Is UK turning into a militaristic unconstitutional islamofascist rogue state?

Is UK turning into a militaristic unconstitutional islamofascist rogue state?

First UK people voted to join and share borders with EU. Then England voted to leave while Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to stay. And now UK politicians want to leave while keeping the Irish EU border open. UK lacks a modern constitution according to which a constitutional issue has to pass at least two majority votes.

UK sells weapons to Saudis - and smears peaceful China who can do better weapons themselves.

UK sells weapons to Saudis - and smears peaceful China who can do better weapons themselves.

Why is Theresa May excused for her secret ties with Saudi islamofascism?!

Why is Theresa May excused for her secret ties with Saudi islamofascism?!

Euronews/BBC kept for long a low profile about Saudi state terror. Why?

Euronews/BBC kept for long a low profile about Saudi state terror. Why?

A "close ally" of the islamofascist Saudi dictator family mixes OIC sharia with Human Rights

A "close ally" of the islamofascist Saudi dictator family mixes OIC sharia with Human Rights

Negative Human Rights for a Positive Human Future

Peter Klevius global morality can only be challenged by violating the most basic of Human Rights.

Everything Peter Klevius writes (or has written) is guided by the anti-sexist. anti-racist, and anti-fascist Universal* Human Rights declaration of 1948. In other words, what is declared immoral and evil is so done as measured against the most basic of Human Rights (the so called "negative" rights - i.e. the rights of the individual not to be unnecessarily targeted with restrictions and impositions). Unlike the 1948 Universal Human Rights (UHR) declaration, islam denies Human Rights equality to women and non-muslims. And violation of such basic Human Rights can't be tolerated just by referring to "freedom of religion".

* This means accepting everyone - without exception due to e.g. sex, religion, lack of religion, "security" etc. - as equal in Human Rights. The individual is protected by negative Human Rights, but of course not against substantiated legal accusations - as long as these are not produced as a means that violates the basic Human Rights (compare "not necessary in a free, democratic country"). The legislator may not produce laws that seek to undermine some individuals rights. This also includes e.g. "freedom of religion", i.e. that this freedom doesn't give the right to unfree others, or cause others to be in an inferior rights position. If by islam you mean something that fully adheres to basic Human Rights equality, then you aren't targeted by Peter Klevius islam criticism. However, if you mean islam accepts violations of the most basic of Human Rights, then you may also call Peter Klevius an "islamophobe" - and he will be proud of it. And when it comes to "security" it can't mean "offending" opponents to basic Human Rights.

This is why any effort to twist or accuse the writings of Peter Klevius as "islamophobia" etc. can only be made from a standpoint against these basic Human Rights. As a consequence, no body of authority can therefore accuse, hinder etc. Peter Klevius without simultaneously revealing its own disrespect for these Human Rights. Conversely, Peter Klevius can not accuse anyone who agrees on these rights - i.e. this leaves e.g. "islamophobia" etc. accusations against Peter Klevius without merit.

Every effort against these basic Human Rights is treason against a country calling itself free and democratic.

Definition of Negative Human Rights - i.e. the very foundation of the freedom part of the anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948.

Most people today are A(mono)theists, i.e. not "believing" in an impossible "one god"*. Such a "collective god" would mean equally many personal "gods" as there are believers/interpretors. "Monotheisms" are for racist/sexist movements - not for individuals. Human Rights are for individuals living among individuals with same rights.

Religion always means a total or partial reduction of some people's (e.g. women''s) Human Rights equality.

Being against A(mono)theism must be categorized as contempt of basic Human Rights equality because "monotheists" have doctrines which can't comply with basic Human Rights equality.
Klevius moral formula is a bedrock you can't beat:

1 There's no absolute and fixed moral in a dynamic society.

2 Therefor we have to repeatedly agree on a minimum moral and equality for all.

3 In doing so we are logically forced to approve of negative Human Rights, i.e. not to impose restrictions other than necessary in a democracy based on as much freedom as possible for all individuals - no matter of sex, race etc. And, for the truly dumb ones, do note that this definition excludes the freedom to restrict freedom.

* Though some people keep calling their own racist/sexist "interpretation" as "god's/allah's will").

Rabbi Sacks: "BBC runs Britain." Klevius: Pro-sharia BBC meddles/trolls worldwide.

Rabbi Sacks: "BBC runs Britain." Klevius: Pro-sharia BBC meddles/trolls worldwide.

UK PM escapes muslim terror induced by her "close ally", the islamofascist Saudi dictator family.


Saudi terror, war crimes, sharia - and "islamophobia" smear campaign against Human Rights.

Rule Britisharia Human Rightsphobia

Racist UK Government and BBC

Racist UK Government and BBC

UK's sharia ties to Saudi islamofascism threaten EU (and UK) security

UK's sharia ties to Saudi islamofascism threaten EU (and UK) security

Warning for BBC's faked "news" and support for Human Rights violating Saudi/OIC islamofascism

Warning for BBC's faked "news" and support for Human Rights violating Saudi/OIC islamofascism

Peter Klevius "islamophobia"/Human Rightsphobia test for you and your politicians

Sharia and weaponry keeps Brexit-UK in EU - with leaking borders and against the will of the people

Sharia and weaponry keeps Brexit-UK in EU - with leaking borders and against the will of the people

While EU closes internal borders it opens external ones.

While EU closes internal borders it opens external ones.

"Brits" who are racist against EU citizens but dare not criticize muslims - here's your passport.

"Brits" who are racist against EU citizens but dare not criticize muslims - here's your passport.

Welcoming UK's main security threat - and committing treason against the will of the people

Welcoming UK's main security threat - and committing treason against the will of the people

The ultimate treason against people in England, Ireland and Scotland

The ultimate treason against people in England, Ireland and Scotland

True Brits for the islamofascist Saudi dictator family and against Human Rights

Klevius: Face it, Wikipedia, BBC etc. fake media - Finland was first in the world with full suffrag

The network that reignited evil Human Rightsphobic sharia islam via al-Saud

Human Rightsphobe Jacob Rees-Mogg and BBC News crack jokes about Germans lacking humour

UK PM candidate Rees-Mogg: Germans needed Human Rights - we don't. Klevius: I really think you do.

Klevius "islamophobia" CV

Some basic facts to consider about Klevius* (except that he is both "extremely normal" and extremely intelligent - which fact, of course, would not put you off if you're really interested in these questions):

* Mentored by G. H. von Wright, Wittgenstein's successor at Cambridge.

1 Klevius' analysis of consciousness is the only one that fits what we know - after having eliminated our "pride" bias of being humans (which non-human would we impress, anyway?). Its starting point is described and exemplified in a commentary to Jurgen Habermas in Klevius book Demand for Resources (1992:30-33, ISBN 9173288411, based on an article by Klevius from 1981), and is further explained in a commentary to Francis Crick's book The Astonishing Hypothesis under the title The Even More Astonishing Hypothesis (EMAH), which can be found in Stalk's archive and which has been on line since 2003 for anyone to access/assess.

2 Klevius out of island/mainland fluctuating Southeast Asia Denisovans up to big skulled Siberians as the birth of much more intelligent modern humans who then spread all over the world, is the only analysis that fits both genetic reality as well as tool and art sophistication seen in e.g. the Denisova cave (no dude, Blombos etc. don’t come even close).

3 Klevius criticism of Human Rights violating sharia islamofascism (e.g. OIC) which is called "islamophobia" by islamofascists and their supporters who don't care about the most basic of Human Rights (e.g. re. women). Klevius' "islamophobia" has two roots: 1) UN's 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration, which, contrary to any form of muslim sharia, doesn't, for example, allow sex to be an excuse for robbing females of their full Human Rights equality, and 2) the history of the origin of islam ( e.g. Hugh Kennedy, Robert G. Hoyland, K. S. Lal etc.) which reveals a murderous, pillaging, robbing, enslaving and raping racist/sexist supremacist ideology that exactly follows precisely those basic islamic tenets which are now called "unislamic" but still survive today (as sharia approved sex slavery, sharia approved "liberation” jihad, academic jihad etc.) behind the sharia cover which is made even more impenetrable via the spread of islamic finance, mainly steered from the islamofascist Saudi dictator family.


4 Klevius analysis of sex segregation/apartheid (now deceptively called “gender segregation”) and heterosexual attraction - see e.g. Demand for Resources (1981/1992), Daughters of the Social State (1993), Angels of Antichrist (1996), Pathological Symbiosis (2003), or Klevius PhD research on heterosexual attraction/sex segregation and opposition to female footballers (published in book form soon).

Klevius 1979: Human Rights for girls/women rather than religion

Klevius 1979: Human Rights for girls/women rather than religion

BBC (imp)lies that 84% of the world is "monotheist" although most people are A(mono)theists

BBC (imp)lies that 84% of the world is "monotheist" although most people are A(mono)theists

Klevius can no longer distinguish between the techniques of BBC and Nazi propaganda - can you!

By squeezing in Atheist ideologies/philosophies as well as polytheisms under the super set BBC calls "religion", and by narrowing 'Atheism' to what it's not (Atheism is what it says on the tin - no god) they produced the extremely faked proposition that 84% of the world's population is "religious". Moreover, BBC also proudly claimed that the 84% figure is rising even more. Well, that's only by relying on those poor women in Pakistan, Bangladesh, English muslim ghettos (where most so called "British" women don't even speak English) etc., who still produce many more children than the average in the world. But Klevius doesn't think this abuse of girls/women is anything to cheer.

Racist Theresa May is robbing EU citizens of their Human Rights

Is Mrs Theresa May digging a miserable "British" sharia "empire" under the Brexit cliff?

Mrs May plays sharia with the islamofascist Saudi dictator family - skipping Human Rights. Right

This (via Saudi sharia finance) is the main threat to your Human Rights

This (via Saudi sharia finance) is the main threat to your Human Rights

Saudi muslim war criminal and Human-rightsophobe is loved by BBC

BBC, the world's biggest fake/selective news site - with an evil agenda

BBC, the world's biggest fake/selective news site  - with an evil agenda

BBC's compulsory fee funded propaganda for Saudi sharia islam

Support Klevius' Atheist anti-fascism against islamofascism

This is what BBC's muslim sharia presenter Mishal Husain "forgot" to report. Mishal grew up in the very same theocratic medieval dictatorship which now harbors and rules all muslims world organization OIC and its Human Rights violating sharia. While also spreading islamic hatred over the world through a variety of channels.

Klevius to dumb (or just evil) alt-left "antifa" people who support the worst of Human Rights violating evil:

True anti-fascism in its purest form is laid down in the Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948. Islam (OIC) has in UN decided to abandon the most basic of these rights (the so called negative Human Rights).

Fascism is, according to Google's top hit, "a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation*, and forcible suppression of opposition." 23 Aug 2017

So let's face islam with this definition.

A political philosophy, movement, or regime (islam) that exalts nation (Umma) and often race (muslims) above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government (Koran text/Mohammad's example) headed by a dictatorial leader (the caliph - e.g. the Saudi based OIC's Saudi leader), severe economic and social regimentation* (sharia), and forcible suppression of opposition (apostasy ban against muslims wanting to leave islam, and demonizing defenders of Human Rights by calling them "islamophobes").

And islamofascism gets away with it by calling itself a religion and thereby being protected by those very Human Rights it opposes.

* According to Cambridge dictionary, "extreme organization and control of people".

Is the islamofascist Saudi dictator "prince" Mohammad bin Salman the world's most dangerous man?

Is the islamofascist Saudi dictator "prince" Mohammad bin Salman the world's most dangerous man?
Is the islamofascist Saudi dictator "prince" Mohammad bin Salman the world's most dangerous man?

Saudi islamofascism attacks Buddhists - again and again - backed by Mrs May.

When will the world finally turn on the hateful Saudi dictator family - rather than on its victims?

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses while FEEding Lnd

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses while FEEding Lnd
The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses over you

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

The Viking phenomenon started with bilingual Finns raiding/trading sex slaves to Abbasid (ca 750)

What is "islamophobia"?

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 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.

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

Audi then built by Jewish slaves - today dangerous quality problems

Myth vs Truth

Thursday, October 18, 2018

Klevius nominates UK's new £50 note

UK cheat on a note that is doomed to extinction


The Bank of England is seeking nominations from the public for figures to feature on the £50 note. BBC suggests an upper class French-English Indian muslim. Why? However, Klevius nominates England's football cheater Harry Maguire. It's more in line with the new Brexit UK trying to cheat about keeping UK borders while skipping EU borders.

 UK PM Theresa May shares with the world's most dangerous man the dislike of Human Rights and love for sharia.


Klevius wrote:

Thursday, July 05, 2018

English cheating in the World Cup - and in security. Watch up EU! UK's "close ally", the islamofascist Saudi dictator family, is allied with muslim terrorists and considers basic Human Rights a "terrorist crime".

From Samba football to flesh football - and from disarmament to a PM that wouldn't hesitate to nuke civilians and whose cabinet is unsure about what's going on in UK chemical weapons plants.



100 kg of England's No. 6 Harry Maguire throws himself pathetically down BEFORE what he thought could have become a touch - but never did!

Football ("soccer" for you handball suckers) is called the beautiful game precisely because it's the most difficult of sports and because it fits every size and form - just like Human Rights equality.

The tendency to use bigger players for the purpose of pushing down technical "samba football" is paired with extreme lenience against "divers". It's destroying football and the cure lies in the hands of the referees and those who educate/program them.

Is Porton Down the center of chemical weapons production in the world? According to UK Government's* own website it possesses more than 1,000 chemical weapons munitions at every single time.

* Do note how the UK Government tries to downplay it by telling "the truth about Porton Down" and that "there are  no aliens at Porton Down".

Porton Down near Salisbury where Novichok has been found among civilians on several locations, occupies 2,800 ha identified as a "Danger Area" .




Humans have died inside Portom Down after experiments with nerve agents. Huge areas of Southern England has been repeatedly showered with dangerous bacteria without people been told. Etc. etc. Look it up!

Animal experiments are generally kept secret. Media reports have suggested they include exposing monkeys to anthrax, draining the blood of pigs and injecting them with E. coli bacteria, and exposing animals to a variety of lethal, toxic nerve agents.

Bruce George, Member of Parliament and Chairman of the Defence Select Committee, told BBC News on 20 August 1999 that:

    "I would not say that the Defence Committee is micro-managing either DERA or Porton Down. We visit it, but, with eleven members of Parliament and five staff covering a labyrinthine department like the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces, it would be quite erroneous of me and misleading for me to say that we know everything that’s going on in Porton Down. It’s too big for us to know, and secondly, there are many things happening there that I’m not even certain Ministers are fully aware of, let alone Parliamentarians."

Today with jihad islamic hatred spread by the islamofascist Saudi dictator family, the risks are manyfold and growing.

There are thousands and thousands of hateful muslims in England. However, simultaneously there's an alarmingly expanding Human Rightsphobia (because of sharia finance) among politicians which paves the way for even mor muslim extremism.



Wednesday, October 17, 2018

Don't bother buying Stephen Hawking's book. The man's dead and you get better answers from Klevius.

Klevius fears religiously edited humans more than "gene-edited superhumans" 



Klevius wonders what difference there could possibly be between evil aliens from "outer space" who camouflage as humans and then attacks us - or humans who do the same, and in both cases based on reasoning that is completely foreigb for us. It's in this context the negative Human Rights stand out as the only true ideological safety net.

When Saudi islamofascists use a consulate Saudi territory to sharia behead an other Saudi muslim for "disrespecting" the Saudi dictator Mohammad Salman, this behavior is completely alien for the civilized humankind.

 We've got loads of "gen-edited superhumans" already. Just make your pick. Is it Albert Einstein, Lionel Messi - or Peter Klevius? Or is it Mary Wollstonecraft, Marta da Silva - or Ayaan Hirsi Ali? The assessment of what is super is entirely yours. And what about "superhumans who would kill us all" - are they humans? And are we "superhumans" compared to those hunter-gatherers our way of life has killed off? Klevius recommends the last chapter in his 1992 book Demand for Resources. It's called Khoe, San and Bantu.


Stephen Hawking: Why are we here?

Peter Klevius: We are here because we can ask why we are here. The alternative would mean a strange state of "not being" in a "nothing" surrounded by something else. Although many people talk a lot about "nothing" they don't have a clue about what they mean by that (Klevius 1992).

Stephen Hawking: Will we survive?

Peter Klevius: Who are "we"? Did the Neanderthals survive? The only thing we can have in common as humans is the axiomatic idea about Human Rights. And apart from being axiomatic, this humankind may include individuals who have absolutely nothing else in common. "Human" is a human invention protected  (Klevius 1992).

Stephen Hawking: Will technology save or destroy us?

Peter Klevius: Again, who are "us". Which non-human should we ask (Klevius 1992)?

Stephen Hawking: Will we blossom in the future?

Peter Klevius: Certainly, just as we blossom now. "Blossoming" takes its fertilizer from the miserable past (Klevius 1992).

For those who don't understand Klevius short answers, here's a longer version (extracted from Klevius 1992):


There's no "real world" outside your experience. It is your experience*.

* The naive argument that "of course the stone is there when I leave" is corrected in the chapter Existencecentrism in Demand for Resources (Klevius 1992:21-22), and to prove adaptation (i.e. not "mind") Klevius conducted the ultimate experiment, also in Demand for Resources (Klevius 1992:31-33, ISBN 9173288411):

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.

If one cannot observe something without understanding it, all our experiences are illusions because of the eternal string of corrections made by later experience. What seems to be true at a particular moment may turn out to be something else in the next, and what we call understanding is merely 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 observation 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, i.e.it's a prerequsite for observation. As a consequence it's not meaningful to separate observation and understanding..



Everything is adaptation - even the playing with language.


Humankind as well as individual humans are always trapped in existencecentrism (see Klevius 1992:21-22, ISBN 9173288411) meaning that the only step possible to enter metaphysics is this step backwards into the realization of the relativity of being "human".

As Klevius has said in public since 1992, the human condition (individual and collective existencecentrism) excludes every other assessment of what it means to be human. However, scientists and other thinkers often miss this point, hence causing a category fallacy.   

What could possibly define the qualifications of being a human? Not a single positive definition suffices. Which leaves us with the negative and axiomatic ones:

1 The axiomatic agreement on who counts as a human.

2 The negative Human Right not to be imposed segregation affecting rights.

Understanding existencecentrism is compulsory when debating the human condition because only then one can distinguish between what can be said about humans.

When Searle says his car or calculator aren't in the business of understanding he makes the biggest possible category mistake. In fact so big so he (hopefully) must have understood it himself, which fact leaves one to think he's talking like a politician.

What business? The business of being stupid! No, machines can't do that. If, according to Searle, machines don't understand - despite machine learning - then what's the point of implying human "understanding"? Searle is incoherent in comparing human understanding with machime understanding. By doing so he presets a rule that excludes machines already before the comparison. To better understand this you may consider developing Searles machines to sophisticated AI robots without loosing the principal humanmade distinction between human and machine. Or, alternatively, if you erase that distinction then there's only a (possibly) quantiatative, not qualitative difference between Searle and his machines.

Searle's problem is that he hasn't read Klevius 'existencecentrism' chapter (1992) and clearly has lacked the capacity to come up with it himself.



Klevius wrote:

Friday, May 19, 2017



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!).


Monday, October 15, 2018

BBC continues its faking about the islamofascist Saudi "guardians of islam" while simultaneously being complicit to keeping all muslims hostage to the Saudis by lumping them all together in the Saudi anti-"islamophobia" smear campaign.

 Today'smost dangerous  fascism comes from Saudi Arabia - not from Bavaria or Birmingham.


BBC talks long about "islamophobia" and AFD just after having in a couple of seconds reported about the murderous Saudi custodians of islam. How is this not fake news and fascist propaganda. Moreover, BBC has the nerve to call criticism of islamofascism "hate of muslims". Same BBC which NEVER mentions Saudi based and steered OIC's Human Rights violating world sharia. Nor does BBC tell its compulsory fee paying listeners about the selfevident possibility to distinguish between islamofascist muslims and Human Rights respecting muslims. Why?! Simply because that would weaken the Saudi jihad sword - and make it harder to accuse islam critics for "hate speech".

No one accuses "all muslims" for what the evil custodians of islam have been up to. It's just an incidious and sinister lie by BBC to constantly imply so while neglecting the wider context.

And who dug themselves into this Saudi islamofascist mess in the first place? Colonial and imperialist Britain of course.

In 1916, with the encouragement and support of Britain (which was fighting the Ottomans in World War I), the Sharif of Mecca, Hussein bin Ali, led a pan-Arab revolt against the Ottoman Empire to create a united Arab state. Although the Arab Revolt of 1916 to 1918 failed in its objective, the Allied victory in World War I resulted in the end of Ottoman suzerainty and control in Arabia.

Ibn Saud (see below) avoided involvement in the Arab Revolt, and instead continued his struggle with the Al Rashid. Following the latter's final defeat, he took the title Sultan of Nejd in 1921. With the help of the Ikhwan, the Hejaz was conquered in 1924–25 and on 10 January 1926, Ibn Saud declared himself "king" of the Hejaz. A year later, he added the title of "king" of Nejd. For the next five years, he administered the two parts of his dual kingdom as separate units.

After the conquest of the Hejaz, the Ikhwan leadership's objective switched to expansion of the Wahhabist realm into the British protectorates of Transjordan, Iraq and Kuwait, and began raiding those territories. This met with Ibn Saud's opposition, as he recognized the danger of a direct conflict with the British. At the same time, the Ikhwan became disenchanted with Ibn Saud's immigration policies and increase in the number of non-muslim foreigners. As a result, they turned against Ibn Saud and, after a two-year struggle, were defeated in 1929 at the Battle of Sabilla, where their leaders were massacred. On 23 September 1932 the Hejaz and Nejd were united as the "Kingdom of Saudi Arabia" (see below).

This development happenedalmost simultaneously with the birth of the British empire propaganda broadcaster BBC. Later on the BBC World Service began in 1932 as the BBC Empire Service.

The old religious "British" repeats itself in the Brexit problem. Religion is a power tool. It's completely irrelevant to talk about individual "believers" "faith" and "prayers", when both the origin of islam as well as islam today is totally in the hands of dictators and politicians hunting for booty with the help of the jihad sword.

British political "logic":


Sharia islam(ofascism) is good for the Brits, as long as it doesn't threatens PM/government/parliament - as it did.





The border between EU and UK should be left open because otherwise it reignites the religious problem that caused it in the first place when the British empire colonized Ireland. What? Did Klevius hear someone repeating BBC's false mantra "it's not about religion"? Of course it is. What else could fuel religion? Individuals praying by themselves?!

 England chose to leave EU while leaving EU's gate open on Ireland. Wasn't the very reason that English voters voted Brexit that they were worried about Merkel's stupid idea to open up for islamofascist immigrants via Turkey?


How BBC brainwashes Brits with faked info


BBC today (via cherry picked "guests") again told the "Brits" about "white anti-immigrant men" who dislike "blacks and muslims". This typical and incidious double talk way of problem formulating monopoly not only seduces listeners associations to innocent and possibly poor or at least pity needing blacks and muslims in general, for the purpose of hiding the real culprits namely sharia islamofascists of whatever skin color.

Most people have never realized the core of original islam - no matter historians have reported about it clearly being robbing, raping, torturing, taxing and enslaving of "non-believers" excused by "Allah"/the Koran and the "last messenger". However, now the islamofascist Saudi dictator family* has made this core extremely visible for even the most stubborn deniers. At least Trump was honest when saying it was all about money. He could have added that the same logic applied to the Nazis and their collaborators. However, islam is much more global than Nazism because islam uses half of the population, women, to reproduce biologically as well as culturally new muslims who are told that the worst crime they can commit is apostasy, i.e. to leave islam. Moreover, this one way system is strengthened by muslim women being forbidden to marry non-muslim men.

* Per definition the concept of the "islamofascist Saudi dictator family" of course only includes the islamofascist members, i.e. not the ones biologically related but opposing islamofascism.

The murderous history of the islamofascist Saudi dictator  family



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:Al-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 by side with the British soldiers to loot and kill the soldiers and supporters of The Ottomani Khilafah.

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 William H. Shakespeare, a close advisor to Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman was murdered 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”ä 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 and 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 Turkish Ottoman 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 gold coins.

1917-1926, Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman and his organized Wahhabi gangsters in military style and with the help of British soldiers succeeded in controlling the whole of Najd and Hijaz.

8 January 1926 Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman (Known as Ibn-Saud) was self-proclaimed "king" of Arabia and 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 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 draw 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”.

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.

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 laid the foundations of the current Pirate state.

In 1953, The pirate "king" Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman died and Saud the eldest son of Abdul Aziz succeeded the "throne".

In 1957, "king" Saud made the first trip by a Saudi dictator-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 and Faisal Bin Abdul Aziz became king.

"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 he was murdered by his brother Fahd.

In 1975, Khalid Bin Abdul Aziz became "king".

In 1982 he was poisoned by his brother Fahd .

In 1982, Fahd became "king".

"King" Fahd Bin Abdul-Aziz was the pirate ruler of the pirate state of so-called Saudi-Arabia until he died and the dement "king" Salman became a puppet for his murderous son who now is accused of having murdered Jamal Khashoggi in a Saudi consulate in Europe (Islanbul).

The islamofascist “Royal Family” of Saudi Arabia is the leading champion of all efforts to wipe out and demolish the archelogical history of islam. Najd and Hijaaz were the former names of so-called Saudi Arabia today. The dark history of Hijaaz started with the ruthless, coward, savage and murderous Abdul-Aziz Bin Saud, who established himself as "king" back in 1932.

With the help of the British, Saudi Arabia became the only country in the world named after its dictator.

Sunday, October 14, 2018

BBC's sinister* faking, neglecting, bigotry and hypocrisy has long since become almost indistinguishable from Nazi state propaganda.

* What else could support of islamofascism, muslim terror and war crimes possibly be called! And the Saudi based and steered Human Rights violating sharia organization OIC hasn't even been mentioned.

Klevius to England: Retake the crown from the islamofascist Saudi "kingdom"!
Klevius to the Greens: Clean your oil and sharia soiled color from islamofascism!


Acknowledgement: Klevius apologized for his "islamophobia" on the web that has made his pics the most popular when searching for 'Saudi islamofascism'.

Also, how come that the muslim "custodian of islam", i.e. the islamofascist muslim Saudi dictator family, is rarely called muslim?! Are they muslims or not?


Anyone supporting the islamofascist Saudi dictator family has blood on his/her hands.


There's a lot talk about "diversity" and "too many white men". So Klevius now asks #MeToo: What about old "white" women?

Why is BBC so reluctant to report about Theresa May's dirty business with her "close ally" the islamofascist muslim dictator family in the made up "kingdom" of Saudi Arabia?


The world is closing in on Klevius by getting more "islamophobic"/Saudophobic by the day. Muslims who adhere to true Human Rights equality have long since qualified as "islamophobic" just as Klevius. Are politicians the last to abandon sharia islamofascism?

Isn't it now time for the world to take a definite stance against religious fascism!

Islamofascism has for too long been allowed to hide behind those very Human Rights it wants to get rid of.


Why are islamofascists allowed to speech hate against Human Rights in EU?


Is EURONEWS steered by the murderous Saudis? At least one gets that impression based on their "reporting" in accordance with the demands from the islamofascist Saudi dictator family.


Saturday, October 13, 2018

Fake state "news" British BBC mentions the US president but somehow filtered out its own PM's Saudi relation.

Klevius to EU: Don't do security business with Theresa May!She is too close with "the custodians of islam".


Theresa May's stubborn support of the murderous and war crimes and terrorism committing Saudi islamofascists is the biggest threat to people in Europe.

The British government's "islamophobia" rhetoric is all about protecting "the worst of the worst", i.e. the islamofascist Saudi dictator family* which constitutes a shame for any decent people there or elsewhere.

* Those in the family who have fled or being suppressed obviously don't belong to the set.

Theresa may escaping Saudi induced muslim terrorism.

Theresa May's ugly love affair with the islamofascist Saudi dictator family which she calls "our important ally". How many in UK agree with her?




















.