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

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

Saudi induced muslim attack on UK Parliament. How many elsewhere? And what about Saudi/OIC's sharia

Saudi induced muslim attack on UK Parliament. How many elsewhere? And what about Saudi/OIC's sharia

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

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

Is UK turning into a militaristic unconstitutional islamofascist rogue state?

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

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

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

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family criminalizes Human Rights and calls them "islamophobia".

Are you or your representative(s) for or against basic universal Human Rights equality?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Britisharia Human Rightsphobia

Racist UK Government and BBC

Racist UK Government and BBC

The world's most dangerous war criminal is the guardian of islam's holy places and OIC

The world's most dangerous war criminal is the  guardian of islam's holy places and OIC

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

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

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

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

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

Saudi war criminal "prince" "reforms" islam to fit Saudi islamofascism against Human Rights

Saudi war criminal "prince" "reforms" islam to fit Saudi islamofascism against Human Rights

Saudi "ally" responsible for chemical attacks (Jaysh al-Islam)

Warning for a muslim robot!

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

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

EU closes internal borders - and opens its external ones.

EU closes internal borders - and opens its external ones.

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

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

What's left for UK when finance is fully AI? Profiting from conflicts and wars.

What's left for UK when finance is fully AI? Profiting from conflicts and wars.

The ultimate treason against people in England, Ireland and Scotland

The ultimate treason against people in England, Ireland and Scotland

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

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

Jacob Rees-Mogg, UK's top far right religious extremist, hates Human Rights and laughs at Germans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Klevius 1979: Human Rights rather than religion

Klevius 1979: Human Rights rather than religion

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

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

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

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

Klevius CV

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

* 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).

Racist Theresa May robs EU citizens of their Human Rights

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

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

Sharia finance is locked to islamofascism against Human Rights

Sharia finance is locked to islamofascism against Human Rights

UK's security pact with the Devil himself

UK's security pact with the Devil himself

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its hate and losses over you

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its hate and losses over you

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

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

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

BBC's compulsory fee funded propaganda for Saudi sharia islam

Tuesday, November 21, 2017
Today England's parliament vote between islamofascist sharia and Human Rights - without even mentioning sharia. Shame on you England, to even have to vote about it!

While Theresa May tries to pave the way for islamofascist Saudi friendly sharia by trashing Human Rights, BBC fills its news with the suffering of Rohyngia muslims - without a word about the Saudi backed muslim terrorist attacks against Buddhists that preceded it.

Support Klevius' Atheist anti-fascism against islamofascism

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

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

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

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

So let's face islam with this definition.

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

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

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

Theresa May's sharia = >23,000 jihadi - before Brexit. How many after?

Theresa May's sharia = >23,000 jihadi - before Brexit. How many after?

The earliest truly modern human skull was found in Liujiang/China.

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

UK DID NOT vote Brexit. EU residents weren't allowed to vote while non-EU residents were.

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family is the root of most islam induced suffering

While Klevius is forcing islam into a Human Rights corner, Obama continues supporting islamofascism

The "Birmingham Koran" hoax - and a sonless "prophet" invented after it!

Homo Naledi - and a late "West" hating lawyer relative. A judge for May?

BBC lies and fake news

Lego won't sponsor the defense for Human Rights equality - but islamofascism and sharia is ok

Apostate (?) Obama's bio- and adoptive dads were both muslims

Choudary and May both want more sharia and less Human Rights - so what about Brits?

Islam is the hide-away for racist/sexist supremacists

Nazi-muslim cooperation: Audi then built by Jewish slaves - today dangerous quality problems

Japan 10 yrs ahead of Europe ln hybrid/fuelcell cars, space tech etc

God is bad semantics - Science is good math

Origin of Goths and Vikings

The world's oldest real portrait ever found (Central Europe). Carvings dated to 26-29,000 bp.

From tropical island SE-Asia to cold and protein/fat rich Northern Eurasia - and over the world

Origin of islam: Sharia slave finance and sex apartheid

Muslims and Hillary against Human Rights

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

"Allah" is man made racist/sexist interpretation against Human Rights

Muzzammil Hassan (the man on the pic who receives award from the influential islamofascist US organization CAIR-PA's Chairman Iftekhar Hussain and CAIR National's Chairman Parvez Ahmed) founded Bridges TV "to correct misconceptions about islam in America". He then stabbed his divorcing wife nine times and decapitated her in accordance with islamic Sharia tradition in the premises of Bridges TV. Being a believing muslim he was leniently sentenced only for second degree murder for this gruesome islamic honor killing.

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

Klevius is probably now the world's foremost expert on sex segregation (sad, isn't it) and islam (the worst hate cime ever) is the most evil expression of sex segregation. By 'islam' Klevius means Sharia as described by Bill Warner and as adopted by OIC in their Human Rights violating Saudi initiated Cairo declaration (Sharia) from 1990 which replaces Universal Human Rights for women and non-muslims with sexism and racism! Why? Because it's the very soul and origin of islam which wouldn't survive if applied to full Human Rights!

The islamic extermination of the Jews

Burn OIC's islamic anti-Human Rights declaration!

Samantha Lewthwaite, Mishal Husain and Michael Adebolajo have sharia islam in common

The distinct art tracks of the first truly modern humans

Iceage refuges were rooted in Eurasiatic - IE came much later

Klevius altruistic virtual volunteering in defense of Universal Human Rights

Ferrari is a poor quality but expensive Fiat

Ferrari is a poor quality but expensive Fiat

Monday, October 15, 2018

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


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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

British political "logic":


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





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

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


How BBC brainwashes Brits with faked info


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

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

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

The murderous history of the islamofascist Saudi dictator  family



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

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

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

In 1915 William H. Shakespeare, a close advisor to Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman was murdered alongside some Wahhabi conspirators.

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

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

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

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

8 January 1926 Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman (Known as Ibn-Saud) was self-proclaimed "king" of Arabia and was embroiled in discussions with the British representative, Percy Cox, for the determination of the borders of the new entity. The British Public Records described Abdul-Aziz’s demeaning stature at these meetings “like a naughty schoolboy” in front of Cox. When Cox insisted it was his decision as to draw the frontiers between Kuwait, “Ibn-Saud almost broke down and pathetically remarked that Sir Percy was like his father and mother who made him and raised him from nothing… and he would surrender half his Kingdom, nay the whole, if Sir Percy ordered. Cox took out a map and pencil and drew a line of the frontier of Arabia”.

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

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

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

In 1957, "king" Saud made the first trip by a Saudi dictator-monarch to the United States.

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

In 1964, "king" Saud Bin Abdul-Aziz died and Faisal Bin Abdul Aziz became king.

"King" Faisal by special request of the British government was a central force behind the establishment of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (the OIC) in Jeddah.

In 1975 he was murdered by his brother Fahd.

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

In 1982 he was poisoned by his brother Fahd .

In 1982, Fahd became "king".

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

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

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

Sunday, October 14, 2018

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

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

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


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

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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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





.

Saturday, October 13, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

Theresa may escaping Saudi induced muslim terrorism.

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




















.

Wednesday, October 10, 2018

Peter Klevius theories on Thalamus/cognition and human evolution somehow bypassed John Hawks despite being clearly visible on the web for some 15 years.

Are scientists holding science back?


John Hawks is described by Wikipedia as the author of a widely read paleoanthropology blog. He is also an associate professor of anthropology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. However, Klevius wonders if he also reads other blogs of importance for his topic? Or is it just that he doesn't like bloggers who defend basic Human Rights? However, Klevius use to read Hawks blog which in many respect is a decent one. However, when John Hawks writes: "Humans, with a rapidly evolving brain and vastly larger cortex, might be just the lineage in which “wrong” connections might have a positive effect once in a while", he would have greatly benefitted by taking Klevius seriously. There can't be "wrong connections" because such a statement is only possible from an outsider's existence-centric (see below) and subjective assessment.



His latest posting refers to a paper by Michael Halassa about the Thalamus, i.e. a topic in which Peter Klevius has been the absolute world leader since 1992-94. In Demand for Resources (1992:30-33, ISBN 9173288411) Klevius laid down the philosophical foundation, and crossed the boundaries between consciousness-observation-understanding-language and wrapped it all in one, i.e. adaptation.

According to Klevius 1990-92 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 appearance due to adaptation.

Consciousness is neither simple nor complicated - and certainly not a "mystery". The real mystery is why 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 adapted to getting food, which later on was mounted with additional gadgets (vision, hearing etc.) and among vertebrats connected via Thalamus. In short, as Klevius wrote 1992, this is why olfactory "memories" feel so different and powerful. 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.

To prove adaptation (not "mind")Klevius conducted the ultimate experiment (1992:30-33):

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

A critique of Habermas' dichotomy observing/understanding:

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

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

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

 Excerpt from EMAH (1994-2003):

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 for a discussion abt a shrinking god and the allmighty human!

1994, after having read a paper in Nature about two-way Thalamic communications, in a letter to Francis Crick Klevius presented EMAH (the Even More Astonishing Hypothesis) as a commentary to Crick's The Astonishing Hypothsesis. Here Klevius connected what he had written already 1990 (and a precursor back in 1981) with a recent paper in Nature about thalamic two-way communication with the cortex.

 A lousy VHS copy of Peter Klevius 1986 refugee video was uploaded 2007 and can be seen here.

Already before that, over a cup of coffee in Finland, Klevius had explained to his slightly perplexed sound engineer friend (who mixed the music in Klevius Saigon video) that Klevius girlfriend (who sat at the same table) was principally not unlike a brick when it comes to consciousness and mind. Tension was released when Klevius added himself and his friend in the same category.

Actually, since 2004 the web has been scattered by Klevius images and text referring to his EMAH theory and human evolution. Everyone the slightest interested in cognition/brain/consciousness and anthropology should have been able to stumble on Klevius.


EMAH has been on the web since 2003 so there's no way paleo-anthropologist John Hawks could have avoided seeing it because when you image google on the two most interesting Homos ever found, i.e. 'floresiensis denisovan', Klevius comes up first. Or just type 'klevius' on normal Google search and see what pics come up.


Klevius EMAH theory:

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".


When China arrests someone for corruption Swedish Aftonbladet compares it with islamofascist Saudi dictator family. Why?


How Saudi-corrupted is media?



Aftonbladet calls Xi a "tyrant" because he has to fight against Saudi induced islamic hate mongering/terrorism. Btw, why is an arrest under corruption chrges "mysterious"?

While US and UK have turned into arrogant and militaristic hate mongerers siding with the worst of the worst (the islamofascist Saudi dictator family)
China is now the unchallenged world leader when it comes to spread prosperity and peaceful development around the world. And in doing so China has settled for a hard line against one of the main scourges  of the world, namely corruption.

However, Aftonbladet compares China with the islamofascist Saudi dictator family based on something the latter has caused, namely islamofascist hate mongering and terrorism among Uyghur jihadis - something that probably most Uyghurs don't even support.

Stop fake media such as Aftonbladet, BBC etc.! Prosecute journalists and editors who knowingly fake, misinform, and deliberately neglect important news.



When most media already had reported for some time about Jamal Khashoggi's disappearance in the Saudi consulate in Turkey, nothing could be found about it on Aftonbladet..


And the West seems to eagerly support this islamofascist hate campaign as a means to meddle in and hinder China's peaceful development projects.

And when Chinese authorities have to protect their own citizens (incl. peacful Uyghurs) it's called "human rights violations". Can hypocrisy and bigotry get any lower?

Just as in the case of the Saudi fostered Rohyngia islamofascists among Rohyngia people.



.

Sunday, September 30, 2018

BBC Radio 4 faked the US Supreme Court nomination by deliberately implying* that Christine Blasey Ford "was 100% sure" about rape* when she in fact only said she was 100% sure the person was Brett Kavanaugh.


* Klevius has the recording so don't make the mistake of giving your personal details to BBC.

Klevius to #MeToo: The most important sex education, i.e. about heterosexual attraction (HSA), is completely lacking (see Klevius sex tutorial below).



There's a real issue and a political one. Don't let #MeToo slip into a political weapon that counteracts women's Human Rights equality?

Klevius can't see any difference between these women from a Human Rights perspective. Can you?


Klevius has never seen any difference between women and men - other than heterosexual attraction - re. some women, and only connected to eroticism when the woman wants so. And even then no problem withdrawing - despite the fact that Klevius throughout his life has been well served by testosterone - again, ask any* woman he has encountered about this.

* Except, of course, the childhood friend he met on a pub and who invited him home. Klevius was so excited about talking nostalgia that he didn't even understand that she actually was out for a one night stand before it was too late.




This image by Klevius has been on the web since 2003.

There are two main experts on heterosexual attraction (HSA): Klevius and islam. However, whereas the former advocates for including women in full Human Rights equality, the latter stipulates the very opposite in its sharia.

Klevius partial translation: I now understand - you really raped me. Sex harping and gazes - everyday experience on vacation. Stop limiting us.

The main culprit for keeping boys and girls segregated on this fundamental issue is theoretical* feminism which, in accordance with its name, states that women should be segregated ("genderized") as "feminine" as opposed to "masculine" men.

The tectonic tension and due intermittent "quakes" that has been built up through thousands of years of sex segregation could easily be resolved by just admitting the problem.

* Do consider the difference between theoretical feminism and the folk word 'feminist' meaning someone who (like e.g. Klevius) supports full Human Rights equality for women. The former started as an anti-vote movement in the 19th century. If Mary Woolstonecraft in the 18th century had met with Klevius they would possibly have bored each other to death because of lacking anything to debate on issues of sex.



What probably happened if then 17 year old now Supreme Court Nominee met with his then 15 year old now accuser as described by her. Klevius interpretation based on his knowledge about the "push for sex" mentality.


Acknowledgement: Dear reader, be assured that in the below, Klevius doesn't judge, only offers analytical tools for a deeper analysis. And for the purpose of mapping the cultural environment (i.e. sex segregation), both a personal as well a general view is presented as a background.

Klevius childhood contained many girl friends (in the true meaning of 'friend'). However, in his early teens Klevius was cursed by a couple of years of heavy acne which wasn't very helful for his teenage "coolness", especially as he didn't have a family of his own and at age 14 had to move to a school far away where most in his grade knew each other from before. So suddenly he became aware of sex segregation from two different aspects. Although he was used to play and fool around with girls, now they just neglected him and instead paid more attention to boys who were "cool". But this "coolness" was quite often a push-for-sex one rather than "friendly". Klevius was puzzled while instead of mingling with the others or doing school-works, sitting in the library reading Wittgenstein (Klevius best subject became gymnastics, mainly thanks to him walking on his hands over the basket ball floor in front of a PE teacher who had threatened to fail him).

However, when the acne eventually disappeared, and with some new hair style and clothes, the girls were suddenly back in town - followed by the next sex chock. Because it now had become so easy to meet girls Klevius got quite relaxed to sex. To an extent that a very attractive girl (Klevius admits that he in young age stupidity flattered himself by getting attention from the most beautiful ones) said to him that she felt so good with him "because you don't try to push me in bed all the time". Add to this that Klevius homelands were Sweden and Finland, and that these countries have been the most liberal in the world. Together these things made up the foundation of Klevius view on sex segregation and Human Rights equality - and how HSA is a one-sex issue affecting both sexes, yet hasn't been properly addressed - especially not in psychology, a discipline that started as the clinical study of actual animal behavior (especially domesticated ones) but continued as a "scientified" guesswork about the human mind propelled by Freud's non-scientific albeit populist non-sense "psychoanalytic" defense of sex segregation (see Klevius psychosocial Freud timeline, Why did you call yourself a psychoanalist, Karen Horney, Pathological Symbiosis 2004, Angels of Antichrist 1996, and Klevius 1992 book Demand for Resources). 

Kevin Cramer said he'd have a bigger problem with Kavanaugh knowing Ford is right and lying about it than he would with Ford's allegation being true.
"What if something like what Dr. Ford describes happened? It's tragic. It's unfortunate, it's terrible, it should never happen in our society," Cramer said.
"But what if 36 years of a record where there's nothing like that again -- but instead there's a record of a perfect gentleman, of an intellect, of a stellar judge, a guy who's been in front of what, he's had 300 cases in front of him and hasn't had a misstep," he said. "Even if it's all true, does it disqualify him? It certainly means that he did something really bad 36 years ago. But does it disqualify him from the Supreme Court?"

The interviewer then pointed out that, if the allegations are true, Kavanaugh would have lied under oath.
"I think that disqualifies him," Cramer responded. "If it's found that he knew -- that he recalls it, and knew it happened and lies about it, that's -- then I think that would disqualify him. Because that's what he's doing today, not 36 years ago."

Klevius: But what if Kavanaugh knows Ford isn't exactly right? Or that there are two "rights"? In such a situation Brett Kavanaugh's version would have appeared more like a confession than a defense in today's #MeToo world. Bearing in mind Christine Blasey Ford's strong ties to a worldview very hostile to that of Brett Kavanaugh seems also to ask for assessment.

Mark Judge: “I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes.”

Klevius: Perhaps not. Maybe they, in their minds, saw different things. Or maybe she fixated her memory in words stiffened in the process of her political agenda and psychological paradigm/discourse spiced with "recovered memories".

Ford claimed Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed during a party in Maryland, attempted to remove her clothes and put his hand over her mouth to prevent her from screaming. She said he and Judge had also turned the music up to a loud volume.

Klevius: This could also be a general desciption of "pushy" but quite frequent "normal" behavior of a teenage boy attemting for sex but not rape. Even though Klevius never tried to "pin" someone down, others certainly did without them or most of the "pinned downed" experiencing it as an attemt to rape. How many #MeToo husbands have done exactly the same? Klevius has always considered such pushing behavior wrong, but Klevius also knows it was extremely normal for many girls to accept it, possibly as a means of not feeling guilt for having sex. However, in the case of the 15 year old Christine Blasey Ford it seems clear that she didn't want to have sex. And according to her own statement the boys let her go - how else could she have resisted their strength? It seems more likely that the boys realized that they were on the verge of rape and precisely therefore stopped.

Klevius: Perhaps Brett Kavanaugh saw it similarily, or at least knew that he hadn't tried to rape anyone. Remembering would in this sense basically mean a repetition of what Christine Blasey Ford said but with a completely different understanding. Do consider that Christine Blasey Ford's words could fit many/most(?) of drunken high school party sex encounters at the time.

Overcome with tears several times, Ford slowly and softly detailed her experience of being pinned to a bed at a high school party as a 15-year old sophomore as she said Kavanaugh put a hand over her mouth to stifle her screams, and his friend Mark Judge stood by, alternately goading him on and telling him to stop.

Klevius was heavily physically and verbally abused as a little child growing up in a foster home that used him as a slave worker and kick him out to a foreign country at age 17 (Klevius was kidnapped at age two). However, when now talking about it there's no need for tears - only grown up reasoning.

"Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter, the laughter, the uproarious laughter between the two, and their having fun at my expense," she said of Kavanaugh and Judge.

Ford testified that in the years since she has experienced anxiety, phobias and PTSD-like symptoms. In the immediate years following the incident, Ford said she suffered academically and had difficulties forming friendships, particularly with men.

Klevius has had none of that.

Ford claimed she was able to escape to a bathroom and then outside of the house when Judge jumped into the fray and sent everyone in the room "tumbling."

Klevius: "able to escape"? A 15 year old drunk girl who was afraid of becoming a rape victim managed to over power two 17 year old youngsters?!

Again, Klevius doesn't defend pushy sex behavior, that's for sure. Ask any of his wives/girlfriends throughout his entire life span. However, what Klevius does want to emphasize is women's acceptance of sex segregation. As a consequence of such reasoning Klevius concludes that mothers, sisters, female peers, educators, Hollywood etc. are partially to blame (also see Klevius PhD thesis).


Klevius advise: Let people take care of news and information - avoid professional media, especially BBC. Klevius takes care of BBC for you (see Klevius BBC News).


Klevius wrote:

Sunday, December 18, 2016

In Peter Klevius Yule* sex tutorial Geri Jewell reveals that "the denial was that the passion David had sexually I couldn't equal", and Michelle Thomson that when her friend raped her "it wasn't sexual".

* Yule is old Swedish (spelled 'jul') meaning wheel (which comes from the same word 'hjul') of the year, i.e. Vinter solstice around 21 December, and in modern times "Christmas" celebration although it has nothing to do with religion.

Klevius: All women are gay*. However, not every woman has realized it as yet...

Women, from a male point of view, have wonderful assess - just like feamale dogs from a male dog's perspective. And not only that, women have the potential to reproduce. And when women are receptive there are usually no lack of providers. So women should really not have anything to complain about in this respect. Other than, of course sex segregation/apartheid.

The sperm has to be attracted to the egg in some way. That's biological 'heterosexual attraction'. Testosterone is an important hormone in this task. However, the measurements are not easily compared between men and women because labs tend to (why?!) state the percentage of free testosterone for men, but give a measurement in pg/ml for women. Or the male measurements will be in ng/dl requiring a mathematical conversion for direct comparison to the "normal" range of the opposite sex. The level readings between men and women are so vastly different because the number represents a percentage of the TOTAL testosterone. Women naturally start with a much lower total amount, so 2.5% of 40ng/dl is going to be much less than 2.5% of 800ng/dl in a man.

However, even 20 times more Testosterone doesn't mean a man is necessitated to sex - merely that he is always potentially ready for sex (at least Klevius - the "extremely normal" - is and has always been since his adolescence). In other words, Klevius proposes that we lay to rest the old imposing "dog sex" culture and instead all treat each other as humans, not as sexual beings. However, to achieve this we need to teach young girls (and boys) about the only real difference between the sexes, namely heterosexual attraction, so it won't be confused with sexual acts (which people should of course be allowed to perform without any other restrictions than what the law says added with full and informed consent - just like most other civilized behavior. Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, we need to end the mostly male "push for sex" culture, i.e. dog behavior. Asexuality should be the default state of interaction.

And to avoid unnecessary confusion re. Klevius sex analysis, do understand that unlike physical reproduction in the female body (which is completely independent from the male one), heterosexual attraction needs both sexes although the female one is in this respect the passive one. At this point someone (especially women) might have problem reconciling this with the fact that many women do enjoy sexual acts without possessing the male type gaze for HSA. Klevius then repeats that although all women are gay, not all women do or enjoy sex, which fact should be respected equally as respecting that Klevius has never needed drugs or alcohol for being happy or having good sex, nor has he ever deliberately thrown white pepper around just for the pleasure of sneezing (rest calm, Klevius won't ever criticize you if you do).

And you, if you think this analysis is just Klevius opinion then you haven't understood it at all - read and think again. It's the same logic as 2+2=4.

1 HSA isn't sexual acts per se but a biologically inplanted interest for being attracted to having sex with females. Whereas dogs seem to be more excited by the smell of a female dog's pheromones, human males seem to be more interested in the shape of the female body. In fact, analytically there's no difference between gay sex and hetero sex if HSA isn't a factor (however, it would be enough to term it HSA sex if the male at least think about a physical woman - compare e.g. heterosexual men unknowingly being attracted to males disguised as women).

2 Males have way more potential urge for sex than women because of some 20 times more testosterone. And please, don't confuse this with what Klevius calls "rubbing sex", i.e. just stimulation of the genitals without HSA (compare the case of white pepper and sneezing).  


3  Being pregnant and having a baby has nothing to do with sex segregation at all because it's entirely a woman affair.

4 This means that all women, incl. asexual and achild ones ought to be treated equal with males. And as a consequence, this analysis also benefits men who want to get rid of their macho masculinity label as well as those who unnecessarily feel they're lacking one.
 


Peter Klevius drawing 'Woman' from 1979:

 Drawing (1979) and photo (2012) by Peter Klevius. For those Humanrightsophobes with really limited understanding (i.e. PC), do note that the DNA "ladder" has steel rivets (i.e. strong both for trapping as well as escaping).

Whereas classic sex segregation (read more Klevius to better understand the concept) is imposed by circumstances, religious/cultural sex segregation is what is imposed on girls/women even when it's no longer necessary. In the latter case women have been held back by men to an extent where incompetency outside "women's sphere" increasingly became obvious. As a consequence grown up women started internalizing this incompetency as "femininity" although the only true femininity is defined by heterosexual attraction (read Klevius because you'll find nothing anywhere else so far - sad isn't it).

Peter Klevius 1979 poem 'My Friend':


A rough translation for those poor uneducated individuals lacking Swedish, the origin of the English language (oh, perhaps you were unaware of English being a Scandinavian* language - my deepest condolences):

* The oldest Swedish is Old Nordic. To call it "old Norse" wrongly associates it with Norway and Norwegian, both of which weren't around as entities until after the Viking age. As Klevius has always said: North Germanic, and probably Germanic per se, was a late IE outcome between proto-Uralic and PIE (i.e. what Klevius use to call "old Finland-Swedish").

A perception             (see/se, track/tryck, i.e. see-in-track/synintryck)
a touch
words as diffuse messengers
mirror a glimpse of your thought       (think/ing, tank/e)
in cipher form already distorted        (fore wronged/förvrängd/a)
before they've been said
by me and your expectation               (fore waiting/förväntan)
my friend                                  (  min frände, min vän)

Women on sex and work


Geri Jewell (top left), Nicola Sturgeon and Michelle Thomson (below). Nicola Sturgeon says she would not have suffered her career for a child. Michelle Thomson says she didn't think her rapist (a teenage friend) had any sexual desire when he raped her a night when she was 14 and they walked home together. This she told in front of a tear filled UK Parliament (she has also recently been questioned in a pending mortgage fraud case). However, Klevius doesn't believe in rape without sexual desire - what was lacking was respect for basic Human Rights equality, i.e. that her friend had been brainwashed by sex segregation to an extent that he saw her only as an object for heterosexual attraction, not as an other human being on an equal footing.

Actress and comedian Geri Jewell, who has cerebral palsy (witch has not affected her intelligence - only motorics), reveals in a new memoir, I’m Walking As Straight As I Can (alluding to her a-heterosexuality as well as her motoric disability) how much she struggled growing up with a disability and how she wrestled with her "sexuality" (or rather lack of it), and reveals she is a "lesbian", which is a code word for not possessing male heterosexual attraction genes nor same level of testosterone.

Geri Jewell was the first disabled actor to take a lead role in a sitcom and she's gone on to challenge ideas about what is possible. She describes the pressures on her to go into a job suited to her disability and what made her rebel against such restricting expectations

Peter Klevius: Her rebellion against such restricting expectations as created by cultural sex segregation is just stunning - although her escape under an equally sex segregated cover ("lesbian", "gay" etc.) is not. Why didn't she claim her Human Rights as described in the 1948 Universal Human Rights Declaration against fascism, which gives her the right to lead her life as she wishes without having to "explain" it. Or is it because she is an American, and the US Constitution still doesn't give women full equality with men - hence necessitating labels?
US women fighting in vain for equality some 70 years after Finnish women got full equality.



Klevius wrote:

Sunday, January 1, 2017

Peter Klevius psychosocial Freud timeline

In Atheist* Peter Klevius series notorious "Atheist" idiots** (or just deliberate scumbags) from the past still having their sexist shadow hanging over us.

* There are true Atheists (like Klevius) and naive Atheists (like those with a too simplistic view on religion - e.g. not realizing the importance of sex segregation for the "Abrahaic religions" emanating from Zoroastrian and its prophet Zarathustra from the Russian Pontic-Caspian steppe near Ural).
** Charcot (Freud's mentor), Freud, etc. just replaced conventional religion with new forms rooted in exorcism.



Dear reader, while BBC is busy spreading fake info and islam propaganda* over ignorant license paying Brits, Klevius always guarantees real info. Judge for yourself - and complain about BBC's disgusting behavior and intellectual emptiness!

Of course it had to be a muslim presenter who 8 a.m. in the morning welcomed the Brits on Christmas day with a long story about an other muslim, etc. etc. Followed up with endless programs about how the "Abrahamic religions" (essentially to boost islam - Christianity is already dead in UK and Jews are a tiny minority) are so much better than everything else.



Henri F. Ellenberger, Peter Klevius favorite source on psychoanalysis) has been praised (but 'criticized', according to stupid religiously biased Wikipedia) for modeling his picture of the origins of psychiatry in the Enlightenment clash with Demonology — in the triumph of illuminated reason over the blindness of faith. Perhaps 'blindness of faith' is an exageration when keeping in mind that religion has very profane objectives, e.g. sex segregation.


Sharia islam is today the worst threat against women's access to full Human Rights equality. This is why Trump was a better choice for women than Clinton who strongly has advocated for sharia islam's main world organization, the Saudi steered and Saudi based OIC. Drawing (1979) and photo (2012) by P. Klevius.

The reason Klevius is self-promoting is (except for no one else daring to do it, and to serve an audience starved on the "real thing") exactly the opposite to why most bloggers (and media) do it. Compare the promotion of ordinary, or even sub-standard products among high quality ones. A reader stumbling over a blog that looks out of the ordinary and says strange (but logical) things, may need some hard facts about the author, who himself is out of the ordinary (although he calls himself "the extremely normal" to emphasize his logic and internal harmony that should attract those who value it). Dear reader. Of some reason word and phrase statistics etc. clearly show you've a positive view on Klevius. However, how do we get more people reading and understanding Klevius? If you support Wikipedia you shouldn't be forgiven for not supporting Klevius and his defense for your Human Rights, right!


Peter Klevius: Relying on my scientific methodology I enter the field of subversion* through the Trojanian pores of diffuse discourse conceptualizations. My pockets are full of "alien" thoughts and well inside, when I am throwing them around, they might reveal internal inconsistencies in the very discourse I am visiting, not sharing. My employer? Negative human rights, of course!

*the potential subversion is already there waiting for revelation via the dynamics that is created by "alien" thoughts. But "alien thoughts" are no threat to a certain discourse if they don't use this particular method.


Charcot and his school considered the ability to be hypnotized as a clinical feature of hysteria. Here Charcot demonstrating hypnosis on a "hysterical" Salpêtrière patient, "Blanche" (Blanche Wittmann), who is supported by Dr. Joseph Babiński (rear). Blanche acted"hysteric" for to prove Charcot's senseless charlatanic fantasies true. It was here Sigmund Freud got his first kick into the unethical and unscientific swamp that he called "psychoanalysis" - an extension of exorcism, now clad in a new language spiced with medical latin words.

Wikipedia's weird description of this monster of charlatanism: Jean-Martin Charcot (/ʃɑːrˈkoʊ/; French: [ʃaʁko]; 29 November 1825 – 16 August 1893) was a French neurologist and professor of anatomical pathology.[1] He is known as "the founder of modern neurology",[2] and his name has been associated with at least 15 medical eponyms, including Charcot–Marie–Tooth disease and Charcot disease (better known as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, motor neurone disease, or Lou Gehrig disease).[1] Charcot has been referred to as "the father of French neurology and one of the world's pioneers of neurology".[3] His work greatly influenced the developing fields of neurology and psychology; modern psychiatry owes much to the work of Charcot and his direct followers.[4] He was the "foremost neurologist of late nineteenth-century France"[5] and has been called "the Napoléon of the neuroses".

Richard Webster on Charcot's student Sigmund Freud: If Freud’s early patients were, for the most part, not suffering from psychological disturbances at all, and if Freud’s therapeutic technique was founded on the medical errors of Charcot, it might well be asked how it was that he (and Breuer) succeeded in curing so many patients in the remarkable fashion attested to by the early case histories.

Peter Klevius psychosocial Freud timeline


The hysteric birth of psychoanalysis


Sigmund Freud desperately tried to "scientifically" defend how he treated his wife in a world that already had begun abandoning most of sex segregation in practical life. In fact, what many psychoanalytic feminists now ascribe to the "patriarchy" is often a product of this prolonged "artificial" sex segregation and hence due to Freud's and their own separatist efforts.

Sex segregation is the reactionary "phallus" seen as the "hystericized site of displaced" sexes in a world entering the confusion of modernity.. Feminists & Islamists = guardians of the "feminine".

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

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

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

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

However, for women he suggested "a normal penis several times" to keep hysteria at bay.

This timeline (launched on the web in 2003) is copied from a yet unpublished book: Homo Filius Nullius  - the Illegitimate Man by Peter Klevius. It consists of mostly Peter Klevius' own observations but includes other gathered material as well.

An interesting detail in the timeline below is Hollywood's early and strong engagement in psyhoanalysis. My working hypothesis is that it might have something to do with certain characteristics of Hollywood, which in a way, are precursors of Homo Filius Nullius and the social state he (and she - compare Finnish non-gender/sex 'hän') lives in. Attractive people were transported to this particular place where they met with other equally attractive but lonely people. As we all do know, apart from movies Hollywood’s favorite product for the media was divorce. It became cool to divorce because these attractive stars did it at an early time with quite some frequency  But for many of these stars it might not have been that cool as it appeared and most likely the introduction of psychoanalytic thinking in Hollywood was an attempt to try to better resolve personal relations on these grounds. Here again we see the same pattern of modernity, sex-segregation and lose attachment treated with the disease itself!

1879-80 Translated one volume of Mill's collected works and didn't like Mill's idea about women's emancipation and equal rights. Actually this was the real starting point for Freud's fanatic and lifelong search/construction of a "scientific" defense for sex segregation (see What is sex segregation?) in an unprecedented  time of female "gender" breakers..

1881 Sigmund Freud finally gets his delayed medical degree, and a poorly paid job.

1882 Suddenly left his job without getting a new one.

1883 Tried to convince his fiancee that Mill was a moron and that a woman (by nature) belonged to kitchen, nursing room and bed.to such an extent that it "...practically rule out any profession". However, the (deliberate?) development of psychoanalysis into a female profession (many of the female child psychoanalystst were childless including his own daughter Anna Freud), forced him to a pragmatic acceptance of professional (but sex segregated) women while reinforcing his sense that the distinction was still regarded as fundamental..

1884-5 Freud ruins his scientific reputation by presenting too hasty and erroneous conclusions about cocaine.

1885-86 Freud visits his mentor and idol Jean Charcot's lectures on "hysteria" in Paris.

1886   At the end of April, Freud, known as a “practising magnétiseur”, opens his private medical practice in an effort to economically survive after having been laughed down (because of the cocaine mess) by the Viennese scientific society.

1886-7 Turns to hypnotic suggestion based on the lectures of the pathetic Charcot in Paris.

1888 Freud begins treating Anna von Lieben, known in "Studies in Hysteria" as Caecilie M.

1889 In July, Freud begun using the cathartic method on Anna von Lieben, a wealthy morphine addict he treated twice a day for some three years.

1890-92  The “discovery” of electrical activity in the brain was debated in the Viennese ‘Centralblatt für Physiologie’. Freud and his Viennese colleagues did not know about the original discovery by the British R. Caton from 1875.

1891  Caton sends a letter to Centralblatt in which he describes his findings presented in Britain in 1875 and 1878.
(Peter Klevius is, until disproved, to be considered the first (2001) and only one (so far) to have acknowledged the crucial connection between Freud's emerging psychoanalysis and Caton's discovery). Few researcher even know abt the basic controversy (i.e. that Caton was some 17 years - sic - ahead of the Viennese scholars) underlying Klevius' theory. The implications of Klevius findings abt the Freud/Caton connection, are presented in "Pathological symbiosis", and are entirely described in yet unpublished Homo Filius Nullius.

1891  Freud’s ideas on neuronal transmission were altered because of Waldeyer’s hypothesis that the nervous impulse also had to be discontinuous.

1891 Death of Fleischl von Marxow (Freud’s friend who erroneously thought he was the first who had discovered electrical activity in the brain, and who became a cocaine addict because of Freud).

1891 On Aphasia 1891. London and New York, 1953. Indicates a psychosomatic connection between body and language.

1892 Freud moves (according to Macmillan) from the descriptive level of Charcot’s hysteria to the more sophisticated ideas of Janet (March 11).

1892 Dec. A preliminary report on hysteria. A preliminary report for the 1895 book Studies in Hysteria.

1892  First mentioning on tics.

1893  “…in mental functions something is to be distinguished, a quota of affect or a sum of excitation which possesses all the characteristics of a quantity (though we have no means of measuring it), which is capable of increase, diminution, displacement and discharge, and which is spread over the memory-traces of ideas somewhat as an electric charge is spread over the surface of a body. This hypothesis, which, incidentally already underlies our theory of ”abreaction” in our ”Preliminary Communication” (1893), can be applied in the same sense as physicists apply the hypothesis of a flow of electric fluid explaining a great variety of psychical states”.

1893 Freud, S, On the Psychical Mechanism of Hysterical Phenomena. [with J.   Breuer] SE 2, 3-17.

1894 -  The first written appearance of the word "feminism" as we know it. Two completely different "feminisms" can be exemplified by "feminine" Hubertine Auclert and "non-feminine" Madeleine Pelletier. Also compare the notion of "false feminism" ascribed to competent women competing on male turf.

1894 Freud, S, The Neuro-Psychoses of Defence. SE 3, 43-61.
.
1894  “… a complicated electrical apparatus” (in The Neuro Psychosis of Defence).
The obvious connection between Caton and Freud has to my knowledge not been pointed out before the presentation of this timeline (P. Klevius).

1894  Freud suffers from impotence. Fliess gives him cocaine to cure a sinus infection – Freud got addicted and begun his "self-analysis".

1894  December. Fliess visited Freud and examined Emma Eckstein.

1895  Women's football on the rise (e.g. Nettie Honeyball).

1895  In February Freud asked Fliess to cure Emma Eckstein’s “nasal reflex neurosis” (a hoax diagnose, see above) by unnecessarily removing the middle left concha of her nose. Emma was on the verge of bleeding to death from gauze that carelessly had been left within her nasal cavity. According to Freud Emma was not bleeding because of ruptured veins but because she had, unconsciously, fallen in love with him.

1895 First woman scales Matterhorn (Europe's highest mountain), gets big headlines and becomes notoious in Victoian circles. Did Freud think she actually climbed a penis, and did her (and other women's) strength contributed to the birth of psychoanalysis one year later?

1895  Fliess is peeping on his toddler son’s spontaneous penile erections while looking at his mother. This is then connected to Freud’s “memory” of  his desire to copulate with his mother at the age of two.

1895  May.  “a consuming passion for psychology” (a “tyrant” as Freud himself describes it in a letter to Fliess).

1895  The first Freudian psychotherapy appeared in 1895, in Freud’s contribution to his and Breuer’s Studies in Hysteria. Here Freud gives the concepts of ”resistance” and ”transference” their first definition.

1895  Freud, S, A Project for a Scientific Psychology. SE 1, 283-397.

1895  On July 25, 1895, the secret of the dream "revealed" itself to Freud.

1896  First coins the term "psychoanalysis”. Freud's father dies and Freud starts his self-analysis (according to some interpretations – but see  1894).

1896 Freud, S, The Aetiology of Hysteria.

1897  “I no longer believe in my neurotica” (seduction theory).

1897 University of Vienna for the first time permitted the enrolment of women.

1897  When Anna Freud was two or less Freud “discovered” infantile sexuality and the Oedipus complex.

1898 Freud, S, Sexuality in the Aetiology of the Neuroses.

1898 R v Krafft-Ebing: Psychology of sexual life. Mentions "psychoanalysis" (Krafft-Ebing was positive to Freud because they both shared the view that "sexuality" was world-embracing, and hence "readable" in every aspect of life. He strongly supported Freud's application to his university).

1899 Freud, S, Screen Memories.

1900  S. F. The Interpretation of Dreams published. (written in 1898-1899).

1901 In the autumn of 1901, Freud was faced with a mind far superior than his own. Otto Weininger approached him with an outline for his thesis (not the final book version) Sex and Character. Of course Freud wasn't the man to take it so he rejected the young (21) genius in the most brute way and hence probably contributed to this sensitive youngster´s suicide. Although Weininger based his thoughts erranenously on a speculative male/female "sex-fluid" in every cell (he didn't know abt DNA and therefore couldn't properly asssess the power of heterosexual attraction), his importance as a genius is the internal logic in his construction - a logic that made Wittgenstein choose Otto, but not Sigmund, to his list of a few important thinkers that had impressed him. Also see Klevius analysis of mind and awareness!.

1904  S. F. published Psychopathology of Everyday Life; and ended relationship with Fliess (who accused Freud of plagiarism).

1905  S. F. published Three Essays on Sexuality and Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious.

1907 Freud and Jung meet in Vienna.

1908  First International Psychoanalytical Congress, Salzburg,
Vienna.

1909  S. F. forms International Psychoanalytical Society with Carl Jung as its first president. Comes to US to give a series of lectures at Clark Univ. (invited by G. Stanley Hall).

1911  Adler left Freud.

1914  Jung left Freud.

1914  S. F. "On Narcissism"-- the first mentioning of the ego ideal, which will become the superego.

1915  S. F. delivers introductory lectures at University of Vienna.

1917  S. F. publishes Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis.

1918-22  S. F. analyzed his daughter Anna Freud and put more emphasis on a mother's role in a daughter's life versus the father's role as being the sole motivator for behavior.

1920  S. F. publishes Beyond the Pleasure Principle; introduces the death instinct.

1920  The first child psychoanalyst, Hermine Hug-Hellmuth, publishes “On the Technique of Child Analysis”.

1921  British FA bans women's football by the help of female physicians, who (as experts on the female body and mind) declare the game "unsuitable for women". Several of the doctors involved are now presented as feminists by feminist writers of today. And feminists should know who are feminists, shouldn't they (also see Heroic gender breaking women  -  and some tiny men)?

1921  S. F. publishes Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego; applies social context to psychoanalysis.

1921 Margaret Schönberger (Mahler, 24) had severe stomach pains and attacks that horrified her circle of friends. She was diagnosed with Heirshsprung disease, "a congenital disorder of the colon rectum which is unable to relax and permit the passage of stool. During the surgery severe adhesions were discovered and removed. After the procedure, the problem ended.

1922  Anna Freud became a member of the International Psychoanalytic Congress.

1922 Margaret Schönberger (Mahler) age 25, arrived to Vienna and was taken care of by the "expert on delinquency" August Aichhorn.

1923  A long series of operations on Freud’s jaw to remove cancer. Anna felt she had to stay with him because, not only had he been borrowing money from friends, but also he was now ill.

1923  S. F. Publishes The Ego and the Id; a final structural theory.

1923  Anna Freud, while taking care of the neighbors’ children: "I think sometimes that I want, not only to make them healthy, but also, at the same time, to have them, or at least have something of them, for myself”

1923  Sigmund Freud:"Our symbiosis with an American family, whose children my daughter is bringing up analytically with a firm hand, is growing continually stronger"

1923 Klein M. The development of a child. Int. J. Psychoanal., 4:419.

1923  Presented structural model of id, ego, & superego (at age 67).

1924 Hermine Hug-Hellmuth publishes “New Ways to the Understanding Youth”.

1924 On 9 September Hermine Hug-Hellmuth was found strangled (by the boy she had analysed) on her couch. 2.400.000 Kronen were stolen from her underwear. According to a brief entry by Siegfred Bernfeld in International Journal of Psychoanalysis Hermine expressed a desire in a will a few days before she was murdered that no account of  her life and work should appear in psychoanalytic publications!

1924 S. F. allegedly turns down an offer of $100,000 by Samuel Goldwyn to cooperate in making movies of famous love stories.

1924  Klein M. The role of school in the libidinal development of the child. Int. J. Psychoanal., 5:312-331.
.
1925 Anna Freud began getting heavily involved with Child Psychoanalysis.

1926  Infant analysis., Int. J. Psychoanal., 7:31-63.

1926 Publishes Inhibitions, Symptoms and Anxiety.

1926 Helene Deutsch began analyzing Margaret Schönberger (Mahler). After 14 months of cancellations she said Margaret was "unanalyzable".

1927 Symposium about the Freud/Klein controversy, arranged by Jones.

1927 August Aichhorn (who had a “personal relationship” with her) became Margaret Schönberger’s training analyst.

1927  Anna Freud, Eva Rosenfeld and Dorothy Burlingham organized a school for local children, later, Hampsted War Nursery research.

1927 Anna Freud’s first book entitled Introduction to the Technique of Child Analysis. It was a collection of all her lectures, and a direct attack at Melanie Klein's theories.

1927  S. F. publishes The Future of an Illusion; debunks religion on rational, scientific grounds.

1933 Margaret Schönberger (Mahler) was finally accepted as an analyst.

1934-6 (?) Rolf (who strangled Hermine Hug Hellmuth 1924) was released and started chasing the psychoanalytic movement and especially Helene Deutch). Deutch’s husband hired two protectors and Rolf eventually disappeared).

1942  M. Mahler: Pseudoimbecility: a Magic Cap of Invisibility.

1944  M. Mahler: Tics and Impulsions in Children: A Study of Motility.

1947  "The Hampstead Clinic is sometimes spoken of as Anna Freud's extended family, and that is how it often felt, with all the ambivalence such a statement implies," one of her staff wrote

1949  Margaret Mahler gives the first hint of her coming theory about symbiosis in a footnote in ‘Clinical studies in benign and malignant cases of childhood psychosis – schizophrenia-like”, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, vol 19, s 297, fotnot.

1949 Therese Benedek published what was perhaps the first use of the concept of ‘symbiosis’ to characterize the early mother-infant unit.

1951  John Bowlby: Maternal Care and Mental Health," published by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1952. ). It stimulated future studies of infant-mother bonding and the effects of early separation.

1955  Mahler and Gosliner presents an idea about human symbiosis and separation/individuation, that launches the research project “The natural history of symbiotic child psychosis” at Masters Children’s Center in New York.

1957  Bowlby's first formal statement of Attachment Theory, ‘The Nature of the Child's Tie to his Mother’was read to the British Psychoanalytic Society. The paper was controversial. Donald Winnicott: "It was certainly a difficult paper to appreciate without giving away everything that has been fought for by Freud". Anna Freud: "Dr Bowlby is too valuable a person to get lost to psychoanalysis".
.
1957  The revelation of the deeds of “the real Psycho”, Ed Gein. Although he suffered and was diagnosed with severe paranoid schizophrenia, the popular “psycho”-analytic “diagnosis” about a too close attachment with his mother is the one that still labels him. When Ed appeared in the psychoanalytic circles and popular culture (which are almost the same as has been noted above, i.e. that psychoanalysis far from being radical can thank its success precisely because it is reactionary) he fulfilled every possible expectation.

1950-64  When Leo Rangell arrived in Los Angeles in 1946, he felt that psychoanalysis seemed ideal. Psychoanalysis was then, according to Rangell, 'as golden as the Southern California sun'. The treatment of the war neuroses together with the arrival of the European analysts who had fled Hitler advanced psychoanalysis, attracting much professional and popular interest. While LAPSI had become almost paralyzed in the late 1940s, the period following the split became for some a 'golden age' for psychoanalysis'. Both societies expanded and graduates quickly developed full analytic practices. Mel Mandel who began training at LAPSI in 1952 recalled that the animosity between the societies 'was as thick as a heavy fog'. Still, within LAPSI the 1950s provided some 'periods of quiescence'.
By the early 1960s, the 'golden age' was over.

1957-61  In 1947, Ernst Simmel appointed Greenson as a training analyst. After the split Greenson became president of the Los Angeles Psychoanalytic Society (1951-53) and Dean of Education (1957-61). He was Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the UCLA Medical School.

1959  Mahler et al’s follow up study with normal children and their mothers.

1959  Psycho, book by Robert Bloch (compared to the movie a more incestuous relationship between a 41 year old man and his mother).

1960  Psycho by Alfred Hitchcock (about a young man that killed his mother). Based on Robert Bloch’s novel but influenced by the screen player Joseph Stefano and the information he got from his psychoanalysts (compare the LAPSI controversy among US psychoanalysts at the time). The movie can be interpreted as a mix of Kleinian and Mahlerian thoughts on the mother/son-relationship. "He used to ask me about my analysis. Many of the things I supplied for Norman's background were not in the book because I was learning in analysis why boys killed their mothers. I would tell Hitch all these things. I told him I felt I could have killed my mother at a certain point in my life, and it was sort of a miracle that I hadn't done that. He thought all that was very interesting."

1963-65  A follow up study to the follow up study was granted and launched for M. Mahler et al. This study is presented in The psychological birth of the human infant (see below).

1968 Ralph (Romi) Greenson was closely connected to Anna Freud and her group in London. His Foundation for Research in Psychoanalysis in Beverly Hills provided an important source of funds for Anna Freud's work in London as well as for Albert Solnit's New Haven group around the journal, The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child. The fund financed Anna Freud's purchase of Freud's London home and half of the Hampstead Clinic's 1968 budget shortfall of $60,000. The chief wealthy donor for this Foundation was one of Greenson's patients, Lita Annenberg Hazen.


Freudian chock waves also reached Sweden.

1970; nr 14 Socialstyrelsens Råd och anvisningar (Advises and Direktions from the Social Boyard) 1970 no 14 Åtgärder mot misshandel av barn (tar även upp psykiskt skadlig behandling). Measures against child abuse (including psychological abuse).

1972  Barnbyn Skå starts treating families in accordance with a psychoanalytic "understanding". A main focus is laid on parent’s “lack of understanding their children".

1973  Beyond the Best Interests of the Child, by Joseph Goldstein, Anna Freud and Albert J. Solnit (financially contributed to Anna Freud’s Hampstead Clinic).

1975  The Psychological Birth of the Human Infant (M. Mahler et al).

1976  The UKÄ-report 1975:24 officially introduces psychoanalysis (psychotherapy and psycho-social work) in the state financed social work in Sweden.

1978  As a result of the official means now available because of the UKÄ report, a psychoanalytic research group, including Sven Hessle, is put together at Barnbyn SKÅ.

1979  Alice Miller: The Drama of the Gifted Child (see Alice Miller's genosuicide)

1979/80:1  Government Bill introduces LVU, the new child protection act. Main features include the suppression of the word “compulsory”, as well as the removal of the punishing aspect of measures directed towards children and youth.

1980  Alice Miller: Det självutplånande barnet in Swedish (Das Drama des begabten Kindes und die Suche nach dem wahren Selbst)

1980  The Shining (movie about domestic violence by the father).

1981  Alice Miller: Prisoners of Childhood.

1981 Socialstyrelsens Allmänna råd (General advices from The Social Board) 1981:2 LVU warns for “destructive bonds” between parent and children, and the necessity of compulsory care because of these ties.

1983  Alice Miller: For Your Own Good: Hidden Cruelty in Child-rearing and the Roots of Violence.

1984  The Psychological Birth of the Human Infant (M. Mahler et al) is published in Swedish.

1986  Sven Hessle introduces “symbiotic rejection ”, a concept he later (2001) seems to be less convinced about.

1987 BRIS (a society connected to Anna Freud) contributes to the preparatory works for a revision of LVU by stating that "symbiosis is the most fundamental of dangers facing a child and thus should be used as a criterion for separating children from their parents".

1989/90:28  Government Bill proposing the new revised LVU including “pathological symbiosis”.

1991-03-01 The revised LVU (SFS Act No: 1990:52) including “Pathological symbiosis” as a legal criterion to take the child into state "care".

For a detailed scientific analysis of the stealthy introduction of "pathological symbiosis" in the Swedish child protection act read Klevius thesis: "Pathological Symbiosis" in LVU
- Relevance, and Sex Segregated Emergence.