliking than a bunch of multi billionaire Salafi sharia muslims who use their oil wealth for gaining even more power by bombing their neighbors and spreading islamic hatred over innocent people around the world in a stealthy manner so to be able to "excuse" themselves by saying "it wasn't me who did the bomb or handled the knife, gun, acid, car/truck etc".

Trump lost all respect when he turned from a harsh Saudi critic to an eager supporter of Saudi state (i.e. dictator) terrorism (via more or less stealthy channels). At least, Theresa May has been consequent in her love affair with the islamofascist Saudi dictator family. And why wouldn't she. After all, she shares the Saudi view that "sharia is good for the Brits". Only Klevius wonders: Which Brits - the sharia muslim "Brits"? And what about the non sharia English people who respect universal Human Rights equality instead of Human Rights violating sharia? England is a modern sovereign state, "Britain" is a pompous and dangerous colonialist nostalgia term in which sharia "diversity" hides its ugly face.

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family is the core tumor of the cancer spreading from Mideast. Giving additional nutrition to cancer cells is not an acceptable strategy.

No young jihadi mind will ever believe that he's completely off the target as long as the "custodians of islam" preach the same hatred and are respected by politicians like Theresa May and Donald Trump.

The monetary stakes are admittedly high but nothing compared to the Saudi Human Rights violations and its costs. May's and Trump's Saudi politics is just "creative book keeping" and a cynical disrespect for the security of innocent people.



The islamofascist Saudi dictator family is the core problem. And Theresa May's Brexit startegy of escape into old colonial "British" paths is hardly helpful.


As the Saudi "custodians of islam" having the same Sunni Salafi (i.e. original islam) ideology as the muslim terrorists, that alone should be enough reason to vote out any politician who supports Saudi islamofascism.

However, there's also a much larger problem with the islamofascist Saudi dictator family. That's the Saudi based and steered OIC which "peacefully" promotes Salafi sharia hate all over the world. And with the help of mainly muslim countries OIC has managed to make Saudi islamofascism "ok" via UN by accepting that sharia can be whatever - even islamofascist Saudi Salafist Wahhabism. 

Klevius has noted that his hits go down when he writes about the islamofascist Saudi dictator family. How come?


How England as a "British" colonizer created the worst evilon the planet. Of course they weren't aware back then about the monetary effects of oil that would then later multiply this evil.


Does the islamofascist Saudi dictator family already possess more nuke missiles than Israel?

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family funded the Pakistani nuke program and has extremely tight connections with Pakistan re. nuke technology.

Klevius suggestion: Israel's fooling around with the Saudis doesn't promise any good for the region - or for Israel itself. So the best thing an Iranian president could do now is partnering with Israel...



* Saudi King Abdul Aziz Ibn SaudIn 1901, Twenty-one-year-old Abdul Aziz Bin Abdul Rahman Al-Saud left Kuwait, determined to fight along-side the British forces against the Islamic state in order to get power over all of the territory once occupied by his pirate forefathers and to extend his occupation over the holy cities of Makkah and Medinah.

In 1902, The Exiled Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman Al-Saud and his gangsters (the Wahhabi movement) stormed Riyadh and shot and killed the Wali (the governor of the Khilafah:Aal-Rasheed) as another gift for Britain. This event marked the beginning of the formation of the pirate kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

1902-1913, After establishing Riyadh as his headquarters, Abdul Aziz proceeded, over the following decades side to side with the British soldiers to loot and kill the soldiers and supporters of The Ottomani Khilafah and he succeeded in many cities.

In 1914, Britain started to send a stream of agents (including William H.Shakespeare, Harry St. John Phil by and Percy Cox) to woo and encourage Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman in her task on the Arabian front. Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman’s campaign was one of sabotage and stabbing in the back, it was never face-to-face confrontation.

In 1915, Britain dispatched an agent by the name of William H. Shakespeare as a close advisor to Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman. The soldiers of the Khaleefah killed William alongside some Wahhabi conspirators.

In 1915, Britain dispatched another agent by the name of Harry St. John Philby, who soon appeared in full Arab dress on top of a camel with Abdul- Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman as a saudi warrior. Philby was called by Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman the “new star of Arab firmament”. Philby in return described Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman as the Arabs “man of destiny” however Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman was the arch political sell-out, many times offering to sell himself to the British. He once said to Philby, “If anyone offered me a million pounds I would give him all the concessions he wants”.

In December 1915 the Anglo-Saud friendship treaty was concluded. This treaty made the house of Saud an outpost of the British Empire. Britain was given trading privileges and was superintendent of Saudi foreign policy. A guarantee of British military protection and arms supplies ended the Khaleefah’s authority in central Arabia.

In 1916, Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman received from the British 1300 guns, 10,000 rupees and 20,000 pieces of gold in cash.

1917-1926, Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman and his organised Wahhabi gangsters in military style and with the help of the British soldiers succeeded in controlling the Whole of Arabia i.e. Najd and Hijaz.

In On 8 January 1926 Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman ( Known as Ibn-Saud) was self-proclaimed king of Arabia. King Abdul-Aziz was embroiled in discussions with the British representative, Percy Cox, for the determination of the borders of the new entity. The British Public Records described king Abdul-Aziz’s demeaning stature at these meetings “like a naughty schoolboy” in front of Cox. When Cox insisted it was his decision as to the frontiers between Kuwait, “Ibn-Saud almost broke down and pathetically remarked that Sir Percy was like his father and mother who made him and raised him from nothing… and he would surrender half his Kingdom, nay the whole, if Sir Percy ordered. Cox took out a map and pencil and drew a line of the frontier of Arabia”. Surely no Muslim can ever read such a statement except with abject shame at the way the sacred sites of Makkah and Medinah and the land of Hijaaz were put in the hands of a family with such debased and dishonorable pedigree.

1926-1932, King Abdul Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman (Ibn-Saud) courted the British unashamedly, showing sublime affection towards Britain’s envoys. He offered to put Arabia under their control. For his loyalty to the British crown, like so many other British agents, Ibn Saud was awarded a knighthood (presented to him by his self-proclaimed “father and mother” Percy Cox) and British

documents referred to him as “Sir” Abdul Aziz Bin Saud for many years afterwards.

In On September 23, 1932 the self appointed king, Sir Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman replaced the names of Najd and Hijaaz by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and he laid the foundations of the current Pirate state.

Eisenhower and Nixon at Dinner with King SaudIn 1953, The pirate king Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman died.

In 1953, Saud the eldest son of Abdul Aziz Succeeded the throne upon his father’s death and became king.

In 1957, King Saud made the first trip by a Saudi monarch to the United States.

In 1962, Saudi Arabia by special request of the British government sponsored an international Islamic conference, which fostered the Muslim World League, which has its headquarters in Makkah.

In 1964, King Saud Bin Abdul-Aziz died.

In 1964, Faisal Bin Abdul Aziz became king.

King faisal Bin Abdul AzizIn 1971, King Faisal by special request of the British government was a central force behind the establishment of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (the OIC) in Jeddah.

In 1975, King Faisal Bin Abdul Aziz was killed by his brother Fahd (The Who Became the king Afterwards).

King Khalid Bin Abdul Aziz. aIn 1975, Khalid Bin Abdul Aziz became king.

In 1982, King Khalid was poisoned by his brother Fahd .

In 1982, Fahd became king.

King Fahd Bin Abdul Aziz.1982-2005,  King Fahd Bin Abdul-Aziz is the pirate ruler of the pirate state of so-called Saudi-Arabia.

2005 – 2014 Until Today King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz is the Pirate Ruler King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz Al Saudof the British Sponsored State of the So Called Saudi Arabia .

The “Royal Family” of Saudi Arabia is the leading champion of all efforts to silence Islam, and to wipe out and demolish its identity. Najd and Hijaaz were the former names of so-called Saudi Arabia today. As everybody knows, Makkah and Madinah are Islam’s place of birth. Makkah houses “Al-Haram Al- Sharif”, and Madinah houses “Al-Masjid Al-Nabawi”, these are known as the “Two Holy Mosques”. The darker history of Hijaaz started with the ruthless, coward, savage and murdering Abdul-Aziz Bin Saud, who established himself as King back in 1932.

With the help of the British, King Abdul-Aziz replaced the country’s name of Hijaaz with Saudi Arabia which is the only country in the world that is named after its Dictator. King Abdul Aziz sexually abused many women, he now has more than 44 known sons and lots of known and unknown daughters. This dark history continues with the so-called “royal family”, and their leader King Fahd, the so-called “Guardian” whose title should be, “The Robber of the two Holy Mosques”, from the Arabic Expression: ” Ha-miha..Ha-ramiha “, which means ” Its Protector is really Its Robber “.


Thursday, May 25, 2017

Are Theresa May and Donald Trump together charging the worst disaster in Mideast so far?


Theresa May loves (at least politically) the hate mongering militant islamofascist Saudi dictator family and its nuke puppet, Pakistan. Is that any good for Mideast - and beyond?



She also seems to have no serious objections to the islamofascist Saudi dictator family's Shiaphobia - which fact may explain British Sunni muslim persecution of Shia muslims in England.



How can Theresa May fit the words "not to divide" in her mouth?! And how can anyone believe Theresa May's words that the world's most intolerant spreader of islamofascist terror ideology is "important for England's* security? It's an insult against victims of Saudi sponsored Sunni islamic hate.

* Why does Klevius write England instead of UK or "Great Britain"? Answer: Because of Brexit there's no real UK anymore. "Great Britain" is just pompous nostalgia, and Wales isn't a sovereign state but part of England.

How can any English people vote for someone who wouldn't hesitate to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people with a premptive nuke strike. Let's hope her Pakistani nuke friends don't agree.

However, Pakistan's former military chief Raheel Sharif has been made commander of the islamofascist Saudi dictator family's war crimes and genocide in Yemen.

Pro-Saudi English police "investigating" Saudi (a "close ally") war crimes against Shiites?!

The Metropolitan police has confirmed that their war crimes unit is assessing whether criminal prosecutions could be brought over the islamofascist Saudi dictator family's devastating bomb etc. campaign in Yemen.

The force’s SO15 counter-terrorism unit has launched a “scoping exercise” into the claims.

Klevius reminder: Really! Do note that we are now talking about an islamofascist dictator family that has, by far, contributed the most to the spread of evil islamic Salafi/Wahhabi terror etc. around the world - incl. the recent ones against Westminster/London and Manchester in England.


No wonder many Israelis, incl. Ministers, start feeling uncomfortable again with the islamofascist Saudi dictator family. England and US support of Saudi islamofascism may lead to a more difficult situation for Israel than back in 1967 when its Sunni muslim Arab neighbors attacked it - and were thoroughly defeated.

Moreover, it seems less helpful to peace in Mideast that Theresa May's "close ally" in practice now is led by a young islamofascist Sunni hothead widely considered the world's most dangerous man.


We also do know that the islamofascist Saudi dictator family more or less control the inner circles of Pakistan - incl. cooperation around nukes.



Wednesday, May 24, 2017

Why is "islamophobia" again blamed when the islamofascist Saudi dictator family attacks England via Salafist Sunni jihadi?

Human Rights (i.e. "islamophobia") are considered "terrorism" in Saudi Arabia. But why does the same islamofascist sharia apply in the West?


If we are to believe media and politicians, only "a tiny minority" of muslims are against basic Human Rights. If so the majority of muslims should have no problem with "islamophobia".


The Saudis are no muslims - or are they?




There's not the slightest doubt that the Saudi Salafist islam is closer to the original islam and Mohammad than any Western view on islam. So do we have two completely different islam? Not really, because the Western view on islam can never prevail. Either it continues producing Salafism in the West or if contained, islam will die altogether because it can't survive without its sexism and racism allure.

What's the difference (except the superficial "luxury")  between the Islamic State and the islamofascist Saudi dictator family?



The islamofascist Saudi dictator family is the world's biggest funder of islamic terrorism.




The Hill: In older Salafist school textbooks that the Saudis disseminated globally, Christians and Jews were compared to “swine” and “apes.” A later 12th-grade text explains the religious duty to wage jihad against the infidel to expand the faith. Even recent Saudi textbooks teach the anti-Semitic fable “The Protocol of the Elders of Zion” as history and insist that sorcerers must be killed.

Mohammed Saeed, the imam of the Didsbury Mosque and Islamic Centre in Manchester: “Salman Abedi had looked at him ‘with hate’ after he gave a sermon criticising Isis and Ansar al-Sharia in Libya.” What's Theresa May's take on that?

Klevius: But wait a minute, Ansar al-Sharia is an umbrella organization that includes several al-Qaeda groups — and has fought alongside England's "close ally" Saudi forces in Yemen - and most probably used English military equipment.

An often used islamic hadith quotes Muhammad saying, "The best of my community are my generation, the ones who follow them and the ones who follow them" as a call to Muslims to follow the example of those first three generations, known collectively as the salafi or "pious Predecessors" (السلف الصالح as-Salaf as-Ṣāliḥ). The salaf are believed to include Muhammad himself, the "Companions" (Sahabah), the "Followers" (Tabi‘un), and the "Followers of the Followers" (Tabi‘ al-Tabi‘in).

Since the fifth Muslim generation or earlier, Sunni theologians have used the examples of the Salaf to understand the texts and tenets of Islam. At times they have referred to the hadith to differentiate the creed (Aqidah) of the first Muslims from subsequent variations in creed and methodology (see Madhab), to oppose religious innovation (bid‘ah) and, conversely, to defend particular views and practices.

According to Bernard Haykel, "temporal proximity to the Prophet Muhammad is associated with the truest form of Islam" among many Sunni Muslims.

Salafis believe that the label "Salafiyya" existed from the first few generations of Islam and that it is not a modern movement.

Klevius concluding remark: What is clear is that Salafism "goes original" and that the islamofascist Saudi dictator family has been the main user of this evil ideology. What is less clear is when people in the West will get a chance to vote their opinion about it. As it stands now Saudi sharia labels every such effort as "islamophobia" and because this is seen as "racism" then no one is allowed to serve as a channel for a Human Rights approach to the islamofascist Saudi dictator family. After all, they are the "custodians of islam" - and they have loads of oil money to bribe media and politicians.

And this is really the tragically funny part. Not since the days of Hitler has it been so easy to criticize a country's evil leaders, precisely because it's so extremely obvious for everyone to see. However, this time the "allied forces" are with the enemy, which fact complicates a solution and prolongs the suffering caused by this evil.

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

Klevius question to Theresa May: Was it Russia or China who attacked England with terror last night? Klevius thinks not - but what about the islamofascist Saudi dictator family?


The real core problem is the islamofascist oil wealthy Saudi "guardians of islam":




If it was Russia or China it would mean a first ever attack against England by those nations (England, of course, has attacked China and Russia many times though and continues threatening and dismissing while having no problem whatsoever with the 'best ally' islamofascist islamic hate spreading and war crimes committing Saudi dictator family).

And of course, as usual, muslims and islam had nothing to do with a terrorist attack possibly induced by islamic tenets and produced by a muslim as a muslim. And the first to appear on BBC News was of course a muslim worried about muslims - and no mentioning about worries about non muslims.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said on Monday Iran was the vital force behind the fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria and repeated Iran’s official stance that the United States and Saudi Arabia are funding “terrorism” in the Middle East.

“Who fought against the terrorists? It was Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Russia. But who funded the terrorists? Those who fund terrorists cannot claim they are fighting against them,” he said.

The islamofascist Saudi curse over US and England.

It's not that the West sees Iran (an islamic "democracy") as a bigger threat than the islamofascist Saudi dictator family, but that the latter has more (oil)money to lobby and invest because of more oil and much smaller population. The Saudi dictator family and their "beneficiaries" is less than 10,000 )
Moreover, the islamofascist Saudi dictator family is the "custodian of Sunni islam".

West's "justification", support and weaponizing of the islamofascist Sunni Saudi dictator family, is a direct invite to sectarian brutalities against Shia (the original muslims*) in not only the Arab world but around the world.

* Shia muslims are closer to the Zoroastrian origin of all Mideastern "monotheisms".


Pamela Geller (the Human Rights defending Jew whom Theresa May denied entry to England - anti-semitism?): Brace yourself for jihad attack part two in the information battle-space, as jihad spox groups such as CAIR, ISNA, MSA, etc. take control of a sharia-compliant media and proselytize and lecture us on “fear of reprisals” and “backlashophobia” while clubbing us bloody with the mind-numbing manta that “Islam is peace.”

Strike terror into the hearts of the unbelievers (Quran 8:12)

Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them (Quran 8:12)

The Qur’an guarantees Paradise to those who “kill and are killed” for Allah (9:111)

Across dozens of pro-ISIS channels, we’re seeing celebration of this atrocity. They are hashtagging it #مانشستر which means #Manchester

    #ISIS account claiming responsibility for #Manchester already suspended by Twitter: pic.twitter.com/mnRipmeuIe

    — Megan Anderson ميغان (@PolicyLover) May 22, 2017

     “This is only the beginning.”

    Thanks to the feckless policies of the UK government and governments all over the West, that is undoubtedly true.



Friday, May 19, 2017

This Jew sucks!


Sir Lord Rabbi Jew (or whatever) Jonathan Sacks: Atheism has failed; only religion can defeat the new barbarians. Sir Atheist "islamophobe" and Human Rights defender Klevius: Atheist terrorism a bigger problem? Islamic Human Rights (sharia)?!




BBC's news hour was today reportedly today much less targeted on smearing President Trump now that he is heading for their beloved islamofascist Saudi dictator family.


After pressure from the islamofascist Saudi dictator family (via OIC, OPEC, etc. organizations, lobbyists and politicians such as e.g. McCain, etc.) Mr. Trump (that's what BBC calls the US President) now not only boosts the Saudis but as a consequence turns Americans against Russia (because of Iran being the Saudi's main target). Moreover, as China has surpassed the US economically (and all indicators accelerate this trend) military pressure (and due military production) combined with the US fonzi scheme ("printing money" under the cover of $ still being a world currency) that has replaced much real production, seems to be the options President Trump has bowed down to - and thereby also charged the world's third most dangerous country (after Pakistan) to a dangerous point. US aggressions against China won't help to get China's help to calm down Korea tensions, will it.




According to Jonathan Sacks, Peter Klevius has ended up us a "marvelous creation" in the Universe, i.e. that he is mentally extremely fit (almost as fit as he is physically). However, the "creation" called Klevius is "marvelous" only from a human point of view - a fact that Sir Lord Rabbi Jew (or whatever) Jonathan Sacks seems to completely have missed.

Is Sir Lord Rabbi Jew (or whatever) Jonathan Sacks mentally retarded? If so, pay no relevance to what Klevius says below. However, if he has close to average intelligence, then his idolatry of himself as an "intellectual" while spewing out the most reprehensive non sense, must be challenged.

Jonathan Sachs (a Jewish lord, rabbi etc. in England frequently used in BBC's propaganda for "monotheisms" - especially islam, which has managed to cause more suffering than any of the other "monotheisms"): Where do we come from?

Sir Atheist "islamophobe" and Human Rights defender Klevius answer to this poorly (mis)informed Jew:

Jonathan Sachs (a Jewish lord, rabbi etc. in England frequently used in BBC's propaganda for "monotheisms" - especially islam, which has managed to cause more suffering than any of the other "monotheisms"): There's a delicate balance built in where humans can be.

Sir Atheist "islamophobe" and Human Rights defender Klevius answer to this poorly (mis)informed Jew: No, there's no "delicate balance" other than your words.

Sir Atheist "islamophobe" and Human Rights defender Klevius intellectual help to this poorly (mis)informed Jew who obviously lacks average intelligence (most people are Atheists): Read Sir Atheist "islamophobe" and Human Rights defender Klevius book Demand for Resources (1992 ISBN 9173288411) to get a better and more humble view on yourself and your pompostrous "the god chosen people" ideology. It's in original English, i.e. Swedish, but if you don't master Swedish you can ask someone to read for you - or, you can donate to
Klevius so he can arrange for a good translation worldwide.

Lord rabbi Jonathan Sacks:  Antisemitism is not ancient. The "Scapegoats” (i.e. muslims) are not indigenous to it.



Although the sonless "prophet" Mohammad fable was made by Malik some half a century after his alleged death, what is important is that islam considers the hadith about the slaughtering of all the Jews in Medina as an essential and even proud part of itself as the "religion of conquest" under which everyone has to surrender, and first in line the Jews who "falsely pretend to have the original Abrahamic faith".

Sir Atheist "islamophobe" and Human Rights defender Klevius suggestion to Sir Lord Rabbi Jew (or whatever) Jonathan Sacks: Don't do politics with your Judaism. And if you need some Kabbala "spirituality" I'm certain there are some books, programs, clubs etc. for you to enjoy without having to contribute to islamofascism and other forms of religious hatred, racism and sexism.

Sir Lord Rabbi Jew (or whatever) Jonathan Sacks: When ("monotheist") religion dies and consumerism takes its place, people are left with a culture that encourages them to buy things they don’t need with money they don’t have for a happiness that won’t last.

Sir Atheist "islamophobe" and Human Rights defender Peter Klevius: Japan is just one example of why every word in this crackpot sentence sucks.

The test of faiths is whether they can make space for difference as described in the 1948 Universal Human Rights Declaration against all sorts of fascisms. And with this measures they all fail. Some less and some more, but from a Human Rights universal equality point of view only Atheism fills the measure. And dude, don't you ever conflate Atheism with Communism/socialism - you don't conflate apples and pears either, do you.

Sir Lord Rabbi Jew (or whatever) Jonathan Sacks: The greatest Jewish rabbi, Maimonedes got everything from the wonderful muslims of Andalus.

Sir Atheist "islamophobe" and Human Rights defender Klevius: Including the muslim attires he had to cover himself in so not to be killed by muslims, or the "great" Maimonides manner of pretending to be a muslim. Not to mention that if Maimonedes is considered a "great" Jew then the standard must be pretty low.

Not even muslims are safe among muslims.

Sir Atheist "islamophobe" and Human Rights defender Klevius wise words for an ignorant (hopefully, cause the alternative is worse):


Klevius sex segregation point: Never let heterosexual attraction shade personhood. Here both men and women often miss the point. Men see women as the "heterosexual other", sometimes even "inferior other", and women often contribute to this view by confusing their heterosexual attraction with their personhood. The "body" sociology didn't help either to get out of this unfortunate catch 22 that Klevius has pointed at since his teens*.

* As a teenager Klevius was forced out of his country alone, without money, and with no previous ties. However, although Klevius managed the language and fixed a decent job, he didn't manage the local, and quite different dialect, which caused problems communicating with prejudicial teen girls at noisy discotheques etc. However, in his job environment he happened to meet a very nice girl whose pictures he had used to drool over in a "men's magazine", and who told him she had never had sex. Klevius also met many young university teens who offered "posing" (sometimes Klevius got it even for free) in the main news paper and who had their "offices" just behind Klevius workplace in the most central part of the capital city. Those girls made a very distinct line (no copulation) between themselves and what they called the "whores". Times have changed but the entanglement of heterosexual attraction and female personhood in sex segregation is still equally unsolved for most girls/women. But with a (negative) Human Rights approach based on the 1948 Universal Human Rights Declaration no woman should have to suffer of sex segregational prejudices about sex - no matter how sexy men might think she looks like, and no matter if she doesn't want to have to do with heterosex or sex at all, icl. if she doesn't want to have children.

Yes, Klevius knows. These kind of thoughts make him an evil "islamophobe". But that's sadly the fate nowadays for anyone defending everyone's Human Rights - even women's.


Drawing from 1979 by Peter Klevius.

John Searle seems to have a quite different approach to heterosexual attraction and consciousness than Klevius.


In a lawsuit Joanna Ong, 24, is seeking damages for sexual harassment and assault as well as for wrongful termination and creation of a hostile work environment.
“As a philosopher, Searle should be familiar with the concept of coercion. Instead, he and the university have “used their power and platform to abuse others.”

The lawsuit, which lists Searle and the Regents of the University of California as defendants, claims Searle groped Ong in his office after he told her “they were going to be lovers.” He also said he had an “emotional commitment to making her a public intellectual,” the complaint states, and that he was “going to love her for a long time.” Ong turned Searle down and reported him to other UC Berkeley employees, but they did nothing, the complaint states. Instead, Searle cut Ong’s salary and she was eventually fired, according to the complaint, which also claims Searle watched pornography at work and made sexist comments.

Searle, 84, is famous for his work in the philosophy of language and the philosophy of mind and has taught at UC Berkeley since 1959.


Artificial intelligence (AI), consciousness - and EMAH


Wikipedia: Artificial intelligence (AI) is intelligence exhibited by machines. In computer science, the field of AI research defines itself as the study of "intelligent agents": any device that perceives its environment and takes actions that maximize its chance of success at some goal

Peter Klevius: A shock absorber fulfills every bit of this definition - and can be digitally translated, i.e. e.g. "shock absorbed by wire", either partially or fully!

Wikipedia: As machines become increasingly capable, mental facilities once thought to require intelligence are removed from the definition. For instance, optical character recognition is no longer perceived as an example of "artificial intelligence", having become a routine technology.

Are there limits to how intelligent machines – or human-machine hybrids – can be? A superintelligence, hyperintelligence, or superhuman intelligence is a hypothetical agent that would possess intelligence far surpassing that of the brightest and most gifted human mind. ‘’Superintelligence’’ may also refer to the form or degree of intelligence possessed by such an agent.

The philosophical position that John Searle has named "strong AI" states: "The appropriately programmed computer with the right inputs and outputs would thereby have a mind in exactly the same sense human beings have minds." Searle counters this assertion with his Chinese room argument, which asks us to look inside the computer and try to find where the "mind" might be.

Searle's thought experiment begins with this hypothetical premise: suppose that artificial intelligence research has succeeded in constructing a computer that behaves as if it understands Chinese. It takes Chinese characters as input and, by following the instructions of a computer program, produces other Chinese characters, which it presents as output.

Suppose, says Searle, that this computer performs its task so convincingly that it comfortably passes the Turing test: it convinces a human Chinese speaker that the program is itself a live Chinese speaker. To all of the questions that the person asks, it makes appropriate responses, such that any Chinese speaker would be convinced that they are talking to another Chinese-speaking human being.

Searle then supposes that he is in a closed room and has a book with an English version of the computer program, along with sufficient paper, pencils, erasers, and filing cabinets. Searle could receive Chinese characters through a slot in the door, process them according to the program's instructions, and produce Chinese characters as output. If the computer had passed the Turing test this way, it follows, says Searle, that he would do so as well, simply by running the program manually.

Searle asserts that there is no essential difference between the roles of the computer and himself in the experiment. Each simply follows a program, step-by-step, producing a behavior which is then interpreted as demonstrating intelligent conversation. However, Searle would not be able to understand the conversation. ("I don't speak a word of Chinese",he points out.) Therefore, he argues, it follows that the computer would not be able to understand the conversation either.

Searle argues that, without "understanding" (or "intentionality"), we cannot describe what the machine is doing as "thinking" and, since it does not think, it does not have a "mind" in anything like the normal sense of the word. Therefore, he concludes that "strong AI" is false.

Peter Klevius: Nonsense! 'Intentionality' is an illusion. There's no "gap" between input and output where 'intentionality' could be squeezed in. Moreover, if Searle believes in 'intentionality' he can't refute 'the free will' either. The machine could also be understood by the Chinese speakers without "understanding" - only fulfilling the Turing criterion. There is no 'understanding' or consciousness', other than the usage of these terms.

Wikipedia: No one would think of saying, for example, "Having a hand is just being disposed to certain sorts of behavior such as grasping" (manual behaviorism), or "Hands can be defined entirely in terms of their causes and effects" (manual functionalism), or "For a system to have a hand is just for it to be in a certain computer state with the right sorts of inputs and outputs" (manual Turing machine functionalism), or "Saying that a system has hands is just adopting a certain stance toward it" (the manual stance). (p. 263)

Searle argues that philosophy has been trapped by a false dichotomy: that, on the one hand, the world consists of nothing but objective particles in fields of force, but that yet, on the other hand, consciousness is clearly a subjective first-person experience.

Searle says simply that both are true: consciousness is a real subjective experience, caused by the physical processes of the brain. (A view which he suggests might be called biological naturalism.)

Ontological subjectivity

Searle has argued[48] that critics like Daniel Dennett, who (he claims) insist that discussing subjectivity is unscientific because science presupposes objectivity, are making a category error. Perhaps the goal of science is to establish and validate statements which are epistemically objective, (i.e., whose truth can be discovered and evaluated by any interested party), but are not necessarily ontologically objective.

Searle calls any value judgment epistemically subjective. Thus, "McKinley is prettier than Everest" is "epistemically subjective", whereas "McKinley is higher than Everest" is "epistemically objective." In other words, the latter statement is evaluable (in fact, falsifiable) by an understood ('background') criterion for mountain height, like 'the summit is so many meters above sea level'. No such criteria exist for prettiness.

Beyond this distinction, Searle thinks there are certain phenomena (including all conscious experiences) that are ontologically subjective, i.e. can only exist as subjective experience. For example, although it might be subjective or objective in the epistemic sense, a doctor's note that a patient suffers from back pain is an ontologically objective claim: it counts as a medical diagnosis only because the existence of back pain is "an objective fact of medical science".[49] But the pain itself is ontologically subjective: it is only experienced by the person having it.

Searle goes on to affirm that "where consciousness is concerned, the existence of the appearance is the reality".[50] His view that the epistemic and ontological senses of objective/subjective are cleanly separable is crucial to his self-proclaimed biological naturalism.

Klevius: All of this is more or less non sense due to a balancing act (deliberate or just out of ignorance) to satisfy certain needs and wishes. To understand this you need to read Klevius and contrast it with the above:

1 Existence-centrism (Klevius 1992:21-23, ISBN 9173288411), i.e. the simple fact that there's no difference between 'reality' and 'conscious experiences'.

2 Klevius EMAH - the Even More Astonishing Hypothesis which eliminates prejudices about the mind, as well as the naive idea about "a thoughtful and subjective brain", and therefore opens up for a human brain that fits the nature it belongs to and from which it emerged. Moreover, Klevius analysis also opens up for a more truly human approach to other humans, i.e. that that's what we have in common - and only we can see it, not a non-human (Klevius 1992:36-39), which fact doesn't eliminate that we should try to cope with non-humans in a "humane" way.






The preposterous thought that "we are special" stands on two contradicting pillars:

1 We, out of our existence-centrism (read Klevius' book, Jonathan!), define what's "outside" - i.e. the foundation for making (usually just some of) us "special".

2 Only by fully accepting our existence-centrism can we drop religions and fully understand what it is to be a human together with other humans (read carefully Klevius' analysis of the negative part of the Human Rights declaration, Jonathan!).