Klevius CV

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

* The son of one of Sweden's best chess-players and an even more intelligent Finnish mother. He was mentored by G. H. von Wright, Wittgensteins's successor at Cambridge. However, G H v Wright sadly didn't fully realize back then (1991) the true power of the last chapter, Khoi, San and Bantu, in Klevius book. Today, if still alive, he would surely see it.

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).

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

Warning for a muslim robot!

BBC means global faked/filtered "news"/"info" - and propaganda for Human Rights violating sharia.

BBC means global faked/filtered "news"/"info" - and propaganda for Human Rights violating sharia.

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

There's no true islam without Human Rights violating sharia (compare OIC)

There's no true islam without Human Rights violating sharia (compare OIC)

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

Peter Klevius 1986 zero budget experimental refugee video

Tuesday, May 15, 2018

Peter Klevius contribution to the AI/consciousness debate.

The thoughts below were first presented 1979-81 in an article and correspondence with Georg Henrik von Wright (Wittgenstein's successor at Cambridge), and later published in a book 1992, a letter to Francis Crick (Salk) 1994, and on the web 2003.

Evolution means change - a fact missed by many neo-creationists*


* Exemplified with the eager "humanifying" of Neandertals etc. extinct creatures. Or the equally eager (not to say desperate) search for a hiding place where "consciousness" can be protected against de-mystifiers such as e.g. Peter Klevius.


In Demand for Resources (1992 ISBN 9173288411) Klevius crossed the boundaries between consciousness-observation-understanding-language and wrapped it all in one, i.e. adaptation.
According to Klevius analysis everything is adaptation. There's no principal analytical difference between how planets adapt to their star or how humans adapt to their environment. And no dude, this is not "simplifying away" or diluting it. When the bedrock of the Indo-Australian Plate met with the bedrock of the Asian plate the landscape was almost flat. However, look at the Himalayas today. Same rock but a completely different and extremely wrinkled appearance and a new name, mountain range.

Consciousness is neither simple nor complicated - and certainly not a "mystery". The real mystery is how people "mystify" it - from Penrose's hiding in quantum tubulars to Koch's escape into the brain's olfactory channels. The former outside falsifiability, and the latter outside any kind of scientific consensus and, more importantly, clearly related to the fact that brain evolution started as a smell organ which later on was mounted with additional gadgets (vision, hearing etc.) connected via Thalamus. In short, as Klevius wrote 1992, this is why olfactory "memories" feel so different. This is also why claustrum is focused towards the olfactory lobes, i.e. functioning as a "translator" and transferer of these signals which weren't originally connected to thalamus at all.

And please, don't get stuck in the frontal lobe just because you find some difference compared to other parts of the brain. The simple reason is just that the frontal lobe happens to be the last expansion in brain evolution and is lacking in non-humans.

The  "mystery" of drivingness - or carness.


An undriving car doesn't move.

A selfdriving car makes intentional decisions based on history and present. These decisions wouldn't be any different with a human driver with exactly the same information available. A surprising looking choice of route may be just based on info npt available for the surprised.


Humans have humanness rather than "consciousness"*


* Humans have skin. So were's the mystery of "skinness"?
According to Peter Klevius (1981, 1992, 1994, 2003) humans have trapped themselves in language and have a borderline problem re. what can be said across the border between humans and "the rest".

In Demand for Resources (1992, ISBN 9173288411), Peter Klevius presented the following - his own (as far as he is aware of) - original observations re. evolution and awareness/mind:

Existence is change - not creation out of nothing.

Among so called "primitive" societies which had had no contact with monotheisms, the very thought that something could appear out of nothing was impossible.

So why did monotheisms come up with such a ridiculous idea? It's very simple. The racist "chosen people" supremacist ideology created a "god" that was not part of the world he (yes, he) had created out of nothing, i.e. making a clean sheet on which the chosen ones could exist (see the chapter Existencecentrism in Demand for Resources, 1992 ISBN 9173288411).

Culture is that (arbitrarily defined and bordered) part of adaptation that is shared by others.


Warning/advise: To better your understanding of Klevius writings you need to realize that he is extremely critical of how concepts are created and used. Not in a stiff/absolute sense of meaning, but rather how concepts may cluelessly (or deliberately) migrate within a particular discourse. So when Dennet talks about "deliberate design" he contrasts it against "clueless design", although such a distinction isn't possible. Evolution is neither clueless nor deliberate. And whatever we are up to it can't be distinguished from evolution other than as a purely human assessment - in which case it can't include evolution. Only humans can evaluate human behavior, which fact renders such evaluations pointless outside the realm of humans. Getting this seems to constitute a main obstacle in debates about AI and singularity.

This is why Klevius always refers to the individual human's negative Human Rights, i.e. everyone we agree is a human. This is also why Klevius can emphasize the Denisova bracelet, genetics etc. finds in Siberia/Altai as proof of modern humans evolving there (with some help from island South East Asia, not in Africa. Most humans living today would have been incapable of intellectually perform the task because the IQ peak has long since been diluted in the mass of humans. We're all one family of humans but the top of the line of human intelligence was a combination of island shrinking brains and its genetic transfrer to big skulled relatives in the north - as Klevius has pointed out since 2004 on the web.

Peter Klevius EMAH update on "consciousness" 2018: 


Acknowledgement: I've never in my life met anyone who I've felt being more intelligent* than I am. This means I've had no reason warshipping human intelligence. And whole my life I've been told it's unfair that I see things faster and clearer than others - or even worse, that I "turn black into white" (some real idiots from the 1970-80s). But how could it be "unfair" when I can't use it for my own advantage without others sooner or later catching up and shaming me? And when you're in the front line no one understands and therefore doesn't pay you. Which fact has added valuable neutrality and reduced malign bias to/from Klevius' analysis.

* Klevius intelligence was perhaps best described by the Finnish neuroscientist, J. Juurmaa, who in the 1990s wrote: "Peter Kleviuksen ajatuksen kulku on ilmavan lennokas ja samalla iskevän ytimekäs" which translated to English would mean something like: "Peter Klevius' thought process is easily eloquent yet simultaneously concisely punchy." This he wrote in a long letter answering Klevius question about the effects on the visual cortex on individuals who have been blind from birth. This inquiry was part of Klevius check up of his already published EMAH theory, so to get a qualified confirmation that the "visual cortex" in born blinds is fully employed with other things than vision. Juurmaa's description of Klevius  is in line with philosopher Georg Henrik von Wright's 1980 assessment, and more importantly with Klevius own experience, and perhaps most importantly when assessing AI/deep learning etc.

Only in true science and Human Rights does Klevius intelligence matter. And with AI singularity "pure" science will be dead anyway (although some idiots will never get it). Why? Because human existencecentrism (look it up in Klevius 1992 book pp 21-22) will only follow AI to the point of singularity.

Peter Klevius has - since he at age 14 read Einstein's and Barnett's book - been fascinated with human aversion of checking themselves in the mirror of existencecentrism.

Future democracy will be cloud based and filtered through (negative) Human Rights equality. This means that we get rid of the distorting bottleneck our politicians now constitute.

This also means the definitive end of islam as we know it, i.e. as a Human Rights violating excuse for racism, sexism, and power greed.

It's astonishing how the avoidance of negative Human Rights affects every debate. And most of this is due to our politicians' defense of the Saudi dictator family. Why? Simply because they stand as the "guardians" of islam and 1.6 Billion muslims which are all lumped together and protected by the label "islamophobia" which in fact only protects the Saudi dictator family and those who want to deal with it and its Human Rights violating sharia(e.g. OIC etc).

There's no way to copy a brain without a total break between individuals. That's perhaps one definition of what it means to be a human.

What makes humans individuals (atoms) and robots collective. Robot memories are shared and if you destroy the hardware, the software will still be alive and well.

However, a human individual is extremely vulnerable to individual extinction.

And a "pet" copy is an other individual - although it remembers and behaves like the original.


Peter Klevius in Demand for Resources (1992:23, ISBN 9173288411):


The basis of existence is change, and causality constitutes a complex of evolution and devolution. Evolution may be seen as the consequence of causality's variables in time where complexity in existing structures are reinforced. This stands in opposition to thermodynamics which theoretically leads to maximal entropy (i.e. energy equilibrium) where time/change finally ends. Someone might then say that the products of evolution are just temporary components in causality's road towards uniformity (Klevius 1981, 1992 - text copied from Klevius 1981 article Demand for Resources).


The Even More Astonishing Hypothesis (EMAH)

by Peter Klevius


1991, years before Crick's book, the original idea was presented for Georg Henrik von Wright (Wittgenstein's own choice of successor at his Cambridge chair), then published in Demand for Resources (1992, ISBN 9173288411), and 1994 presented for Francis Crick and 2004 presented on the world wide web.

Abstract: Consciousness may be seen as environmental adaptation rather than something "uniqely human". Although neo-cortex constitutes the mass of adaptations Thalamus is the least discussed yet perhaps the most important piece in the "puzzle of mind" due to its central function as the main relay station between body actions, brain and environment. A critical assessment of concepts such as: observation/understanding, mind/body, free will, knowledge and language reveals an inescapable awareness in the Thalamic "meet-puts". In conclusion memories hence may be better described as associations causing linguistic traps (i.e. self-inflicted "problems" produced in language) rather than as distinct entities. The continuity model proposed in EMAH avoids the limitations of a "discrete packets of information" model, and without Cartesian dualism or the Homunculus fallacy.

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


Introduction

Understanding how social behavior and its maintenance in human and other forms of life (incl. plants etc) evolved has nothing to do with “the balance between self interest and co-operative behavior” but all to do with kinship and friendship adaptation. Everything is "self-interest" - how could it not be? Although humans may be attributed a more chaotic (i.e. more incalculable) "personality", they are, like life in general, just adaptive "robots" (i.e. active fighters against entropy – see Demand for Resources, 1992 ISBN 9173288411). Misunderstanding (or plain ignorance of – alternatively ideological avoidance of) kin recognition/friendship (symbiosis), and AI (robotics) pave the way for the formulation of unnecessary, not to say construed, problems which, in an extension, may become problematic themselves precisely because they hinder an open access for direct problem solving (see e.g. Angels of Antichrist – kinship vs. social state).

Mentalists trap themselves in selfinflicted astonishment over phenomenons they think are beyond determinism. When Chomsky says "there are things beyond comprehension" he should ask himself: Who are you to talk about things beyond comprehension (compare 'existencecentrism' in Klevius Demand for Resources, 1992 ISBN 9173288411), i.e. something that can't be asked - without just pushing the border a little - or rather, just a new comprehensible adaptation. And if it seems incomprehensible, it's no more so than e.g. Donald Duck (see below).


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

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

Signal: A "signal gap" is commonly understood as a break in the transition from input to output, i.e., from perception to behavior. Mentalists use to fill the gap with "mind" and "consciousness" while behaviorists don't bother because they can't even see it. A five minute timelaps of Earth spanning 4.5 Billion years would make a very lively planet. However, where's "consiousness" between input (the single frames) and output (the running video)? Or, what/whom should we allow to possess "consciousness"? And if we limit it only to humans we are stuck with it being just a human thing - hence impossible to use in general meaning. An easier way out is to avoid the signal "gap" and call it what it is, a network. But a network that continuously builds new patterns on top of already existing ones. 

Matter: Berkeley never believed in matter. What you experience is what you get and the rest is in the hand of "God" (i.e. uncertainty). This view makes him a super-determinist without "real" matter. Klevius just adds the fact that Berkeley's "God" is truly metaphysical and therefore not worthy of even talking about.

Mind: The confusing mind-body debate originated in the Cartesian dualism, which divides the world into two different substances, which, when put together, are assumed to make the world intelligible. However, on the contrary, they seem to have created a new problem based on this very assumption. But a problem that has become popular among those who want to talk metaphysics, i.e. giving an impression of talking about what can't be talked about.

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

Future: When asked about the "really human" way of thinking, many mentalists refer to our capacity to "calculate" the future. But is there really a future out there? All concepts of the future seem trapped in the past. We cannot actually talk about a certain date in the future as real future. What we do talk about is, for example, just a date in a calendar. Although it is a good guess that we are going to die, the basis for this reasoning always lies in the past. The present hence is the impenetrable mirror between the "real future" and ourselves. Consequently, every our effort to approach this future brings us back in history. Closest to future we seem to be when we live intensely in the immediate present without even thinking about the future. As a consequence the gap between sophisticated human planning and "instinctual" animal behavior seems less obvious. Is primitive thinking that primitive after all? And isn't 'instinct' just an excuse for ignorance?

An additional aspect of future is that neither youth, deep freezing or a pill against aging will do as insurance for surviving tomorrow. The human individual is lost in a crash whereas the robot brain safely hovers in the cloud - in many copies.


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

If one cannot observe something without understanding it, all our experiences are illusions because of the eternal string of corrections made by later 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. This, of course, doesn't exclude "local" (non-analytical) use of the terms in speech and literature etc. for the purpose of catching subtle nyances.

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

It's almost frightening how often one hears researchers/scientists/philosophers etc. who think they are at least average in intelligence, telling others that "previously we didn't understand what X was", for example that "water consists of molecules and atoms". This kind of schizophrenic "thinking" reflects the depth of the mind/body hoax many are trapped in.

One might say that a stone in a picture is a "real" stone, while the word 'stone' written on a piece of paper is not. The gap here is not due to different representations but rather to different contexts. When one tries to equalize observation with understanding, the conventional view of primitive and sophisticated thinking might be put in question. We still act like complex worms, and sophistication is only a matter of biased views built on different stocks of experience (adaptaion) and the overwhelming complexity that appears chaotic. Moreover, a worm, just like a computer, is more than the sum of its parts.

Therefore, meaning, explanation and understanding are all descriptions of the same basic principle of how we synchronize (adapt) perception with previous experience. For the fetus or the newborn child, the inexperienced (unsynchronized, or uncertainty/"god" if you prefer) part of the inside-outside communication is huge compared to a grown up. Hence the chaotic outside world (i.e., the lack of its patterns of meaningfulness) has to be copied (adapted) in a stream of experience, little by little, into the network couplings of the brain. When the neural pattern matches the totality (meaningfulness) its information potential disappears. Our brain doesn't store information - it kills information. From an analytical point of view "storing of information" is an oxymoron. On top of this, there is a continuous growth of new neurons, which have to be connected to the network. As a result of these processes, the outside world is, at least partly, synchronized with the inside, "mental" world. Heureka, the baby appears to think and exist! In other words, the baby records changes against a background of already synchronized (adapted) inputs.

* see "existence-centrism" in Demand for Resources (1992) for a discussion abt a shrinking god and the allmighty human!


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

It's meaningless to state that we are the best (or the worst) humankind. However, category mistakes re. humans and non-humans are still common and many researchers/scientists don't even seem to realize how carelessly they handle this important distinction.

It's equally meaningless to ask what something is that we don't know what 'it' is. 'Consciousness' is easily understood when used in comparison with 'unconcious'. However, how stupid is it when we mystify the term beyond comprehension by squeezing in random additional properties and then ask the question: What is this mystery with consciousness".

A main difficulty in formulating the concept of consciousness is our pride (presumably we should have been equally proud as mice) and our tautological belief in "something uniquely human", However, if we try to follow the die-hard determinists, we would find free will and destiny easier to cope with, and also that the concept of "the unique human being" is rather a question of point of view and carelessly crossing borders of concepts.

Following this line of thought, I suggest turning to old Berkeley as well as to Ryle but excluding Skinnerian Utopias. Those who think the word determinism sounds rude and blunt can try to adorn it with complexity to make it look more chaotic. Chaos here means something you cannot overview no matter how deterministic it is. We seem to like complexity just because we cannot follow the underlying determinism. The same could be said about what it really is to be a human? A passion for uncertainty, i.e. life itself. Francis Crick in The Astonishing Hypothesis: "... your sense of personal identity and free will are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules."

This statement is easy to agree on, so let me continue with another, perhaps more useful, quote from Crick: "Categories are not given to us as absolutes. They are human inventions." I think these two statements create an efficient basis for further investigations into the mystery of thinking. Hopefully you will forgive me now as I'm going to abolish not only memory but also free will and consciousness altogether. Then, I will go even one step further to deny that there are any thoughts (pictures, representations, etc.) at all in the cortex. At this point, many might agree, particularly regarding the cortex of the author of this text.

The main problem here is the storage of memories, with all their colors, smells, feelings and sounds. Crick suggests the dividing of memory into three parts: episodic, categorical and procedural. While that would be semantically useful, I'm afraid it would act more like an obstacle in the investigation of the brain, because it presupposes that the hardware uses the same basis of classification and, like a virus, hence infects our analyses.

The analysis presented here is the result of de-categorization. The only thing that distinguishes us from the rest of nature (and 'nature' includes all artefacts, non-human as well as human ones) is the structure and complexity most (but not all) humans possess. In other words, there's no point at which something "special" happens. This is why Klevius in 1994 said that there's no principal difference between a brick and his girlfriend - which comment rose the eyebrow on his pal who admired Klevius girlfriend.

Instead of categorization, this analysis sees only adaptation to the surrounding world incl. one's own brain, which condtitutes of layers of previous adaptations where the latest one is awareness, consciousness, or the present now if you like.


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

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

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

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


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

The surface of our body isn't the border of consciousness. A better candidate is the neuronal system/Thalamus.

According to the EMAH model, nerves define our body. Thus, our hormonal signals inside our body can be viewed as belonging to the environment surrounding the nerveous system. As the meaning of life is to uphold complexity by guarding the borders, it's ultimately a fight against entropy. In this struggle, life is supported by a certain genetic structure and metabolism, which synchronizes its dealings (adaptation) with the surrounding environment. Balancing and neutralizing these dealings is a job done by nerves. Also consider Klevius gut bacterias with brain.

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



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

EMAH does not support the idea that information is conveyed over distance, both in the peripheral and central nervous system, by the time of occurrence of action potential?

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

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

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


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

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

As a consequence of this coupling process - a process that could be described rather as a flow - memories in a conventional, semantic meaning do not exist, because everything happens now. Consciousness or awareness is something one cannot influence, but rather, something that involves an ongoing flow of information to and from nerve endings through the brain (a relay station incl. Thalamus). For every given moment (now) there is consequently only one possible way of acting, i.e. no absolute "free will". One cannot escape awareness or decisions because whatever one thinks, it is based on the past and will rule the future. Memories are thus similar to fantasies of the future, based on and created by experiences. Regarding short-term memory, I agree with Crick's view and hypothesis. But I certainly would not call it memory, only weaker or vanishing superficial couplings between neurons. Remember that with this model, the imagination of something or someone seen a long time ago always has to be projected back on the ports were it came through and thus enabling the appropriate association pattern. Although signals in each individual nerve are all equal, the back-projected pattern makes sense only as a combination of signals. The relay couplings in the cortex is the "code," and the receptor system is the "screen." Because this system does not allow any "escape" from the ever changing "now" which determines the dealings with the surrounding environment. Living creatures develope their software by living.

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





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

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

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

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

Changing language games provide endless possibilities for creating new "language products", such as e.g. psycho-dynamic psychology. I believe this is exactly what Wittgenstein had in mind when he found Freud interesting as a player of such games but with nothing to say about the scientific roots of the mental phenomenon.

Let's imaging Donald Duck and a picture of a stone. Like many psychological terms, Donald Duck is very real in his symbolized form but nonetheless without any direct connection to the reality of the stone. In this sense, even the word stone has no connection to reality for those who don't speak English. Words and languages are shared experience.

It is said that a crucial feature of language is its ability to express past and future time. This might be true but in no way makes language solely human. When bees arrive to their hive they are able, in symbolic form, to express what they have seen in the past so that other bees will "understand" what to do in the future. Naming this an instinct just because bees have such an uncomplicated brain does not justify a different classification to that of human thinking.

If, as I proposed in Demand for Resources (1992), we stop dividing our interaction with the surrounding world in terms of observation and understanding (because there is no way of separating them), we will find it easier to compare different human societies. Language is a categorizing extension of perception/experience patterns and discriminates us as human only in the sense that we have different experiences.

Language has developed from a tool for communication to an additional tool of deception within itself. In Demand for Resources (1992 ISBN 9173288411) I used the example of a stone that turned out to be papier mache, as well as the word existence which has transformed from emerge to exist, i.e. loosing its root and hence opening up for the question how we can exist.

However, words and language are just like everything else that hits our receptors. There is no principle difference in thinking through the use of words or through sounds, smells (albeit not through thalamus), pictures or other "categories". Ultimately, language is, like other types of communication with the surrounding world, just a form of adaptation to one's environment (in a broad sense of course), i.e. resistance against entropy.



Wikipedia: Language is a system that consists of the development, acquisition, maintenance and use of complex systems of communication, particularly the human ability to do so.
Human language has the properties of productivity and displacement, and relies entirely on social convention and learning. Its complex structure affords a much wider range of expressions than any known system of animal communication. Writing is a medium of human communication that represents language and emotion with signs and symbols.

This short "definition" reveals the meaninglessness of the definition.



It's important to note the difference between everyday use of language, and language used about itself.

What's the difference between an image of a distant galaxy taken via a space telescope, or smell molecules left on a path?

And long before humans realized how nature performs photosynthesis, they already thought of themselves as the masters of Universe.

And unlike what Chomsky and others say, Klevius doesn't think in language other than when preparing to answer someone through language. Is this why Klevius is a lousier talker than most early teenagers who don't have a clue about what Klevius is talking about?

Words constitute rigid traps when compared to free, smoothly running thinking/analysis - unless you're gambling with words, as Freud did while waiting for reality to catch up with his speculations we call psychoanalysis (see Klevius Psychosocial Freud timeline.

However, words are also so unprecise that they are useless for construction work etc. where we need math and geometry instead. Words describe what it is and math how it is.

Everyday language needs its greatest asset, volatility, which simultaneously constitutes its main security risk re. faking/misleading communication.

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

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


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

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

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


De-constructing the Mind (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

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

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

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

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


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

Wednesday, May 9, 2018

Klevius predicts: Singularity will arrive sooner than most expect - but a new iceage may start even sooner.


Have humans prolonged the onset* of the next ice-age to a breaking point?

* Do realize the treacherous behavior of snow cover. It can be extremely thin while the reflective effect is still 100%. It can jump in and out of meteorological records without being always noticed (in Sweden no records are kept after mid May). It can expand even when temperature goes up, due to increased precipitation in cold but usually dry areas. And snow cover can expand horizontally thousands of kilometer in no time.

In the 1980's Klevius had to fight ignorant pals with the argument that so and so many km2 of continuously exhaust spewing tail-pipes (plus methane etc. human 
 caused activities) must have some effect on the atmosphere - although this effect could suddenly drown in other "natural" effects (compare the butterfly flapping a hurricane).

Klevius analysis (from from the 1980s and on the web 2006): The Gulf stream is loosing stamina, meaning more snow cover lingering longer. This leads to extremely fast onset of cooling and due glaciation. A reported 15% decrease means we're in for cooling business. Changing rotational axis etc. longterm phenomenon can easily be outperformed in a shortterm scenario through local changes in precipitation combined with just a slight drop in temperature. Fennoscandia, northern Russia and Canada constitute such potentials (compare previous little and big ice-ages), especially at a time when we've already passed the usual tipping point.




We are way overdue with the coming of the next ice-age. Could it really be that we during Holocene have managed to keep it at bay? In Klevius book Demand for Resources (1992) he also wondered why humans didn't become modern already at the previous heat peak some 120 kyr ago? The big skulls were already there. Today Klevius theory on human evolution has the answer.


Due to the polemic nature of the mostly bi-facial  approach to climate change, facts are either exaggerated or toned down. So for example, is the relation between the hemispheres often hidden as global or even presented with a confusing mix of Celcius and Fahrenheit for the sole purpose of "weighing" a certain stand point.


Indian ocean is the only one disconnected from the north and therefore reflects what Klevius wrote about 2006.


Snow cover is the opposite to CO2 - but much quicker.


Klevius wrote:

Sunday, March 19, 2006


Weakening Gulfstream & strengthening Islam pushing Europe into a new ice-age

Stockholm has been covered by snow the whole year and temperature today is -6 degree Celsius. The coldest/longest winter at least since 1987! This is in line with a global trend where the Siberian cold-center again (now accelerated by human climate change) moves west due to lacking Gulfstream power. Isn't it an irony then that people from warm Mideast, because of evil Islam, are pushed into cold (and cooling) Europe?! And sadly many of them don't understand to leave their real oppressor,Islam, behind! Historically Islam is mainly an elaborate system for slavery/rapetivism on different levels with a manual called Koran.


Friday, March 31, 2006


Northern Europe is cooling because of global warming

IS THE WARMTH HEADING TO THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE?

We do know the ozone hole does. Because the north has the major part of continents this imbalance may well be reflected in climate change.


Are Swedish "scientists" the most cowardice and reluctant to adapt to uneasy empirical facts

Almost like HIV/AIDS deniers in southern Africa Swedish "scientists" have become notorious for belittling changes/threats. This is in line with a long totalitarian "von oben" Swedish attiitude and tradition and this also explains why the Swedes are known as one of the most easily ruled people ("the last DDR" - see Angels of Antichrist - kinship vs social state). No matter if we are talking Chernobyl, climate change, bird flu, Islamism, or Gulfstream, the pattern of denial is the same!


Russia and Scandinavia have this year experienced the coldest winter since the 1980s.
Due to increased amount of melting ice and snow in northern Atlantic, Gulfstream weakens, hence pulling the Siberian cold-center back to where it belongs without a Gulfstream. These may cause a really fast and harsh cooling in northern Europe , as well as an even more unpredictible climate in mid- and southern Europe.

The fast and radical fluctuations caused by oscillating Gulfstream due to overall climate global changes in the past is probably also a contributing factor why/how the gene/culture stock of Eurasian humans (some 10-40.000 years ago) were "pumped back and forth" in (a natural genetic and cultural lab) through Central-Asia, hence creating modern humans as described in
Out of Africa as bi-pedal apes and back as global "mongoloids"
(link updated 2017 from Klevius "web museum" www.klevius.info).

.

Sunday, April 8, 2018

Klevius warns for a muslim robot*!



* Klevius' brief tech tutorial: AI deep learning towards technological "singularity" means an all time ongoing adaptation of the interface with our machines, now reaching a new point on the abacus-calculator-computer evolution, wherethe only thing we need to guard is the(negative) Human Rights in the 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration, which is attacked by Saudi based and steered islamofascist OIC's sharia declaration..

A(mono)theism) and the most basic Human Rights are criminalized in Saudi Arabia - so why do you accept your politicians dealing with this islamofascist Saudi muslim "prince"?!

Saudi Hitler and war criminal Mohammad Salman in Hollywood!? Shame on you people!

A Human Rights violating sharia algorithmis the main threat in AI - not AI per se.

Also listen to late David Littman who exposed islamic Human Rights violations in UNHRC:



Asimov's robot laws applied to a muslim robot:


A muslim robot may not harm a muslim, or, through inaction, allow a muslim to come to harm. A robot must obey the orders given to it by muslims, except where such orders would conflict with the first law.


Peter Klevius objects to this and instead proposes the original robot laws based on the original Human Rights:

A robot may not harm a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the first law.

and adds a fourth law, under which a robot must be able to identify itself to the public ("symmetrical identification")
and a fifth law, dictating that a robot must be able to explain to the public its decision making process ("algorithmic transparency").

The crucial point is who is considered a full human. The 1948 Human Rights declaration counts everyone as a Human - without any exception to sex, belief, disbelief etc. Saudi based and steered OIC's sharia falls short of this.

Where does a muslim robot stand on the scale moderate/sharia-extremist? With today's weird blindfolding approach of lumping all muslims together under islam, there's no way to tell. Yet the crucial dividing line is extremely visible and offered to us via the islamofascist Saudi dictator family controlled Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and its Human Rights violating sharia which represents all the world's muslims and which states that muslim sharia always trumps Human Rights.

Do understand that islam's Human Rights violating sharia (OIC) is tightly connected to sharia finance (aka isllamic banking etc.). In other words, sharia Human Rights violations go hand in hand with sharia finance. This is why PM May is for sharia and against Human Rights. And this is why critics are called "islamophobes".

OIC created the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. While proponents claim it is not an alternative to the UDHR, but rather complementary to it, Article 24 states that "all the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah" and Article 25 follows with "the Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration." Attempts to have it adopted by the United Nations Human Rights Council have met increasing criticism, because of its contradiction of the UDHR, including from liberal Muslim groups. Critics of the CDHR state that it is "manipulation and hypocrisy," "designed to dilute, if not altogether eliminate, civil and political rights protected by international law" and attempts to "circumvent these principles [of freedom and equality]."

Human Rights Watch says that OIC has "fought doggedly" and successfully within the United Nations Human Rights Council to shield states from criticism, except when it comes to criticism of Israel.

The OIC has been criticised for failing to discuss the treatment of ethnic minorities within member countries, such as the oppression of the Kurds in Syria and Turkey, the Ahwaz in Iran, the Hazaras in Afghanistan, the 'Al-Akhdam' in Yemen, or the Berbers in Algeria. However, OIC eagerly supported the Saudi led Rohingya jihad attacks in Myanmar while equally eagerly blaming the consequences on Buddhists - as did BBC who has kept almost completely silent about OIC's violations of Human Rights.

To determine possible safety issues with a muslim robot one may use the fifth Law, dictating that a muslim robot must be able to explain to the public its decision making process in accordance with the most basic of Human Rights in the 1948 anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration (so called "algorithmic transparency"), or whether it follows the Saudi based and steered OIC's (the muslim world sharia Umma) sharia against the most basic of Human Rights.



Tech ignorance -




Michael Kofman CNA: The Su-57 is not meant to be a direct competitor to the F-22 or F-35.

Brown: That's how Russia seems to be marketing it.

Michael Kofman CNA: Yeah, I'm sure someone thinks their Honda Civic is better than a BMW.

Peter Klevius: !!! I do. And this moron is supposed to be a technological "expert"? Where Honda Civic is top quality high tech, BMW Mini is a low quality disaster. Moreover, Honda plays in a division far over BMW. BMW couldn't spell to hybrid passenger cars in the 1990s when Honda started serial production. Klevius advices Kofman to learn from the guys on the street who by used cars - or to check the overwhelming cumulative car quality statistics over the decades. BMW wasn't capable of producing a reliable front wheel driven car - so they stuck with their 100 year old formula: 6-in line and RWD, i.e. the easiest way of building a car. And they failed anyway, even there.

Fact is, BMW has always been behind Honda and other main Japanese manufacturers when it comes to edge in technology and quality - not to mention environment.

This single stupid statement by Michael Kofman reveals the tip of an iceberg about his bias and reliability problem.




Honda has throughout its history been far ahead of BMW. As has Mazda, Toyota/Lexus etc.


Klevius wrote in December 2005:

Honda's Asimo robot running etc.



How come that Honda is so much superior compared to BMW?

Klevius comment: Look at those pathetic males (pathetic if they are racist/sexist pan-Arabic Islamist mosque-building oil-billionaires who trade in Islamic darkness in mosques, schools, universities, youth organizations etc?)! Too busy spending oil-money on technical wonders their own slave & oil-fuelled pan-Arabic/Islamic culture is uncapable of producing? Whereas Shinto (the world's oldest* religion) created the world's best high tech, Islam (the world's youngest "religion") created terror and Koran-brainwashed suicide-killers in the service of fascist and sexist pan-Arabism (i.e. true Islam)! For a better world in Darfur and elsewhere - bury Islam! Islam has caused more suffering than any other ideology (incl. Hitler's & Stalin's socialism/communism), yet it has always been excused (and surprisingly often by its own victims, i.e. the opposite compared to the "black"/"white" situation)!


Klevius wrote: 

Wednesday, November 04, 2015


Honda immediately got quality issues when it stupidly tried notorious German ZF transmissions in some models. Why? Because German "quality" sucks* in comparison!


* EU rules makes it easier for Japanese car makers if they ise EU parts. However, there's a reason why the Japanese do better quality than the West: Same reason as why the Japanese  were 10 years ahead with hybrids in passenger cars (you need good tech to economically squeeze in hybrid transmissions in small cars); why the Japanese were 10 years ahead to land (and even bring back samples to Earth) on an asteroid/comet; why the Japanese etc. etc. etc.

This Japanese digital/analogue camcorder from 1997 with both digital and analogue in and out capability (incl. transformation from analogue to digital and vice versa) was the first of its kind to be exported to Europe. However, due to the Europeans not being able to compete with Japanese technology they put EU restrictions on Japanese products (EU was initially made to constitute a bulwark against Japanese high tech products) - in this case so that Sony had to shut the ports on the cam corder for its European consumers. And that's why Klevius connected the small gadget on top of the camera above to its LAN port hence overriding these stupid EU restrictions imposed by Philips etc. Btw, this camcorder has also really powerful night shot settings, incl. in total darkness.

The VW/Audi quality myth vs the (racist?) covered up truth about Japanese quality

How come that people are so stupid? Sharia islam is a horrifying ideology with an unbeaten record of causing human suffering, genocides, enslavement,  rapetivism etc. and still openly (Saudi based and steered OIC) violating Human Rights. Yet people believe it's a "peaceful religion". Similarly, all the evidence are there that the Japanese have produced the best technology and quality and that VW has been average or below average most of the time. Yet people still believe that VW has quality. Why?!

It's not only about dirty play behind Audi/VW doors - it's about a real quality difference between German and Japanese technology. A difference that anyone can see by comparing all the quality reports since they started many decades ago. And even though the Japanese sometimes may drop for reasons outside Japan, the overall picture is so strong that no one in their full mind can deny it (see e.g. the revealing car fire stats from the Swedish insurance company Folksam further down. Scary! Or collect all J D Power reports and start counting. Or Which Car, etc. etc.




Honda (incl. Acura) and Toyota (incl. Lexus) have ruled the car quality race in the world since some time after WW2. And in the 1960s only Mazda (Toyo Kogyo) managed to achieve a similar quality level. However, when Mazda got a 25% Ford contamination some models on some markets got inferior Ford parts. Nissan was even more contaminated by Renault which resulted in many non-Japan made Nissans fell far behind truly Japan made Nissans (e.g. Nissan GTR is fully Japan/NISMO made).

The open secret with Honda and Toyota quality is that they haven't generally been contaminated by non-Japanese. And yes, it was a mistake to let Mexicans produce safety gadgets under a Japanese name. Just like with many US made parts that have contaminated Toyota in the past.


However, the mythbusters are still working hard:







Then this moron suggests you to buy an other VW/Audi!



 Klevius wrote:

Saturday, May 16, 2015


VW/Audi, part of Hitler's revenge on the after-world

The German protestant myth and the Japanese Shinto secret

Audi has constantly managed to score below average quality. Japanese have constantly managed to score above average. Why?

Has Hitler's cars victimized more people than his army?


            German car maker Audi used Nazi slave labor during World War II

It all started with the stupid idea of a cheap car for the masses with the driving unit over the driving wheels in the rear, the battery in the middle, and the fuel tank in the front as the main impact zone. As a consequence the engine was made air cooled with a huge noisy fan. Luckily we don't see these kinds of dangerous cars anymore - except for Porsche of course. Ever tried to drive a classic Porsche on a road littered with grovel, old leaves etc., or just wet?! The Beetle was definitely safer because of its lower power output and smother on the road. However, the noise is almost the same.

The need for a cheap, simple car to be mass-produced for Hitler's new Autobahn network of Germany, was formulated by Hitler himself, the leader of the National-socialist Germany. In June 1934 Ferdinand Porsche received a contract from Hitler to design a "people's car" (or Volkswagen). The production of this death trap went on from 1938 until 2003. In other words, VW continued to spit out this dangerous car in less developed countries for profit for 40 years after its much safer front engine and front wheel driven successor Golf had been introduced.

In 1937, Porsche joined the National Socialist German Workers' Party (becoming member no. 5,643,287) as well as Schutzstaffel (SS). By 1938, Porsche was using the SS as security members and drivers at his factory, and later set up a special unit called SS Sturmwerk Volkswagen. In 1942, Porsche reached the rank of SS-Oberführer. During the war, Porsche was further decorated with the SS-Ehrenring and awarded the War Merit Cross.

A new city, "Stadt des KdF-Wagens" was founded near Fallersleben for the Volkswagen factory, but wartime production concentrated almost exclusively on the military Kübelwagen and Schwimmwagen variants. Mass production of the car, which later became known as the Beetle, began after the end of the war. The city is named Wolfsburg today and is still the headquarters of the Volkswagen Group.

Hitler contracted Porsche in 1934 to design and build it to his exacting standards. Ferdinand Porsche and his team took until 1938 to finalise the design. This is one of the first rear-engined cars. With over 21 million manufactured (21,529,464) in an air-cooled, rear-engined, rear-wheel drive configuration, the Beetle is the longest-running and most-manufactured and most dangerous car of a single design platform, worldwide.

 This car was made in the 1960s at the same time as this Japanese Mazda Luce (below) which in every aspect was its direct opposite - except for the price tag. Yet, people continued buying the catastrophic Beetle! Why? Because it was German and you couldn't trust the Japanese, could you.

VW Beetle 1966: Air cooled engine based on WW2 technology. Maximum Output:  50hp, Top speed: 123 km/h.
0-60mph  23.0 (declared by factory but usually slower - the lousy engine rarely worked as it was planned to).






A more expensive but poor quality Audi from the same time

Audi 1700, 1966, 71 hp / 72 PS, top speed: 148 km/h (declared by factory - not in real life); accelerations: 0- 60 mph 14.8 s (declared by factory - not in real life). The engine was extremely old fashioned compared to Mazda Luce's engine. Moreover, it was nowhere near the quality and reliability of the Japanese. The car was in every other aspect also inferior. Where the Audi had mechanical fuel pump, poor electric generator, poor brakes etc. Mazda was just the opposite.


Already in the late 1950s the Japanese technological and quality superiority was obvious. Just compare the bikes above from BMW and Honda.

Mazda 1500 Luce 1966: 84 hp/86 PS, top speed: 160 km/h; accelerations: 0- 60 mph 14.3 s (declared by a cautious factory but usually faster). OHC, Alu top, 50/50% weight distrib. Kad all the latest safety devices etc that VW lacked. The most beautiful (did BMW copy it?) and reliable (compared to its time) sedan ever made? Remember that Mazda was the only one who managed to develope a functioning rotary engine! After the 1992 le Mans win Mazda's rotary engine was, of course, excluded from racing again!

Sweden's biggest motoring organization warns: This is why Audi/VW engines fail



Is Audi the world's worst "luxury" car?



 compared to the best



Some voices from VW/Audi victims further down on the posting



Klevius wrote:

Wednesday, November 12, 2014


Japan makes the world's top technology - yet Europe gets the press! Why?


Why is the media shouting FIRST EVER when a bunch of European countries try to copy what Japan did a decade ago?!


Nissan rocket no. 1 with the Hayabusa robot first ever in the world to land and bring back stuff from a body (Itokawa asteroid) outside Earth/Moon




Nissan rocket no. 2  Nissan GT-R Nismo the world's fastest non-electric super car




With a lap time of 7 min 8 sec Nissan GTR is the fastest, (non-hybrid*) globally-homologated road car around the world's most famous race track Nurburgring in Germany.

The old GTR was the first car to go under 8 minutes at Nurburgring.

* i.e. using a battery and Japanese hybrid technology to get extra power for the short time the ride lasts.


A Nissan Skyline* GTR ATESSA 4WD (2700 cc 6 cyl 280-1600 hp) from the 1990s  - the Japanese legend that Lambourghini Gallardo (5000 cc) was aimed to beat - more than a decade later! But consider huge difference in quality! The old Skyline GTR has the world record for legal cars abt 350 km/h on a German (!) autobahn (unofficial >380 km/h)!

What all GTRs have in common compared to non-Japanese super cars is superior quality. Already in the 1990s a Porsche CEO admitted that they can never achieve the same quality level as the Japanese.

* The new GTR has dropped the Skyline name. However, the basics are the same: 4WD and a small but powerful 6 cylinder engine.

Saturday, March 10, 2018

Klevius question: Isn't sexism "multicultural" and "diverse" more than "white"?

Feminism isn't science so therefore it wouldn't fit on a science blog. However, feminism pretends to be "science" while, much like its good friend Sigmund Freud, "it doesn't need to".

So dear reader, try to be positive and find something scientific in this.


Feminist asks: How important should we allow it to be for men to to have the "right" to get sex? Klevius answers: Not important at all. Because of heterosexual attraction ("male gaze"*) women with informed and free consent should always decide - incl. within marriage (women should not be doomed to whoring**).


The folk use of "feminism" fits Klevius. However, real feminists using "feminist theory" is quite a different horse. A horse that runs backwards towards the beginning of feminism itself where feminists opposed the vote, denied women playing football etc.

* The reason Klevius isn't a feminist but instead suggests Human Rights no matter of sex (as expressly noted in the 1948 Human Rights declaration - which islam vehemently opposes) is that feminist theories exclude women's role in their own oppression - as well as excluding women who want to leave the "feminine" without cutting or drugging themselves. Although feminist theorists talk about "women's own experience", they always exclude women who transgress feminists' beloved sex segregation border between "masculine" and "feminine". This is also why Klevius had a problem using feminist "research" in his PhD thesis. The most important of women's experience are excluded. So Klevius had to do in depth interviews with such women - and with remarkable result.

Not only extremist feminists but also mainstream feminists function as "guardians" of the cultural borders of sex segregation, i.e. the pressure on girls/women to look/behave in an ever changing (both locally and temporally) confused "feminine" way.

** This of course also means that women have no automatic right to sex from men either.
Btw, Klevius, the world's foremost expert on sex segregation (sad isn't it) thinks he's is qualified for talking about sex and sexual harassment. Why? Well, firstly, Klevius has way more sex hormones than feminists. In fact so much so no woman has seen him failing sexually. Secondly, no woman has been pushed, or even "seduced" to sex by Klevius. Thirdly, Klevius has a history of several marriages (with equally many daughters and sons plus grandchildren) and other longterm  and shortterm relationships incl. five years as a quite popular bachelor between going steady. Fourthly, Klevius still feels as a horny but non-sexist teenager. 

So why is Klevius talking in this ridiculous way? Well, just to show that there has been enough possibilities for Klevius to be sexist - but he hasn't. And because Klevius doesn't think he's a superman, the inevitable conclusion is that most other men can perform similarly if released from sex segregation. And to be "released from sex segregation" simply means "loosing" one's "manhood" - as Klevius did when he was 17 and the cutest girl on the disco he had managed to get interested told him later on that "it felt so relaxing when you didn't try to get me in bed all the time". 

And of course Klevius understands that less cute girls/women might fall into the trap of using their asses as confirmation that they are attractive. In fact, many of Klevius early girlfriends begged for sex, not because they were necessarily so horny but because they wanted to tell their friends about it.
 
And finally, although Klevius is so much more sexually potent than any feminist out there, he has never felt any need for sex gadgets of any sort. Nor has he ever thrown white pepper just for getting a sneezing "orgasm". And to be honest, Klevius doubts that they can develop a female sex robot that could interest him. Wonder why? Cyber sex, yes, but not a robot. The human consent is what turns Klevius on.


RFSU is a Swedish state sponsored organization for sex education. Klevius thought RFSU's pic looked strange so he added a more normal view. However, feminists theorists would have condemned both pics as "objectification", i.e. what Klevius calls heterosexual attraction.

Klevius wrote about Linda and her friend 14 years ago. Nothing has changed since.

Scandinavian new paper Aftonbladet uses a picture of a half fat white man with Viagra pills to illustrate sexual harassment etc. Klevius isn't fat nor has he ever needed Viagra. However, to make the pic more "multicultural" Klevius added some skin tones from Oprah Winfrey's cheek. Sorry about that Oprah...

We aren't supposed to "stereotype" sharia muslims  as racist and sexist Human Rights violators because "not all muslims are". Despite the fact that sharia - e.g. Saudi based and steered OIC via UN - overrides and even criminalizes the most basic of Human Rights

However, Klevius is all the time associated with "white men" in negative context, although Klevius in every aspect is outside that realm. If Klevius would try to be better than the offered caricatures of "white men" he would end up as a god. And nothing could be more offensive for a true Atheist as Klevius.


Klevius wrote (do note that www.klevius.info is a web museum not touched upon for more than a decade):

Sunday, December 05, 2004


Tarik Ramadan's Islamic hypocrisy

Tarik Ramadan (the ultimate sexist - see From Klevius without love): "I think that God blesses -- and should bless -- all the countries and all the way."

Klevius' translation: "I think that the Islamic Allah should bless the whole world in all ways"! Klevius comment: This is, per definition, pure totalitarianism as far as possible from the Holy 1948 (negative) Human Rights Declaration (explained on Klevius' definition of negative human rights)!

www.klevius.info

Saturday, December 04, 2004


When Islamic fundamentalists and "their" women move West

Women risk lives criticizing Muslim extremists
In Somalia, says Allas, "If you are a girl, you always are in fear of your parents, your older brothers, your male neighbors. It is always the man ... It is always fear and fear and fear.

"When I came to Holland, for me it was, Whew! What freedom! What a country! It was love, immediately," she recalls.

"But Holland is not the same."


Award for anti-fascist work and death threat from Islam

Tuesday, November 30, 2004


Feminism and Islam both share sex segregation

Klevius' comments to an Islamist's view on women.

According to:

Muslim Response to Feminism: Holistic Approach

" Holistic approach does not isolate woman from absolute society , they see womans rights and position within the whole structure of the society and avoid the segragation of society in terms for feminism or masculinism or any sort of monocentric approach as opposed to feminism."

Klevius' comment: On the contrary, "women's rights and position within the whole" is segregation in precisely the same way as feminism!

"According to holistic approach, society as a whole including men and women are addressed to their individual and social responsibility without any monosex inclination. The feminist perspective is monosexim perspective, neglecting the valueable place of men and woman side-by-side as a unifying force in family and in society. Holitsic approach looks at one comprehensive position of woman and man in public, private, in society and in politics."

Klevius' comment: "individual and social responsibility" (for men and women respectively) again is segregation! And the idea that feminism is a monosexism is ridicilous having in mind that the ultimate political aim of most feminisms is to underline the difference between men and women! See Why do you call yourself a feminist, Judith Butler?

"One of the distinguished scholars who offered the holistic approach was Shaheed Mutahhari. He explained the reason and the necesaty of different treatment of woman in Islam according to biological and pychological differences between man and woman. while the apologists try to reread the Holy text in line with change - changed codition of the current society."

Klevius' comment: This non-problem (i.e. the lunatic idea that a man can't handle his attraction towards women without burkas etc - in fact real rapists, no matter if they rape because of Islamic "infidel" contempt or some other bad cultural reasoning, aren't biologically but culturally determined to do so) is out-lined and "solved" on From Klevius without love (+ additional links offered on the page). The pages also explain why feminists contrary to Islamists deny HSA (heterosexual attraction).

Peter Klevius
www.klevius.info




Klevius wrote:

Saturday, December 31, 2005


Swedish sex segregation 2005 - In memory of Linda 13, sex slave* & abused to death by "a gang" in her school

Background: Strange Swedish attitudes in the public debate! Swedish white collar fascists /former defender of Pol Pot etc?) now want to stop external criticism against totalitarian Islam (i.e. against an ideology that forbids internal criticism)! Also see Klevius' Definition of Religion (usually top-rated on MSN)!

Also note that According to British YouGov's survey 2005 one in four (abt half a million) British Muslims sympathises with motives of Islamic terrorists- more than 100.000 British Muslims are ready to actually support Islamic terrorists- about 16,000 British Muslims declare themselves willing, possibly even eager, to embrace Islamic violence (For the worldwide spreading of Islam, and to conquer the non-Islamic world?!).

Official Sweden talks child abuse at home while kids are abused to death at schools (Swedish readers may compare this with the analyses presented in Ekot om incest )!
* Linda said she felt like a slave (compare the girls in Darfur raped by Islamic paramilitaries) on the school's toilet when she had to give sex services to the boy with "many dangerous relatives" (also see Nov 30 posting below abt Gangs of Arabs & dogs terrorizing Sweden). This is in line with e.g. "street Islam" (see Brief history of true Islam) which states (compare Koran's "infidel" and marriage/rape practices) that "white" girls/women are whores and should be abused and intimidated! Which is exactly what is taught in many Muslim (or Islam influenced) homes, before the kids show up as evil gangs in schools and on the streets! This racism is the real power of Islam, from Mohammed to the irresponsible parents of the kids chasing Linda. And equally irresponsible Swedish political correctness! Compare the Swedish chancellor of justice, Göran Lambertz, who isn't at all interested in the Swedish Radio Islam's continuing denial of Holocaust and extreme hatred propaganda against Jews! Today Islam is the world's most powerful violent ideology. Is that why not only Saudi-Arabic oil-billionaires but also the Swedish state and Swedish white collar fascists so eagerly support and defend it?! Also see the horryfying WMD-link Sweden-Iran!
and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: "Islam must prepare to rule the world".

Also compare the Rissne gang rape case where the boys were fiercly defended against the Swedsh whore (age 14) etc. by a huge gang of parents and relatives. Their ultimate "penalty" then was to visit an Islamist imam (sic)! I.e. the representative for what actually might have boosted their and their parents' racist/sexist attitudes! "The informal censorship in stories related to immigration in Sweden. Similar incidents are reported with shocking frequency, to the point where some observers fear that law and order is completely breaking down in the country."

True Islam has a bad influence on both Muslim and non-Muslim cultures

Islam is an evil ideology of rapetivism, exploitation & conquest ultimately based on pure racism - not to be confused with cultural ethnicity of the people that have happened to live under this evil ideology! One might even say that most of the disadvantages may be traced to how Islam has affected people's behavior, not to the people! No matter which changes are made to it, true Islam (i.e. attraction of Islam) is based on infidel racism and sex segregation. Islam's jihad-"paramilitaries" in the West are youngsters brainwashed by parents and Koranic agitation at home, in youth organizations, mosques, on the street etc) If this attraction is removed, Islam becomes an empty eunuch just like Chistianity. And that's OK to me. In the long run both racism and sex segregation are doomed anyway - just like true Islam!

Islam at work today: 20,000 Egyptian riot police kill at least 25 unarmed Sudanese refugees in Cairo outside UN!!!

But Sweden now praises and rewards misled and brainwashed children who at school write naive and glorifying nonsense abt Islam (uncritically gathered from Islamist sources). These writings and Linda's death represent the two extremes of the Swedish hypocrisy (also see Hypocritical Swedish misogynist imam Leif Karlsson).

For a background see From Klevius without love - freedom from sex segregation
Klevius' definition of religion
Klevius' definition of (the holy) negative human rights

"We feel every effort is made to silence the real circumstances abt Linda's death" (i.e. political correctness of the social state may not be disturbed? Also note that Sweden has a compulsory school, unlike in other Nordic countries were it's only the fulfilling of a child's education that is compulsory - not the attendance in one of the world's worst school system!).

Linda, 13, was a Swedish girl who, together with her best friend, used not to follow the stereotypical, stupid ("sexy") girlish style (often incl. being sex servants to certain boys) so common now in Sweden (see the Swedish girl problem and Angels of Antichrist and Sex segregation in LVU). She was sporty, climbing etc "Tomboy".
But a certain "gang" (plus, of course, the ordinary confused Swedish school attitude: glorifying Islam, pro-sex segregation, pro-child sex, etc) forced her (after severe bullying) to wear make up etc. Then she was sexually abused on the school's toilet while 6-7 of his friends were outside (like many other helpless Swedish girls). The day she eventually hung herself by using her sister's jump rope, she had been called a whore and other namings by a boy who also physically abused her and threatened to send his relatives on her.

Status among girls is based on "drinking, smoking, giving boys sex services, and using lots of make up and sexy clothes." Sounds pretty pathetic to me. According to Linda's friend "they" who have power control the school - including the pathetic Swedish teachers (compare P. Klevius' Echo of Incest, an analysis of the strange fact that while Western bio-parents are the least likely to commit sexual abuse. they are the most targeted, and vice versa, while sexual abuse committed by other kids in a heavily depending/pressuring environments at school etc, are the most common, they are the least addressed!).

Also compare the weird psychoanalytic idea abt the necessity of sex etc stupidities (From Freud to bin Laden). And it seems the younger the better. Compare the Swedish state funded institute that sexually abused 6 year old children by forcing them to listen to stories abt oral sex etc (see e g Swedish state pedophilia rewarded) !

Linda was described as secure and happy at home and outside the school.



IS TOTALITARIAN RACIST/SEXIST PAN-ARABIC ISLAM THE WORST CRIME EVER AGAINST HUMANITY?

Nature Shinto meets the raping fields of monolitheist** Islam - i.e. the world's oldest family religion with the world's best high tech vs. the world's youngest state "religion" with brainwashing Koran schools, physical & cultural desertation & low-tech totalitarianism
** Klevius' naming

Klevius' sites & blogs so far the only ones clearly addressing the horrors, abuse and confinement of sex segregation!

Update: Georgetown’s Capitulation to Radical Islam

Rape stats: 44% of women who were date raped have considered suicide!




Klevius wrote:

Saturday, June 10, 2006

A dedication to Edith Södergran from Peter Klevius without love

Link to Klevius love letter to Edith Södergran

The foremost Nordic modernist poet, Edith Södergran, was a Finland-Swedish like Peter Klevius (meaning she belonged to a small Swedish language/cultural tradition in Finland). This minority group has lived in a special niche between the east and the west (compare e.g. Johannes Salminen). Although this may have contributed to some disturbed creativity (see Inside Klevius' mind) the main point here is a formula for analyzing sex segregation in regard to human existence.

Also see how Edith Södergran was abandoned by her sex

Edith Södergran symbolizes the modern human being trapped between loneliness in search for salvation (see Was Jesus Religious and Angels of Antichrist and World Values Survey) and fascist gang belonging (compare Islamofascism)


IS 1400 YEARS OF ISLAMIC SLAVERY/GENOCIDE/RAPETIVISM THE WORST CRIME EVER AGAINST HUMANITY? (see Origin of Islam)

To destroy Islamofascism you need to destroy Islam, i.e. its connection to Koran (as hinted by the pope and others)! And yes, Islamofascism may continue even after this, BUT, without the indirect support of "moderate" Islamists and their supporters, the pure evilness will be more easily recognized and hence less attractive for sexist lunatics!

It's not only that Islam (according to Koran) clearly supports slavery (and Koran is the final word of god according to Islam), but that the whole concept of Islam is based on slavery and rapetivism. It's the main idea and Islam is the manual for organizing it! Islam is the refined system of sponging on slavery/rapetivism, and this "ideology" was born pragmatically in the already existing slave trade routes through Mecca etc. (pilgrimage was originally simply a slave merchant's trip to the slave market in Mecca - see e.g. M. Gordon: Slavery in the Arab World) . This is also the reason why the racist contempt expressed under the title "infidels" is so essential in Islam. However, unlike Gordon (1987) above, Klevius offers an updated analysis of slavery and sex segregated rapetivism in historical Islam.

What is essential here is to understand that this feature of Islam cannot be eliminated without changing the whole concept. And this is impossible precisely because those violent etc. lunatics who represent Islam in accordance with its original message (Pope: "Islam's stuck with Koran" - see posting below) will always claim and benefit from every "dialogue" or "support" of Islam per se (i.e. Islam disguised as some "ethnicity" or "private faith" which it is clearly not)! This is how/why(?) "moderate" Islamists support evilness. This is also why Islam is giving incentives for trafficking in girls on night clubs in Sweden, and why Islam gives incentives for raping "infidels" and to sterilize them if they can't be converted to Islam (Girls, don't drink from glasses in public places!). And finally, this is perfectly in line with Islam's incentives for making money on the selling of drugs to the "infidels" while at the same time destroying these "infidels'" lives. Islamoterror in different forms is going on at schools, on streets etc. often boosted by Islamic contempt learnt from parents etc. Surprisingly little has changed during 1400 years when it comes to Islam!

update

Finland and Sweden are the only ones using the term "Foster-land" to describe their nationality. There lies a huge irony/tragedy in this very fact
Klevius page Fosterlandet Sverige tops Google before the Swedish PM Göran Persson




.