Would Peter Klevius today have qualified as the first human on the Moon? After all, he's been told by strangers in four countries to "go home" - incl. in his country of birth.

Peter Klevius would probably not have qualified today. After all, he's a man with "white" skin and an "islamophobic" Human Rights defender - not a sharia muslim.

So why didn't islam make it to the Moon?

Islam's core idea is parasitism on slaves - which made islam the biggest slave raider and trader the history knows of. And when the West forbade slavery islam went down until the West found oil in muslim countries - especially the Western invention the Saudi "kingdom" whose murderous war criminal "prince" is now the "guardian of islam".

Not only has islam been the most devastating ideology historians have revealed - this evilness now continues via islam's main representative in UN, the Saudi based and steered OIC and its sharia declaration which openly violates the anti-fascist Human Rights declaration from 1948. And precisely because of this inborn evilness islam is now protected against criticism by the islamist invention "islamophobia".

John Hawks unwittingly asks the question that disproves "out of Africa" - and proves how important Peter Klevius* anti bias definition of science is.

* No dude, self referencing isn't at all stupid but rather necessary in this particular case.

John Hawks: The problem is that we don’t know if these (African middle stoneage Homo) populations ever met.

Peter Klevius: Africa's middle stone age covers a few hundred thousand years. Yet Homo floresiensis and Homo luzonensis managed (according to out of Africa dreamers) to end up on Flores and Luzon more than at least a million years earlier. By changing direction you get a fluctuating source isolation capable of exporting new variants and avoiding the "meeting problem" (hybridization which might produce some interesting phenotypes but no true evolution).

Peter Klevius suggestion to John Hawks: Why don't you come out now from your African closet while you still have some honor left?Moreover, your bone expertice hugely outperforms Peter Klevius, who, in turn, could tell you something about Homo naledia.

Peter Klevius evolution formula: From production (isolation) to end consumption (diversity). After meeting with Richard Leakey in the 1980s Peter Klevius started wondering about mongoloid features of  native Africans. This led to Jinniushan and the rest is history - spiced with Homo floresiensis and Denisovans.

Citations ought to be aligned with the problem - not with bias. Drawing and text by Peter Klevius (1992). However, citations are easy to manipulate through cherry picking or by offering "advisory" citation lists. And then these lightly or heavily skewed citatiions constitute the building blocs of a scientific aproach that is biased in line with peer reviewers  (Klevius 1992, chapter Science and References).

UK Ambassador Darroch: US presidency is clumpsy, inept, hobbled by infighting, unlikely to improve, dysfunctional, unpredictable, not normal. Trump is insecure, lies, not competent and a disgrace. PM May: Frank and good advise.

Peter Klevius wonders whether this is a good job done by a top diplomat? Moreover, is UK also using the same diplomacy against Saudi Arabia?

Kim Darroch, UK’s ambassador to the US: The Trump administration is, clumpsy inept, hobbled by infighting, unlikely to improve, dysfunctional, unpredictable, and not normal. Trump radiates insecurity, uses false claims and invented statistics, and will never look competent. And when his presidency ends, it may very well come crashing down in disgrace.

UK Parliament seemed to fully approve of Kim Darroch's analysis because he was eagerly supported while the reaction to this tirade was condemned.

PM Theresa May: "good and frank information".

Peter Klevius wonders how this fits some conventional understanding of diplomacy?

An ambassador is the highest-ranking representative to a specific nation or international organization abroad. ... A key role of an ambassador is to coordinate the activities not only of the Foreign Service Officers and staff serving under him, but also representatives of other U.S. agencies in the country.

The definition of diplomatic is someone who can be sensitive in dealing with others and who can achieve peaceful resolutions or facilitate discussion. A person who doesn't take sides in a fight but who instead helps others to resolve their differences is an example of someone who is diplomatic.

An ambassador represent the interests and policies of her/his country and is supposed to build and grow relationships.

Jeremy Hunt wants to grossly increase militaristic meddling around the world and thereby spending less on other sectors while potentially making parts of the world more hostile to UK. Jeremy Hunt also wants to deepen even more UK's already tight connection with the most evil country on the planet, i.e. Saudi Arabia.

State media BBC,s leading presenter, the alcohol drinking and not Ramadan fasting Pakistan rooted and Saudi fostered muslim Mishal Husain (left on the pic) now uses her ivory tower position (paid by compulsory fees) to relentlessly attack Boris Johnson (in the face of the majority of Tory members in England) and to propagate for cricket (in the face of football women and girls) - on top of her never ending campaign against Human Rights and for islamic sharia. Think about it, a lovely sounding presenter who makes people think anti-Human Rights propaganda is just fine.

Football loving (or potentially loving) girls and women in England: BBC's Pakistan rooted, alcohol drinking and not Ramadan fasting, leading presenter, muslim Mishal Husain, is your main enemy.

Mishal Husain uses BBC for extreme pro cricket propaganda (i.e. in practice anti football), which equals a spit in the face of female football at a time when Women's 2019 Football World Cup could have been used to inspire girls to play "the beautiful game"

  that isn't only the most popular sport but also extremely important for girls physical and psychological emancipation. Why propagate for limited movements when football puts everyone and every muscle in motion - incl. the brain? Even a short break with football puts everyone in motion no matter how much you happen to touch the ball. And it quickly teaches you to try to alter your position in a clever way.

State media BBC faking sports "news" 

This video exmplifies state media BBC's undemocratic and faked  presentation of sports "news".






.

Peter Klevius congratulates US football (no dude, not American handball) women for winning the World Cup 2019, and blames BBC for undermining the Queen of sports - just as England did 1921.

BBC took the opportunity to throw shit on girls/women's football on the final day of Women's Football World Cup 2019.

 BBC used most of their main news hour today to propagate for more cricket for young girls. This is in line with a long lasting history of resistance against girls/women playing the most popular sport ever.

The tea drinking puppet empire banned women from playing football on FA grounds 1921-1971.

Peter Klevius has made the most extensive research on the background to the ban and how it was connected to the introduction of Swedish gymnastics for English girls.

Here just a small aperitife:





Extracted from Peter Klevius research:

The pioneering role of club gymnastics (Swedish ’föreningsgymnastik’) was an all-European phenomenon - except for in the British Islands. In Sweden this was especially natural because of the Ling gymnastics tradition (Lindroth 1988:40). Since the end of the 19th century there has been a continuous differentiation of competitive sport. I doubt, says Hjelm, that a ‘league IV’ heavyweight boxer would consider himself a better boxer than the Swedish lightweight champion only because he would win a match between them. This is why weight classes as a form of differentiation were introduced in boxing.  The official introduction of girls and women football in the 1970s hence represents a common way of organizing sport in Sweden (Hjelm 2004: 284). Similarly, it is hard to imagine that the many male sprinters who run faster than the world's best female sprinters but not as fast as the best male sprinters, would consider their wins in some local competition equally worthy as a female Olympic gold medal. Yet the same logic seems often to be missing when comparing male and female football.

Gender and ‘class-neutral’ football

Andersson (2002) has written an account of Swedish football's cultural history from the end of the 19th century to 1950. Furthermore, Andersson has surveyed the manner in which football could attain such a strong cultural position, and a class neutral character, to the extent that it could be automatically classified as the national sport of Sweden. Andersson concludes that the middle class dominated power elite in Sweden tried to control the development of sport through the federations, at both national and regional levels: the management of elite clubs; sports journalism; the referee corps; and, often, even the running of sports grounds. All of this was aimed at the realisation of football as a manly, class nonspecific, and successful Swedish project (Andersson 2002: 624).

However, this bourgeois middle-class sport power elite that was initially dominated by younger or middle aged males, aged and changed to a group of somewhat older middle class men, with the values of the male working class and of social democracy. So, although there originally existed two English cultures in Sweden - amateur and professional football - while the Swedish bourgeoisie went for the gentleman amateur values with the main objective to use the game as an element in nurturing masculinity for the good of the nation, this was later transformed to better correspond to the popular ‘mixed’ football culture (Andersson 2002: 628-629). In this context it may be worth mentioning the extraordinary long lasting and strong position the social democratic party came to have in Sweden.

Ideology bearing thoughts and convictions regarding ‘wholesome masculinity’, the nurturing of a gentlemanly identity, as well as amateurism and class crossing nationalism was transformed from a sound and ‘healthy manliness’ based on military character to approximate the popular movement’s ideals of duty and conscientiousness, albeit without compulsory temperance. Furthermore, in accordance with a rather freer male ideal, all boys were welcomed to participate, and gentlemanliness was transmuted towards proletarian comradeship, and a class related amateurism developed closer to professional football. A professional and scientific attitude, in which the will to win was central, emerged in Sweden (Andersson 2002: 629).

According to Andersson, football was masculinized through the ideals of the working-class because it was well suited to a Swedish working class culture that not only paid tribute to collective ideals, but also contained a tradition anchored rivalry between different groups, not least young men in neighbouring communities. ‘In this way, the game's masculine character was established’, despite what representatives of Ling gymnastics opined about football's danger to physical wellbeing (Andersson, 2002: 624). That football during the inter-war period was a definitively masculine sport was, according to Andersson, demonstrated when  a more ‘entertainment orientated’ ladies' football was established in Sweden around 1920. Andersson traces the origins of female participation in football to women’s generally strengthened societal position. However, according to Andersson, the main reason for their entry onto the pitch was economic. Although women’s football in Sweden in this period was ridiculed and never developed beyond a humorous spectacle into a sport based on serious matches between contending women’s team, in this way women’s football contributed, albeit in a small way, to the sport's comprehensive commercialisation (Andersson 2002: 624).

In Sweden, the development of competitive sport was simultaneous with the continued expansion of gymnastics for women, to such an extent that it became a female domain (E. Olofsson 1989:203). Female competitive sport played a rather diminutive role in Sweden (and Finland – two major players in male sport). This may be due to the early democratisation of the sport, i.e. that many working class males were drawn to sport so that the emphasis was altered towards  more male/manly (’manlig’) sports like football, hence making access to the middle class sporting culture - which hitherto had been at least partially open for women - more difficult (Andersson 2002: 80). All in all, this background seems to support the view that Swedish social-democracy did not benefit female footballers.


Equal or particular participation?

Olofsson (1989:201) uses the concepts of equality and peculiarity to describe women’s situation in Sweden, and claims that it is,
‘Based on a comparison between women and men, where the man is the norm, whom the woman is like equality, or unlike - peculiarity. An attitude to women that can be ranged under the concept of equality can be regarded as the opposite of an attitude to women ranged under the concept of peculiarity.’

Olofsson continues by asking: ‘Is there a universal likeness between people or are there basic differences?’Women's participation in competitive sport, according to Olofsson, is based on a preconceived idea of how a particular sport is performed by men. As a consequence, women's participation in competitive sport can be said to be based on equality between the sexes. This is the root of the opposition to women's participation in sport, because the form and rules of sport are based on the idea that it should be performed by men. Within the sports movement, Olofsson (1989: 200-1) continues, as in the rest of society: ‘the opinion that women are different from men has been, and still is to some extent, prevalent’. The idea of women's physical inferiority is the most conspicuous one among men in leading positions within the sports movement. However, this reasoning may miss the fact that even within the sexes (e.g. weight classes) the same holds true. Moreover, there is also a tendency, albeit perhaps still rather subtle, to see the advantages of women in typically male dominated sports. In racing, for example, a smaller and lighter body is clearly advantageous if only the skills are there. Danica Patrick is in this respect a good example. Her driving skills paved the way for what can only be considered full equality as a driver in the eyes of the male drivers.

Although women's participation in sport, according to Olofsson, presupposes equality that does not exist, the doors to male sport have gradually been opened for women. According to Olofsson there is no such thing as women's sports, only female participants in male sport. On the other hand, gymnastics for women has existed for a long time, based on the assumption of women's peculiarity an activity which, officially, is gradually disappearing (Olofsson 1989: 200-201). Olofsson has shown particularly that many doors to competitive sports were opened for women in Sweden in the 1970s. The motives for this, Olofsson clarifies by examining women's conditions in football. Even if sport had lagged behind the official work for equality, the sports movement was pressed to open the doors for women in the 1970s (Olofsson 1989: 205).

The development of women's football indicates another dimension compared with men's football. Interviews with female leaders show that women have a somewhat different attitude to their sports activities. The work for equality carried out by the Sport Confederation in Sweden has also, in the last few years, been based on the conviction that women can bring new ideas into sport. This springs from an attitude to women based on social peculiarity. Paradoxically, says Olofsson (1989: 205), the social peculiarity of women is perhaps more difficult to eliminate in sport than the biological. And at the same time, it is not possible or desirable that it should be preserved. This is probably an insoluble conflict between the conditions of competitive sport on one hand and women's conditions on the other. The concepts of equality and peculiarity illuminate the counterstrategies used by women in their efforts to be integrated into the sports movement (Olofsson 1989: 205-206). However, Olofsson's description 'that women have a somewhat different attitude to their sports activities' seems to assume a  general female attitude despite the fact that women can not be seen as a homogeneous group other than biologically, and that the interviews may be the result of the time being and the segregation experienced, or even just the lack of quality of a young and less established sport.

Contrary to gymnastics it seems that female football became sexed when introduced. Olofsson notes that the female PE teachers in the beginning of the 20th century motivated females for gymnastics and their entry into the sports movement in line with the ideology of the times, i.e. female peculiarity. This was in opposition to the beginning of gymnastics for women which was, in many respects, identical with that of men. Olofsson has not been able to trace any opposition to this, but concludes that one explanation may be that the idea of equality between the sexes facilitated women's encroachment on the new field of gymnastics. Olofsson then assumes that the women involved gradually discovered that in this way gymnastics did not become an activity for women. Women's counter-strategy became to emphasize female peculiarity. This attitude to women was also prevalent in other social sectors at this time.

However, when (around 1970) women entered the world of football in Sweden and elsewhere they, according to Olofsson, chose another counter-strategy. Now they emphasized equality, which was in line with the prevalent attitude to women. This strategy, Olofsson continues, can be explained in the same way, i.e. the motive of equality is the ‘natural’ motive for women's encroachment into a new field. Then, in the 1970s and the 1980s, the ideology of peculiarity gained new ground, both within the sports movement as well as in the rest of society (Olofsson 1989: 206).

However, an examination of one of Sweden’s foremost feminist organizations in the late 1960s and 1970s, the left wing communism inspired Grupp Åtta (Group 81), reveals that sport was seldom debated in positive terms among its members. Furthermore, football was seen as an ‘unacceptable and uninteresting “masculine” form of culture’ (Hjelm 2004: 277). This is the more contradictory because, according to Hjelm, the same feminists also proposed that women, at an individual as well as at a collective level, should try and learn new activities – such as, for example, amateur painting, and performing political music and theater – things they had not dared to try before (Hjelm 2004: 177). Under the feminist Group 8, Swedish females would most probably not have been encouraged to play football.

For feminists and the political left in Sweden competitive sports in general, and especially football, were ‘hopelessly characterized by masculinity’, and, according to one informant from the original Group 8, sport supervisors and teachers of gymnastics were among the worst ‘indoctrinators of our rigid sex role patterns’ (Hjelm 2004: 276). Another aspect of the female resistance against female football seems related and very consistent over time. Whereas in the 1920s the concern about dangers facing sporting females targeted the reproductive organs, in the 1960s the focus was laid on ‘dangling’ breasts, and more recently on the disturbed menstruation cycle. In England, the concern about female fragility has led to the situation that girls and boys aged 12 are not allowed to play against each other (Kosonen 1991, Seiro 2002 in Paavola 2003: 33). All of these can be seen as different aspects of the same underlying resistance, especially targeting football and seemingly paradoxically including many female critics.

It has been noted that sporting females have not internalized role conflicts (Laitinen 1983, 34). However, asks Paavola (2003: 43), herself a footballer, if sporting females do not experience role conflicts, would it be possible that those women for whom sport does cause such conflicts, do not participate in sport because of this?  This conclusion may be adapted not only to the case of the Swedish feminist Group 8 above but also, and similarly, to all the girls that have avoided football precisely because it poses role conflicts. In this light, the Swedish feminists from the 1970s described above seem to have been basically separatist and hence ‘real feminists’ as it is understood here, and consequently for a  continuing sex segregation. Furthermore, a logical consequence of this reasoning would be that much of the so called ‘equal-feminist’ movement was not feminist after all, but rather a social twin to the early women’s movement for the vote and other equal rights.

Hjelm (2004: 278) records some self-criticism among Swedish feminists in the late 1970s. Although the fact that many girls were interested in sports had surprised feminists, the next reaction seems to have been that these girls were unfairly treated. Hjelm asserts that female football teams did not evolve only because women wanted to challenge the existing masculine hegemony, through experience such as paid work, as students, or through the sex role debate.  It was at least equally important that the preconditions for football and competitive sport in general had changed because women had left their homes and had now parted into women communities (Hjelm 2004: 259-272). However, according to Pfister et al the myths of masculinity and femininity which are associated with different body or sport practices are dependent on the prevailing social and gender orders. So, for example, from the very beginning, the participation of men and women in certain forms of physical exercise or sport was tied to rules and norms pertaining to gender. ‘It was, above all, women who in compliance with existing gender roles were barred from sporting activities’ (Pfister et al 1999: 66-67).

In conclusion Hjelm’s position asserts that women who had left their homes wanted to challenge existing masculine hegemony, while Phister et al (1999) emphasise the myths of masculinity and femininity which are dependent on prevailing sex segregation. In this light, Hjelm’s view seems more focused on women alone, whereas Pfister et al’s position seems more open for a broader interpretation.

‘Female football was an embarrassing, shameful and disgracing activity, especially unsuitable for women’

The pioneers of women's football seem to have emphasized the aspect of equality. This idea agreed with the prevalent attitude to sport that existed within the Swedish Football Association. However, some representatives of women's football emphasize that women have a lower physical capacity than men, and that by using a smaller ball, women would be able to play ‘real’ football (Olofsson 1989: 205). Translated to 100 m runners it would mean that women should run some 8 meter shorter distance.

A motive for the favourable disposition of the Football Association to women's participation in football can be traced back to the general development of society, i.e. that the official work for equality between men and women was mainly based on the ideology of equality between the sexes. It would therefore have been difficult for the Swedish Football
Association to point out the ‘improper’ aspects of football for women (Olofsson 1989: 205).

Based on interviews and press research, Hjelm (2004:276) concludes that ‘nothing before the end of the 1970s’ implies that the Swedish women’s movement was interested in the struggle of early female footballers, or even that struggle was worth of their support. According to one of Hjelm’s feminist informants – one of the leaders in the feminist Group 8  who had actually watched a game in 1968 - female football was an embarrassing, shameful and disgracing activity, and one especially unsuitable for women (Hjelm 2004: 276). Feminists in other countries shared this view (Hargreaves 1994: 25). An examination of one of Sweden’s foremost feminist organizations in the late 1960s and 1970s, Grupp Åtta (Group 82), reveals that sport was seldom debated in positive terms. Furthermore, football was seen as an ‘unacceptable and uninteresting ‘masculine’ form of culture’ (Hjelm 2004: 277). This seems perfectly in line with the view that women actively and with power contributed to the 1921 ban in England.

Extracted from Peter Klevius yet to be published book Born to Play a Sport of Nature.

.










.

In Women's 2019 Football World Cup the English Puppet Empire's coach turned out to be a lousy loser.

Peter Klevius congratulates Sweden's team for their superb win and bronze medal - with some extra credit to Jakobsson, Blackstenius and Fischer.

After the defeat the English coach Phil Neville considered it a "non sense match". Peter Klevius wonders whether he also considers the November 2018 friendly defeat against Sweden a "non sense match"?

Sofia Jakobsson's wonderful goal against England was perhaps the best we've seen in this World Cup. Why? Because it wasn't only perfectly aimed and curved, it was superbly timed on the right side of the defender who on the pic is on the right side of Jakobsson.

Peter Klevius recommends abandoning the Puppet Empire mentality and welcomes England as an ordinary country among others. Or are you a real country when you sometimes call yourselves a UK country and sometimes act as four countries?

Nila Fischer assisted as goalkeeper.

However, the 2019 Women's World Cup has mostly been mastered by senior players to a degree that makes one wonder where all the potential young female football geniuses are hiding?

Peter Klevius wrote:

Tuesday, November 13, 2018

Peter Klevius congratulates Nilla Fischer for winning the 2018 Diamond Ball award in Sweden

Football (no dude, not American handball) is the Queen of all sports.

No, dear reader, this image isn't here to emphasize something so stupid as "sexual identity". What is it? Klevius doesn't have a clue about his "sexual identity" and certainly doesn't miss it. And why even care about it? According to the anti-sexist, anti-racist and anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948 sex shouldn't matter. And isn't it stupid to connect football with private life etc.? The only reason Klevius assembled this image was to emphasize that because football is the trickiest and most multifaceted sport there is, women's participation has been more questioned than in most other sports. 100 years ago in Sweden when women in Gothenburg wanted to start playing football they were "advised" to play handball instead. This aversion against female football has led to much prejudice bolstered by cultural sex segregation. For Klevius the image represents that deep love for football (or seduction as Klevius prefers it) doesn't exclude deep love for other humans. But perhaps most importantly, in Klevius research and interviews in depth it has become extremely clear that football provides precisely that liminal non-sex segregated space that is lacking elsewhere. And although Klevius might be described as extremely heterosexual, when watching females playing football it's precisely the de-sexed character of the sport that is most rewarding. In football women become humans.

Human Rights rather than sex segregated religion - drawing from 1979 by Peter Klevius.

Klevius also wants to remind you dear reader about these facts:

1 Women's football was (in practice) forbidden in 1921 in England by English FA because a female physician from Harley Street, London, witnessed as an expert that football wasn't appropriate for girls/women. This, btw, was the reason why Klevius bothered himself to write a PhD thesis about women's football history in England and Sweden. There's a deep connection - and you can read about it soon when it's out in book format.

2 In Sweden socialist women (Grupp 8) vehemently opposed female football in the 1960s and 70s.



Klevius wrote:

Monday, July 17, 2017

Women's Euro cup 2017 has started - but BBC's women ignore it and rather talk cricket(because cricket is Commonwealth - backwardness?!)

Football is the king/queen of all sports, and therefore officially banned for women in England 1921-1971 - and in practice unofficially still today.

Perpetua (died as a martyr 203 A.D.): "And I was stripped and became a man".

The focused women on these pics are - at least momentarily - freed from sex segregation, albeit not from a deep rooted sexism that renders their beautiful performance less worthy than that of men. However, Klevius can't stop watching these heroines, nor does he have any problem "comparing" them with Messi & Co. And Klevius still thinks Flo-Jo is (R.I.P. Flo) the best sprinter ever - no matter of sex.

Multitasking without hands.

How many girls in England are even aware of Euro Cup 2017? It has certainly not been given any space so far between BBC's huge amount of boring cricket, rugby, tennis, etc.

Russia's win today will probably not be celebrated by BBC.

Relying on the "expert" suggestion by a female physician from London's Harley street, FA in 1921 decided to ban women from playing football.

The ban was finally officially lifted in 1971. However, everything unofficially possible has been made since to divert girls/women from football to other sports. Why?

The answer has much to do with the simple fact that football (no dude, not American handball) is the most challenging of all sports. So how come? Well, just consider the fact that no other sport both lack any tools but also not even arms and hands are allowed to touch the ball while in play. This divine setup has therefore been seen among many as the most "masculine" of sports - not the least by many not football playing women.

Klevius old but revealing PhD thesis on the subject will soon be available in fresh book format. It shows how Sweden and England interacted in a way that was detrimental for early female football, yet in very different ways.

Klevius wrote:

Wednesday, June 24, 2015

Klevius reports from Womens World Cup 2015 about heroic Japanese women and disgusting BBC

Japan has now won all their matches, only let in two goals, and has lifted up the technical level of womens football to never before seen heights. And England's women passed the knockout stage for the forst time ever. Yet BBC keeps silent and boosts cricket for girls instead.

Yes, in the previous posting Klevius asked for the blondest team to win in the face of black haters, but Klevius also said that he from the bottom of his heart wants the Japanese women to win because they are by far the best football players. And this is even more remarkable keeping in mind that football in Japan is a minority sport in the shadow of the American WW2 influences from baseball and American handball (aka American "football").

Mizuho Sakaguchi curled in a beautiful goal from outside the penalty area against Netherlands after an equally beautiful foreplay that was on level with Barcelona's male team.

Japan has tested three goalkeepers in this world cup and the only two goals scored against Japan so far has been when Ayumi Kaihori guarded the cage. She did so first in a 2-1 victory over Cameroon, and then again Tuesday when Kirsten van de Ven drove home a ball in added time.

Kaihori, was playing in place of injured Erina Yamane (dislocated shoulder).

 Unfortunately the Japanese women use to have the referees against them which fact encourages other team to add even more violence to what they already see as their only chance against technically superior Japanese women.

A disgrace for the beautiful game.


Klevius wrote:

Saturday, July 09, 2011

Japan women beat Germany in the world's hardest* sport

* The combination of no hands allowed, extreme individual freedom, 1.5-2 hours play on a 100 m long and 50 m wide pitch. This is also why the rest of the world can't stop laughing when Americans call their rugby "football"! Moreover, there's no difference in rules and gears (except for sport bras of course) whatsoever between women and men (although islam wants to change that of course). You can be a good football player no matter of your size or constitution. The world's best male player, Lionel Messi, is 170 cm (no 2 Christiano Ronaldo is 186 cm)  and the world's best female player, Marta da Silva, is 163 cm (no 2 Birgit Prinz is 179 cm)!

Karima Maruyama's World Cup goal was a real classic when it comes to football technique. Running at high speed towards the side of the goal and then, at the right microsecond,directing a kick just outside the opposite goalpost makes the forward inertia in the ball curving it enough to be out of reach for the goalkeeper while still making its way to the inside of the post.

Klevius question: Is this the real reason why football is by far the most controversial of sports when it comes to female participation? Check out: Did feminists kill the World's best female football team in 1921?


Sexist BBC

While some of the most exciting matches are played in Women's World Cup BBC decides to neglect it all together and instead offers EIGHT HOURS OF F1 RACING added by some golf etc!!! No wonder British girls/women in general don't have a clue about football and are among the most sex segregated in the world. This is then reflected in British men's due attitude towards women. According to many of my Finnish and Swedish female friends who have experienced Britain British men are the most sexist they have ever encountered in the West!

Of all sports a girl can use (many girls don't use any sport at all) to sculpture her future physicsfootball is by far the best.

An other moment of disgrace was when Mishal Husain's BBC news neglected the Japanese women completely and gave England's womens football team less than five seconds of air time (compare to some five minutes of womens cricket) when they won their knockout match to reach the quarter finals for the first time ever!

Mishal Husain's BBC news didn't mention Japan's victory at all but instead talked a long time about cricket as usual. Why? Simply because cricket is part of their muslim propaganda (compare e.g. cricket frenzy Pakistan, one of Michal Husain's muslim home countries.

.

Peter Klevius AI tutorial for BBC's alcohol drinking and not Ramadan fasting "islamophobia" hating muslim presenter Michal Husain who interviewed the wrong guy.

Peter Klevius: What is it that keeps attracting the most unsuitable brains to AI research? Seán Ó hÉigeartaigh clearly lacks basic understanding of the field. 

About "the danger" of AI.

Seán Ó hÉigeartaigh, Executive Director of Cambridge’s Centre for the Study of Existential Risk: "The intelligence we (compared to AI) have is rich, really understands the world and is creative, inventing and driving forth scientific progress."

Peter Klevius free AI tutorial for Seán Ó hÉigeartaigh: Human intelligence that "is rich, really understands the world and is creative, inventing and driving forth scientific progress" is human - and therefore completely useless for this discussion. In everyday life any meaningful human decision-making is logically structured into a particular set of formulas - which in no way differ from those of AI. The alternative being subjectivity which would only confuse. Whatever a single human or humankind as a whole experience is always within the limits of what Peter Klevius defines as our 'existence-centrism'. 

Read Peter Klevius book Demand for Resources (Klevius 1992, ISBN 9173288411) if you master Swedish, i.e. original English. If not, you can find plenty of it on the web by searching for 'existence-centrism klevius'.

Cars etc. also "took over human lives". And if an Audi runs amok by itself its because of poor quality. It wasn''t intentionally built for running over humans.

Seán Ó hÉigeartaigh reminds Peter Klevius of John Searle who made the category mistake of boasting about being more intelligent than his car and his calculator (see below). But the only "intelligence" Seán Ó hÉigeartaigh's "rich, really understanding the world and creative, inventing and driving forth scientific progress" intelligence can do as a whole is producing subjectivity and bias that constitute human life within existence-centrism. And if you pick out specific parts they are all logically dealt with in accordance with their internal logic, i.e. computable.

Peter Klevius advice to Seán Ó hÉigeartaigh: Not a single bit of your "creativity" etc. is shared by every human. And the only thing yopu can defin your "humaness" with is by accepting the negative Human Right (compare UN's 1948 anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration) you give yourself by accepting it for every other human.

Peter Klevius wrote:

Tuesday, May 9, 2017

Peter Klevius sex and consciousness tutorial for UC Berkeley's "star philosophy professor" John Searle

For a better background, see Peter Klevius updated AI/deep learning theory (earlier called a "hypothesis" due to the author's stupid tendency to try to appear "pc-humble").

Peter Klevius, Stephen Hawking - and John Searle, on sex, free will and consciousness.

Because Klevius has always been physically extremely fit all his life, and because he has never needed any other stimuli than heterosexual attraction to perform sex whenever it suits him (and women) and in full control, Klevius fully understands and has sympathy for a guy like Stephen Hawking.

Diagnosed at 21 with the debilitating disease ALS has left him almost entirely paralyzed, to speak, he has an infrared sensor mounted on his eyeglasses that picks up twitches from a muscle in his cheek and transmits them to a screen with scrolling letters, stopping at each desired letter. He averages about a word a minute. However, his testosterone levels are still sky high compared to any woman on the planet, and his penis shouldn't have been altered by ALS.

Therefore it comes as no aurprise that Hawking is said to be a big fan of strip clubs.

Peter Stringfellow, who runs Stringfellows strip clubs: “Isn’t he the answer to people who attack the sexual side of our human-ness? They’re all charging at windmills, you know. It’s there.”


Peter Klevius: However, the windmill is male!

Hawking became a regular at Stringfellows strip club in London, and Stringfellow recalls one night: 'I went and introduced myself and said, ‘Mr. Hawking, it’s an honor to meet you. If you could spare a minute or two, I’d love to chat with you about the universe. Or would you rather look at the girls? The Girls, Hawking answered.’

Hawking has also reportedly been spotted numerous times getting lap dances at the California strip club Devore, and was even said to have frequented Freedom Acres, a swinger’s club in California.

“I have seen Stephen Hawking at the club more than a handful of times,” a member said, according to the Huffington Post. 'He arrives with an entourage of nurses and assistants. Last time I saw him, he was in the back ‘play area’ lying on a bed fully clothed with two naked women gyrating all over him.'

Tim Holt, University of Cambridge press officer, later confirmed that Hawking had frequented the swinger’s club, but claimed that he wasn’t a regular. 'This report is greatly exaggerated. He visited once a few years ago with friends while on a visit to California.'

Klevius: "Gyrating all over him". Klevius is sure he had a nice time although Klevius also recalls a so called "top massage" performed by a lady who rather seemed aimed for ejaculation than heterosexual eroticism. So Klevius can see a certain handicap in these kind of situations for people like Hawking - unless, of course, he was able to communicate his feelings via some gadget, and moreover, that the ladies respected it. Ejaculation is short like a sneeze, while active hetero-eroticism can last for long.

However, and this is 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.

.

Sweden lost because of Kosovare Asllani. But why was she there despite failing all the match - and earlier ones?

How come that the worst player in the Swedish women's football team in the 2019 world cup got the most attention?

Is there a hidden and biased list for commentators and camera crews (and managers) to emphasize "star players" - and then picked up by media?

Asllani failed almost every time she came in contact with the ball or a player. Countless Swedish attacks she managed to spoil.

Sweden played pretty much with one woman short.

Kosovare Asllani was by far the most over rated player.

The question is how the channels of influence work to force the Swedish team to have her instead of a better one from the bench?

We do know that the islamofascist Saudi dictator family (and other Gulf states) is keen on pushing for players they want to be in the limelight. We also know that the islamofascist Saudi dictator family has showed a particular interest in Albania and its surroundings.

Whether the attention has anything to do with this is an open question. However, this pattern seems quite common - and the players don't even necessarily know about it in every aspect.

Football (no dude, not American handball) is the world's most popular sport and therefore not only a target for commercial sponsors but also for evil islamofascism.

No matter what she did Asllani was all the time flashed from a camera and named repeatedly and extremely disproportionally by the commentators.

Peter Klevius feels sorry for the real heroines in the Swedish team, such as Sofia Jakobsson, Stina Blackstenius, Hedvig Lindahl etc.  With someone else than Asllani you would probably have won.