Will the islamofascist Saud dictator family attack England again during Ramadan?
Klevius question to Theresa May: Do Saudi Salafist values comply with "British values"? And if not, is it really good for England to threaten Russia, which has never attacked England, while having one's worst enemy source, Saudi, as a "close ally"?! Has Klevius missed something...
If you dislike Nazi ideology then you easily qualify for disliking Saudi ideology as well.
Could anything be more worthy of disliking than a bunch of multi billionaire Salafi sharia muslims who use their oil wealth for gaining even more power by bombing their neighbors and spreading islamic hatred over innocent people around the world in a stealthy manner so to be able to "excuse" themselves by saying "it wasn't me who did the bomb or handled the knife, gun, acid, car/truck etc".
Trump lost all respect when he turned from a harsh Saudi critic to an eager supporter of Saudi state (i.e. dictator) terrorism (via more or less stealthy channels). At least, Theresa May has been consequent in her love affair with the islamofascist Saudi dictator family. And why wouldn't she. After all, she shares the Saudi view that "sharia is good for the Brits". Only Klevius wonders: Which Brits - the sharia muslim "Brits"? And what about the non sharia English people who respect universal Human Rights equality instead of Human Rights violating sharia? England is a modern sovereign state, "Britain" is a pompous and dangerous colonialist nostalgia term in which sharia "diversity" hides its ugly face.
The islamofascist Saudi dictator family is the core tumor of the cancer spreading from Mideast. Giving additional nutrition to cancer cells is not an acceptable strategy.
No young jihadi mind will ever believe that he's completely off the target as long as the "custodians of islam" preach the same hatred and are respected by politicians like Theresa May and Donald Trump.
The monetary stakes are admittedly high but nothing compared to the Saudi Human Rights violations and its costs. May's and Trump's Saudi politics is just "creative book keeping" and a cynical disrespect for the security of innocent people.
The islamofascist Saudi dictator family is the core problem. And Theresa May's Brexit startegy of escape into old colonial "British" paths is hardly helpful.
As the Saudi "custodians of islam" having the same Sunni Salafi (i.e. original islam) ideology as the muslim terrorists, that alone should be enough reason to vote out any politician who supports Saudi islamofascism.
However, there's also a much larger problem with the islamofascist Saudi dictator family. That's the Saudi based and steered OIC which "peacefully" promotes Salafi sharia hate all over the world. And with the help of mainly muslim countries OIC has managed to make Saudi islamofascism "ok" via UN by accepting that sharia can be whatever - even islamofascist Saudi Salafist Wahhabism.
Klevius has noted that his hits go down when he writes about the islamofascist Saudi dictator family. How come?
How England as a "British" colonizer created the worst evilon the planet. Of course they weren't aware back then about the monetary effects of oil that would then later multiply this evil.
Does the islamofascist Saudi dictator family already possess more nuke missiles than Israel?
The islamofascist Saudi dictator family funded the Pakistani nuke program and has extremely tight connections with Pakistan re. nuke technology.
Klevius suggestion: Israel's fooling around with the Saudis doesn't promise any good for the region - or for Israel itself. So the best thing an Iranian president could do now is partnering with Israel...
* Saudi King Abdul Aziz Ibn SaudIn 1901, Twenty-one-year-old Abdul Aziz Bin Abdul Rahman Al-Saud left Kuwait, determined to fight along-side the British forces against the Islamic state in order to get power over all of the territory once occupied by his pirate forefathers and to extend his occupation over the holy cities of Makkah and Medinah.
In 1902, The Exiled Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman Al-Saud and his gangsters (the Wahhabi movement) stormed Riyadh and shot and killed the Wali (the governor of the Khilafah:Aal-Rasheed) as another gift for Britain. This event marked the beginning of the formation of the pirate kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
1902-1913, After establishing Riyadh as his headquarters, Abdul Aziz proceeded, over the following decades side to side with the British soldiers to loot and kill the soldiers and supporters of The Ottomani Khilafah and he succeeded in many cities.
In 1914, Britain started to send a stream of agents (including William H.Shakespeare, Harry St. John Phil by and Percy Cox) to woo and encourage Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman in her task on the Arabian front. Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman's campaign was one of sabotage and stabbing in the back, it was never face-to-face confrontation.
In 1915, Britain dispatched an agent by the name of William H. Shakespeare as a close advisor to Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman. The soldiers of the Khaleefah killed William alongside some Wahhabi conspirators.
In 1915, Britain dispatched another agent by the name of Harry St. John Philby, who soon appeared in full Arab dress on top of a camel with Abdul- Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman as a saudi warrior. Philby was called by Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman the "new star of Arab firmament". Philby in return described Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman as the Arabs "man of destiny" however Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman was the arch political sell-out, many times offering to sell himself to the British. He once said to Philby, "If anyone offered me a million pounds I would give him all the concessions he wants".
In December 1915 the Anglo-Saud friendship treaty was concluded. This treaty made the house of Saud an outpost of the British Empire. Britain was given trading privileges and was superintendent of Saudi foreign policy. A guarantee of British military protection and arms supplies ended the Khaleefah's authority in central Arabia.
In 1916, Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman received from the British 1300 guns, 10,000 rupees and 20,000 pieces of gold in cash.
1917-1926, Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman and his organised Wahhabi gangsters in military style and with the help of the British soldiers succeeded in controlling the Whole of Arabia i.e. Najd and Hijaz.
In On 8 January 1926 Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman ( Known as Ibn-Saud) was self-proclaimed king of Arabia. King Abdul-Aziz was embroiled in discussions with the British representative, Percy Cox, for the determination of the borders of the new entity. The British Public Records described king Abdul-Aziz's demeaning stature at these meetings "like a naughty schoolboy" in front of Cox. When Cox insisted it was his decision as to the frontiers between Kuwait, "Ibn-Saud almost broke down and pathetically remarked that Sir Percy was like his father and mother who made him and raised him from nothing… and he would surrender half his Kingdom, nay the whole, if Sir Percy ordered. Cox took out a map and pencil and drew a line of the frontier of Arabia". Surely no Muslim can ever read such a statement except with abject shame at the way the sacred sites of Makkah and Medinah and the land of Hijaaz were put in the hands of a family with such debased and dishonorable pedigree.
1926-1932, King Abdul Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman (Ibn-Saud) courted the British unashamedly, showing sublime affection towards Britain's envoys. He offered to put Arabia under their control. For his loyalty to the British crown, like so many other British agents, Ibn Saud was awarded a knighthood (presented to him by his self-proclaimed "father and mother" Percy Cox) and British
documents referred to him as "Sir" Abdul Aziz Bin Saud for many years afterwards.
In On September 23, 1932 the self appointed king, Sir Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman replaced the names of Najd and Hijaaz by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and he laid the foundations of the current Pirate state.
Eisenhower and Nixon at Dinner with King SaudIn 1953, The pirate king Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman died.
In 1953, Saud the eldest son of Abdul Aziz Succeeded the throne upon his father's death and became king.
In 1957, King Saud made the first trip by a Saudi monarch to the United States.
In 1962, Saudi Arabia by special request of the British government sponsored an international Islamic conference, which fostered the Muslim World League, which has its headquarters in Makkah.
In 1964, King Saud Bin Abdul-Aziz died.
In 1964, Faisal Bin Abdul Aziz became king.
King faisal Bin Abdul AzizIn 1971, King Faisal by special request of the British government was a central force behind the establishment of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (the OIC) in Jeddah.
In 1975, King Faisal Bin Abdul Aziz was killed by his brother Fahd (The Who Became the king Afterwards).
King Khalid Bin Abdul Aziz. aIn 1975, Khalid Bin Abdul Aziz became king.
In 1982, King Khalid was poisoned by his brother Fahd .
In 1982, Fahd became king.
King Fahd Bin Abdul Aziz.1982-2005, King Fahd Bin Abdul-Aziz is the pirate ruler of the pirate state of so-called Saudi-Arabia.
2005 – 2014 Until Today King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz is the Pirate Ruler King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz Al Saudof the British Sponsored State of the So Called Saudi Arabia .
The "Royal Family" of Saudi Arabia is the leading champion of all efforts to silence Islam, and to wipe out and demolish its identity. Najd and Hijaaz were the former names of so-called Saudi Arabia today. As everybody knows, Makkah and Madinah are Islam's place of birth. Makkah houses "Al-Haram Al- Sharif", and Madinah houses "Al-Masjid Al-Nabawi", these are known as the "Two Holy Mosques". The darker history of Hijaaz started with the ruthless, coward, savage and murdering Abdul-Aziz Bin Saud, who established himself as King back in 1932.
With the help of the British, King Abdul-Aziz replaced the country's name of Hijaaz with Saudi Arabia which is the only country in the world that is named after its Dictator. King Abdul Aziz sexually abused many women, he now has more than 44 known sons and lots of known and unknown daughters. This dark history continues with the so-called "royal family", and their leader King Fahd, the so-called "Guardian" whose title should be, "The Robber of the two Holy Mosques", from the Arabic Expression: " Ha-miha..Ha-ramiha ", which means " Its Protector is really Its Robber ".
Are Theresa May and Donald Trump together charging the worst disaster in Mideast so far?
Theresa May loves (at least politically) the hate mongering militant islamofascist Saudi dictator family and its nuke puppet, Pakistan. Is that any good for Mideast - and beyond?
She also seems to have no serious objections to the islamofascist Saudi dictator family's Shiaphobia - which fact may explain British Sunni muslim persecution of Shia muslims in England.
How can Theresa May fit the words "not to divide" in her mouth?! And how can anyone believe Theresa May's words that the world's most intolerant spreader of islamofascist terror ideology is "important for England's* security? It's an insult against victims of Saudi sponsored Sunni islamic hate.
* Why does Klevius write England instead of UK or "Great Britain"? Answer: Because of Brexit there's no real UK anymore. "Great Britain" is just pompous nostalgia, and Wales isn't a sovereign state but part of England.
How can any English people vote for someone who wouldn't hesitate to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people with a premptive nuke strike. Let's hope her Pakistani nuke friends don't agree.
However, Pakistan's former military chief Raheel Sharif has been made commander of the islamofascist Saudi dictator family's war crimes and genocide in Yemen.
Pro-Saudi English police "investigating" Saudi (a "close ally") war crimes against Shiites?!
The Metropolitan police has confirmed that their war crimes unit is assessing whether criminal prosecutions could be brought over the islamofascist Saudi dictator family's devastating bomb etc. campaign in Yemen.
The force's SO15 counter-terrorism unit has launched a "scoping exercise" into the claims.
Klevius reminder: Really! Do note that we are now talking about an islamofascist dictator family that has, by far, contributed the most to the spread of evil islamic Salafi/Wahhabi terror etc. around the world - incl. the recent ones against Westminster/London and Manchester in England.
No wonder many Israelis, incl. Ministers, start feeling uncomfortable again with the islamofascist Saudi dictator family. England and US support of Saudi islamofascism may lead to a more difficult situation for Israel than back in 1967 when its Sunni muslim Arab neighbors attacked it - and were thoroughly defeated.
Moreover, it seems less helpful to peace in Mideast that Theresa May's "close ally" in practice now is led by a young islamofascist Sunni hothead widely considered the world's most dangerous man.
We also do know that the islamofascist Saudi dictator family more or less control the inner circles of Pakistan - incl. cooperation around nukes.
Why is "islamophobia" again blamed when the islamofascist Saudi dictator family attacks England via Salafist Sunni jihadi?
Human Rights (i.e. "islamophobia") are considered "terrorism" in Saudi Arabia. But why does the same islamofascist sharia apply in the West?
If we are to believe media and politicians, only "a tiny minority" of muslims are against basic Human Rights. If so the majority of muslims should have no problem with "islamophobia".
The Saudis are no muslims - or are they?
There's not the slightest doubt that the Saudi Salafist islam is closer to the original islam and Mohammad than any Western view on islam. So do we have two completely different islam? Not really, because the Western view on islam can never prevail. Either it continues producing Salafism in the West or if contained, islam will die altogether because it can't survive without its sexism and racism allure.
What's the difference (except the superficial "luxury") between the Islamic State and the islamofascist Saudi dictator family?
The islamofascist Saudi dictator family is the world's biggest funder of islamic terrorism.
The Hill: In older Salafist school textbooks that the Saudis disseminated globally, Christians and Jews were compared to "swine" and "apes." A later 12th-grade text explains the religious duty to wage jihad against the infidel to expand the faith. Even recent Saudi textbooks teach the anti-Semitic fable "The Protocol of the Elders of Zion" as history and insist that sorcerers must be killed.
Mohammed Saeed, the imam of the Didsbury Mosque and Islamic Centre in Manchester: "Salman Abedi had looked at him 'with hate' after he gave a sermon criticising Isis and Ansar al-Sharia in Libya." What's Theresa May's take on that?
Klevius: But wait a minute, Ansar al-Sharia is an umbrella organization that includes several al-Qaeda groups — and has fought alongside England's "close ally" Saudi forces in Yemen - and most probably used English military equipment.
An often used islamic hadith quotes Muhammad saying, "The best of my community are my generation, the ones who follow them and the ones who follow them" as a call to Muslims to follow the example of those first three generations, known collectively as the salafi or "pious Predecessors" (السلف الصالح as-Salaf as-Ṣāliḥ). The salaf are believed to include Muhammad himself, the "Companions" (Sahabah), the "Followers" (Tabi'un), and the "Followers of the Followers" (Tabi' al-Tabi'in).
Since the fifth Muslim generation or earlier, Sunni theologians have used the examples of the Salaf to understand the texts and tenets of Islam. At times they have referred to the hadith to differentiate the creed (Aqidah) of the first Muslims from subsequent variations in creed and methodology (see Madhab), to oppose religious innovation (bid'ah) and, conversely, to defend particular views and practices.
According to Bernard Haykel, "temporal proximity to the Prophet Muhammad is associated with the truest form of Islam" among many Sunni Muslims.
Salafis believe that the label "Salafiyya" existed from the first few generations of Islam and that it is not a modern movement.
Klevius concluding remark: What is clear is that Salafism "goes original" and that the islamofascist Saudi dictator family has been the main user of this evil ideology. What is less clear is when people in the West will get a chance to vote their opinion about it. As it stands now Saudi sharia labels every such effort as "islamophobia" and because this is seen as "racism" then no one is allowed to serve as a channel for a Human Rights approach to the islamofascist Saudi dictator family. After all, they are the "custodians of islam" - and they have loads of oil money to bribe media and politicians.
And this is really the tragically funny part. Not since the days of Hitler has it been so easy to criticize a country's evil leaders, precisely because it's so extremely obvious for everyone to see. However, this time the "allied forces" are with the enemy, which fact complicates a solution and prolongs the suffering caused by this evil.
Klevius question to Theresa May: Was it Russia or China who attacked England with terror last night? Klevius thinks not - but what about the islamofascist Saudi dictator family?
The real core problem is the islamofascist oil wealthy Saudi "guardians of islam":
If it was Russia or China it would mean a first ever attack against England by those nations (England, of course, has attacked China and Russia many times though and continues threatening and dismissing while having no problem whatsoever with the 'best ally' islamofascist islamic hate spreading and war crimes committing Saudi dictator family).
And of course, as usual, muslims and islam had nothing to do with a terrorist attack possibly induced by islamic tenets and produced by a muslim as a muslim. And the first to appear on BBC News was of course a muslim worried about muslims - and no mentioning about worries about non muslims.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said on Monday Iran was the vital force behind the fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria and repeated Iran's official stance that the United States and Saudi Arabia are funding "terrorism" in the Middle East.
"Who fought against the terrorists? It was Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Russia. But who funded the terrorists? Those who fund terrorists cannot claim they are fighting against them," he said.
The islamofascist Saudi curse over US and England.
It's not that the West sees Iran (an islamic "democracy") as a bigger threat than the islamofascist Saudi dictator family, but that the latter has more (oil)money to lobby and invest because of more oil and much smaller population. The Saudi dictator family and their "beneficiaries" is less than 10,000 )
Moreover, the islamofascist Saudi dictator family is the "custodian of Sunni islam".
West's "justification", support and weaponizing of the islamofascist Sunni Saudi dictator family, is a direct invite to sectarian brutalities against Shia (the original muslims*) in not only the Arab world but around the world.
* Shia muslims are closer to the Zoroastrian origin of all Mideastern "monotheisms".
Pamela Geller (the Human Rights defending Jew whom Theresa May denied entry to England - anti-semitism?): Brace yourself for jihad attack part two in the information battle-space, as jihad spox groups such as CAIR, ISNA, MSA, etc. take control of a sharia-compliant media and proselytize and lecture us on "fear of reprisals" and "backlashophobia" while clubbing us bloody with the mind-numbing manta that "Islam is peace."
Strike terror into the hearts of the unbelievers (Quran 8:12)
Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them (Quran 8:12)
The Qur'an guarantees Paradise to those who "kill and are killed" for Allah (9:111)
Across dozens of pro-ISIS channels, we're seeing celebration of this atrocity. They are hashtagging it #مانشستر which means #Manchester
#ISIS account claiming responsibility for #Manchester already suspended by Twitter: pic.twitter.com/mnRipmeuIe
— Megan Anderson ميغان (@PolicyLover) May 22, 2017
"This is only the beginning."
Thanks to the feckless policies of the UK government and governments all over the West, that is undoubtedly true.
This Jew sucks
Sir Lord Rabbi Jew (or whatever) Jonathan Sacks: Atheism has failed; only religion can defeat the new barbarians. Sir Atheist "islamophobe" and Human Rights defender Klevius: Atheist terrorism a bigger problem? Islamic Human Rights (sharia)?!
BBC's news hour was today reportedly today much less targeted on smearing President Trump now that he is heading for their beloved islamofascist Saudi dictator family.
After pressure from the islamofascist Saudi dictator family (via OIC, OPEC, etc. organizations, lobbyists and politicians such as e.g. McCain, etc.) Mr. Trump (that's what BBC calls the US President) now not only boosts the Saudis but as a consequence turns Americans against Russia (because of Iran being the Saudi's main target). Moreover, as China has surpassed the US economically (and all indicators accelerate this trend) military pressure (and due military production) combined with the US fonzi scheme ("printing money" under the cover of $ still being a world currency) that has replaced much real production, seems to be the options President Trump has bowed down to - and thereby also charged the world's third most dangerous country (after Pakistan) to a dangerous point. US aggressions against China won't help to get China's help to calm down Korea tensions, will it.
According to Jonathan Sacks, Peter Klevius has ended up us a "marvelous creation" in the Universe, i.e. that he is mentally extremely fit (almost as fit as he is physically). However, the "creation" called Klevius is "marvelous" only from a human point of view - a fact that Sir Lord Rabbi Jew (or whatever) Jonathan Sacks seems to completely have missed.
Is Sir Lord Rabbi Jew (or whatever) Jonathan Sacks mentally retarded? If so, pay no relevance to what Klevius says below. However, if he has close to average intelligence, then his idolatry of himself as an "intellectual" while spewing out the most reprehensive non sense, must be challenged.
Jonathan Sachs (a Jewish lord, rabbi etc. in England frequently used in BBC's propaganda for "monotheisms" - especially islam, which has managed to cause more suffering than any of the other "monotheisms"): Where do we come from?
Sir Atheist "islamophobe" and Human Rights defender Klevius answer to this poorly (mis)informed Jew:
Jonathan Sachs (a Jewish lord, rabbi etc. in England frequently used in BBC's propaganda for "monotheisms" - especially islam, which has managed to cause more suffering than any of the other "monotheisms"): There's a delicate balance built in where humans can be.
Sir Atheist "islamophobe" and Human Rights defender Klevius answer to this poorly (mis)informed Jew: No, there's no "delicate balance" other than your words.
Sir Atheist "islamophobe" and Human Rights defender Klevius intellectual help to this poorly (mis)informed Jew who obviously lacks average intelligence (most people are Atheists): Read Sir Atheist "islamophobe" and Human Rights defender Klevius book Demand for Resources (1992 ISBN 9173288411) to get a better and more humble view on yourself and your pompostrous "the god chosen people" ideology. It's in original English, i.e. Swedish, but if you don't master Swedish you can ask someone to read for you - or, you can donate to
Klevius so he can arrange for a good translation worldwide.
Lord rabbi Jonathan Sacks: Antisemitism is not ancient. The "Scapegoats" (i.e. muslims) are not indigenous to it.
Although the sonless "prophet" Mohammad fable was made by Malik some half a century after his alleged death, what is important is that islam considers the hadith about the slaughtering of all the Jews in Medina as an essential and even proud part of itself as the "religion of conquest" under which everyone has to surrender, and first in line the Jews who "falsely pretend to have the original Abrahamic faith".
Sir Atheist "islamophobe" and Human Rights defender Klevius suggestion to Sir Lord Rabbi Jew (or whatever) Jonathan Sacks: Don't do politics with your Judaism. And if you need some Kabbala "spirituality" I'm certain there are some books, programs, clubs etc. for you to enjoy without having to contribute to islamofascism and other forms of religious hatred, racism and sexism.
Sir Lord Rabbi Jew (or whatever) Jonathan Sacks: When ("monotheist") religion dies and consumerism takes its place, people are left with a culture that encourages them to buy things they don't need with money they don't have for a happiness that won't last.
Sir Atheist "islamophobe" and Human Rights defender Peter Klevius: Japan is just one example of why every word in this crackpot sentence sucks.
The test of faiths is whether they can make space for difference as described in the 1948 Universal Human Rights Declaration against all sorts of fascisms. And with this measures they all fail. Some less and some more, but from a Human Rights universal equality point of view only Atheism fills the measure. And dude, don't you ever conflate Atheism with Communism/socialism - you don't conflate apples and pears either, do you.
Sir Lord Rabbi Jew (or whatever) Jonathan Sacks: The greatest Jewish rabbi, Maimonedes got everything from the wonderful muslims of Andalus.
Sir Atheist "islamophobe" and Human Rights defender Klevius: Including the muslim attires he had to cover himself in so not to be killed by muslims, or the "great" Maimonides manner of pretending to be a muslim. Not to mention that if Maimonedes is considered a "great" Jew then the standard must be pretty low.
Not even muslims are safe among muslims.
Sir Atheist "islamophobe" and Human Rights defender Klevius wise words for an ignorant (hopefully, cause the alternative is worse):
Klevius sex segregation point: Never let heterosexual attraction shade personhood. Here both men and women often miss the point. Men see women as the "heterosexual other", sometimes even "inferior other", and women often contribute to this view by confusing their heterosexual attraction with their personhood. The "body" sociology didn't help either to get out of this unfortunate catch 22 that Klevius has pointed at since his teens*.
* As a teenager Klevius was forced out of his country alone, without money, and with no previous ties. However, although Klevius managed the language and fixed a decent job, he didn't manage the local, and quite different dialect, which caused problems communicating with prejudicial teen girls at noisy discotheques etc. However, in his job environment he happened to meet a very nice girl whose pictures he had used to drool over in a "men's magazine", and who told him she had never had sex. Klevius also met many young university teens who offered "posing" (sometimes Klevius got it even for free) in the main news paper and who had their "offices" just behind Klevius workplace in the most central part of the capital city. Those girls made a very distinct line (no copulation) between themselves and what they called the "whores". Times have changed but the entanglement of heterosexual attraction and female personhood in sex segregation is still equally unsolved for most girls/women. But with a (negative) Human Rights approach based on the 1948 Universal Human Rights Declaration no woman should have to suffer of sex segregational prejudices about sex - no matter how sexy men might think she looks like, and no matter if she doesn't want to have to do with heterosex or sex at all, icl. if she doesn't want to have children.
Yes, Klevius knows. These kind of thoughts make him an evil "islamophobe". But that's sadly the fate nowadays for anyone defending everyone's Human Rights - even women's.
Drawing from 1979 by Peter Klevius.
John Searle seems to have a quite different approach to heterosexual attraction and consciousness than Klevius.
In a lawsuit Joanna Ong, 24, is seeking damages for sexual harassment and assault as well as for wrongful termination and creation of a hostile work environment.
"As a philosopher, Searle should be familiar with the concept of coercion. Instead, he and the university have "used their power and platform to abuse others."
The lawsuit, which lists Searle and the Regents of the University of California as defendants, claims Searle groped Ong in his office after he told her "they were going to be lovers." He also said he had an "emotional commitment to making her a public intellectual," the complaint states, and that he was "going to love her for a long time." Ong turned Searle down and reported him to other UC Berkeley employees, but they did nothing, the complaint states. Instead, Searle cut Ong's salary and she was eventually fired, according to the complaint, which also claims Searle watched pornography at work and made sexist comments.
Searle, 84, is famous for his work in the philosophy of language and the philosophy of mind and has taught at UC Berkeley since 1959.
Artificial intelligence (AI), consciousness - and EMAH
Wikipedia: Artificial intelligence (AI) is intelligence exhibited by machines. In computer science, the field of AI research defines itself as the study of "intelligent agents": any device that perceives its environment and takes actions that maximize its chance of success at some goal
Peter Klevius: A shock absorber fulfills every bit of this definition - and can be digitally translated, i.e. e.g. "shock absorbed by wire", either partially or fully!
Wikipedia: As machines become increasingly capable, mental facilities once thought to require intelligence are removed from the definition. For instance, optical character recognition is no longer perceived as an example of "artificial intelligence", having become a routine technology.
Are there limits to how intelligent machines – or human-machine hybrids – can be? A superintelligence, hyperintelligence, or superhuman intelligence is a hypothetical agent that would possess intelligence far surpassing that of the brightest and most gifted human mind. ''Superintelligence'' may also refer to the form or degree of intelligence possessed by such an agent.
The philosophical position that John Searle has named "strong AI" states: "The appropriately programmed computer with the right inputs and outputs would thereby have a mind in exactly the same sense human beings have minds." Searle counters this assertion with his Chinese room argument, which asks us to look inside the computer and try to find where the "mind" might be.
Searle's thought experiment begins with this hypothetical premise: suppose that artificial intelligence research has succeeded in constructing a computer that behaves as if it understands Chinese. It takes Chinese characters as input and, by following the instructions of a computer program, produces other Chinese characters, which it presents as output.
Suppose, says Searle, that this computer performs its task so convincingly that it comfortably passes the Turing test: it convinces a human Chinese speaker that the program is itself a live Chinese speaker. To all of the questions that the person asks, it makes appropriate responses, such that any Chinese speaker would be convinced that they are talking to another Chinese-speaking human being.
Searle then supposes that he is in a closed room and has a book with an English version of the computer program, along with sufficient paper, pencils, erasers, and filing cabinets. Searle could receive Chinese characters through a slot in the door, process them according to the program's instructions, and produce Chinese characters as output. If the computer had passed the Turing test this way, it follows, says Searle, that he would do so as well, simply by running the program manually.
Searle asserts that there is no essential difference between the roles of the computer and himself in the experiment. Each simply follows a program, step-by-step, producing a behavior which is then interpreted as demonstrating intelligent conversation. However, Searle would not be able to understand the conversation. ("I don't speak a word of Chinese",he points out.) Therefore, he argues, it follows that the computer would not be able to understand the conversation either.
Searle argues that, without "understanding" (or "intentionality"), we cannot describe what the machine is doing as "thinking" and, since it does not think, it does not have a "mind" in anything like the normal sense of the word. Therefore, he concludes that "strong AI" is false.
Peter Klevius: Nonsense! 'Intentionality' is an illusion. There's no "gap" between input and output where 'intentionality' could be squeezed in. Moreover, if Searle believes in 'intentionality' he can't refute 'the free will' either. The machine could also be understood by the Chinese speakers without "understanding" - only fulfilling the Turing criterion. There is no 'understanding' or consciousness', other than the usage of these terms.
Wikipedia: No one would think of saying, for example, "Having a hand is just being disposed to certain sorts of behavior such as grasping" (manual behaviorism), or "Hands can be defined entirely in terms of their causes and effects" (manual functionalism), or "For a system to have a hand is just for it to be in a certain computer state with the right sorts of inputs and outputs" (manual Turing machine functionalism), or "Saying that a system has hands is just adopting a certain stance toward it" (the manual stance). (p. 263)
Searle argues that philosophy has been trapped by a false dichotomy: that, on the one hand, the world consists of nothing but objective particles in fields of force, but that yet, on the other hand, consciousness is clearly a subjective first-person experience.
Searle says simply that both are true: consciousness is a real subjective experience, caused by the physical processes of the brain. (A view which he suggests might be called biological naturalism.)
Ontological subjectivity
Searle has argued[48] that critics like Daniel Dennett, who (he claims) insist that discussing subjectivity is unscientific because science presupposes objectivity, are making a category error. Perhaps the goal of science is to establish and validate statements which are epistemically objective, (i.e., whose truth can be discovered and evaluated by any interested party), but are not necessarily ontologically objective.
Searle calls any value judgment epistemically subjective. Thus, "McKinley is prettier than Everest" is "epistemically subjective", whereas "McKinley is higher than Everest" is "epistemically objective." In other words, the latter statement is evaluable (in fact, falsifiable) by an understood ('background') criterion for mountain height, like 'the summit is so many meters above sea level'. No such criteria exist for prettiness.
Beyond this distinction, Searle thinks there are certain phenomena (including all conscious experiences) that are ontologically subjective, i.e. can only exist as subjective experience. For example, although it might be subjective or objective in the epistemic sense, a doctor's note that a patient suffers from back pain is an ontologically objective claim: it counts as a medical diagnosis only because the existence of back pain is "an objective fact of medical science".[49] But the pain itself is ontologically subjective: it is only experienced by the person having it.
Searle goes on to affirm that "where consciousness is concerned, the existence of the appearance is the reality".[50] His view that the epistemic and ontological senses of objective/subjective are cleanly separable is crucial to his self-proclaimed biological naturalism.
Klevius: All of this is more or less non sense due to a balancing act (deliberate or just out of ignorance) to satisfy certain needs and wishes. To understand this you need to read Klevius and contrast it with the above:
1 Existence-centrism (Klevius 1992:21-23, ISBN 9173288411), i.e. the simple fact that there's no difference between 'reality' and 'conscious experiences'.
2 Klevius EMAH - the Even More Astonishing Hypothesis which eliminates prejudices about the mind, as well as the naive idea about "a thoughtful and subjective brain", and therefore opens up for a human brain that fits the nature it belongs to and from which it emerged. Moreover, Klevius analysis also opens up for a more truly human approach to other humans, i.e. that that's what we have in common - and only we can see it, not a non-human (Klevius 1992:36-39), which fact doesn't eliminate that we should try to cope with non-humans in a "humane" way.
The preposterous thought that "we are special" stands on two contradicting pillars:
1 We, out of our existence-centrism (read Klevius' book, Jonathan!), define what's "outside" - i.e. the foundation for making (usually just some of) us "special".
2 Only by fully accepting our existence-centrism can we drop religions and fully understand what it is to be a human together with other humans (read carefully Klevius' analysis of the negative part of the Human Rights declaration, Jonathan!).
Is this "impeachment" spectacle, led by John McCain, WP, NYC, BBC etc., timed for "softening" Trump to fit Saudi islamofascist agenda?
John McCain Dodges Reporter Who Reveals His $1M Donation From Saudi Arabia
What kind of traitor is John McCain? Shouldn't he be prosecuted as such and be "locked up" for treason against Americans?
Also consider that Saudi Crown "prince"* Muhammad bin Nayef reportedly has paid over five million dollars to a US lobbyist firm ahead of President Donald Trump's visit to so called Saudi Arabia, i.e. to the hate mongering islamofascist war crime committing Saudi dictator family. And this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Saudi influence over US democracy. Saudi interference in US politics/democracy and its continuous attacks against US and US citizens is just staggering when compared to the empty accusations against Russian involvement and a 100% lack of Russian attacks. Btw, from outside US borders UK/BBC have surely worked harder than most to influence US elections and to hinder President Trump's work. And there's both a history and a Brexit panic behind it.
* Saudi "King" Abdul Aziz Ibn SaudIn 1901, Twenty-one-year-old Abdul Aziz Bin Abdul Rahman Al-Saud left Kuwait, determined to fight along-side the British forces against the Islamic state in order to get power over all of the territory once occupied by his pirate forefathers and to extend his occupation over the holy cities of Makkah and Medinah.
May's and Trump's Saudi hand-holding: How can Brits vote for someone who supports the worst and most dangerous scum on the planet? Or are they just so ignorant because of BBC's faked information?
Why is this unstable and dangerous islamofascist Saudi hate mongerer and war criminal your "important ally? You should be ashamed of yourself.
It means you would have supported Hitler as well, doesn't it?
There's no shortage of pure evil in the islamofascist Saudi dictator family. And by being the "custodians of islam", and by being supported by UK and US, they are offered an opportunity to live out their evil in a grand scale that may make the Nazis (National-socialists) look tame in comparison.
Saudi evil rides on an ideology that says its violent racist/sexist texts are "sacred" and that its violent racist/sexist "prophet" was Sunni. Isn't that a convenient tool for the mentally unstable Saudi extremist "prince"* to use for safeguarding and extending power and influence over competing islam users?
The islamofascist Saudi dictator family is the (oil)wealthiest of the Arab states. It also, in practice, rules Pakistan, the only muslim country with nuclear missiles openly admitted.
Why aren't there any "humanitarian issues" in UK's Saudi politics when "humanitarian concerns" are so prevalent when it comes to Russia and China who have never attacked the UK as the Saudis do on an almost a daily basis via jihad hate mongering and the support of hate and racism spreading Salafi mosques?
And here's the "prince's" equally Shia muslim hating Saudi top cleric who says Iranians are not muslims:
Will Theresa May jail this muslim extremist, Saudi Arabia's top muslim cleric, if he visits UK - as she did with Anjem Choudary who acted similarly, but with much less power?
Current Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Abdul-Aziz ibn Abdullah Al ash-Sheikh shares "prince" Mohammed bin Salman's.
The main Trump hater in Washington is McCain - who also happens to be a Russia hater - but lover of the islamofascist Saudi dictator family and a keen (not to say desperate) proponent of keeping up the war in Syria by aiding Saudi supported Sunni islamist groups.
John McCain (the war monger and Trump hater No 1) who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, in Riyadh after talks on Syria with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
However, the islamofascist Saudi dictator family is the face of the deeper problem with islam itself.
Islam is Arabic imperialism - that's why Iran is a much lesser islamic threat than the Saudis.
Let the anti-sharia muslims out of the closet - all over the world - so they can assist in reducing Saudi hate mongering.
Klevius interference in the UK election: Brits! Stop the madness of Theresa May's pre-emptive nuke strikes against innocent civilians and defense of Saudi islamofascist sharia terror!
How did British politicians end up with the most disgusting of bed fellows?
"Prince"* Mohammed bin Salman, defence minister (i.e. Saudi war criminal) and favourite son of the current demented "king"*: The muslim community still thinks allowing women to drive will have negative consequences. He also says that [the woman] is not used to working. She needs more time to accustom herself to the idea of work. To this Klevius says that it's not women who aren't ready but islam - as a tool for Saudi islamofascism. The islamofascist Saudi dictator family sits on two pillars: Shrinking oil based assets, and original islam, i.e. the islam "interpretation" that keeps them in power. A democratic, "Westernized islam" that respects basic Human Rights would in no time shame the Saudi dictator family. Without being the "custodians of islam" who export islam's original evilness to their worldwide jihadi, they would never be able to keep power as just one among other competing islamist dictators.
* The Saudi warrior dictator who copycatted the Brits by calling himself a "king", captured Mecca in 1924 and Medina in 1925 - i.e. he became a dictator "king" at a time when there were no such kings anymore in the West. Here's a timeline:
In 1891, The governor of The Ottomani Khilafah forced Abdul-Rahman and Al-Saud into exile. Al-Saud and the rest of the Wahhabi movement lived on the borders of the desert of the Empty Quarter (Al-Rebi' Al-Khaali) before settling in Kuwait.
1892-1900, Abdul-Rahman died, and his son Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman and the rest of the Wahhabi movement lived in Kuwait.
Saudi King Abdul Aziz Ibn SaudIn 1901, Twenty-one-year-old Abdul Aziz Bin Abdul Rahman Al-Saud left Kuwait, determined to fight along-side the British forces against the Islamic state in order to get power over all of the territory once occupied by his pirate forefathers and to extend his occupation over the holy cities of Makkah and Medinah.
Islamic colonization of the free world space: Islamist terrorist attacks funded by the islamofascist Saudi dictator family's sponsoring of Salafi mosques, ideas etc.
Jeffrey Tayler: We are accustomed to reflexively deferring to "men of the cloth," be they rabbis and priests or pastors and imams. In this we err, and err gravely. Those whose profession it is to spread misogynistic morals, debilitating sexual guilt, a hocus-pocus cosmogony, and tales of an enticing afterlife for which far too many are willing to die or kill, deserve the exact same "respect" we accord to shamans and sorcerers, alchemists and quacksalvers. Out of misguided notions of "tolerance," we avert our critical gaze from the blatant absurdities — parting seas, spontaneously igniting shrubbery, foodstuffs raining from the sky, virgin parturitions, garrulous slithering reptiles, airborne ungulates — proliferating throughout their "holy books." We suffer, in the age of space travel, quantum theory and DNA decoding, the ridiculous superstitious notion of "holy books." And we countenance the nonsense term "islamophobia," banishing those who forthrightly voice their disagreements with the seventh-century faith to the land of bigots and racists; indeed, the portmanteau vogue word's second component connotes something just short of mental illness.
How can the islamofascist Saudi dictator family be "an important ally" against Saudi sponsored hate?
Theresa May said she would authorize a nuclear strike killing 100,000s of innocent people. However, Klevius thinks that's insane - and for once shares Corbyn's view
Would it really be in the best interest of the Brits (and the Scots) to send little Britain's nukes somewhere in Russia, the world's biggest country, that has never shown any signs of using nukes for attacks?
Perhaps the UK Parliament should rethink its vote on Trident - just as some suggest the Brits should rethink their vote on Brexit.
1 Only one country, USA, has ever used nuclear weapons - and twice and mainly against innocent civilians in Japan.
2 "Terror balance" originated in the aftermath of WW2 and the US fear of a new totalitarian threat from the Communist Soviet Union (USSR), and a corresponding Communist will to world hegemony from the Kremlin, which saw the US (besides already Communist China) as its main remaining rival - and the one with the most powerful military potential. However, due to the geographical location of the US, USSR started developing missile technologies (for transporting nukes) to an extent that also resulted in the first man made satellite and the first man in space. As a result we ended up in a "terror balance" situation that in practice made it impossible for either centrally steered nation to ever "push the button" - not even at the so called Cuba crisis.
3 In the world of today the nuke scenario is completely different. Not only are conventional weapons both more effective and less wasteful with civilian casualties, they are also widespread and easily movable. The same could be said of modern nukes - hence puncturing the deterrent argument.
4 The right to "push the button" is usually in one (or a few) human hands. The whereabout of that human is always uncertain - and would the killing of that human justify the lives of 100,000s of innicent?
5 The biggest nuke threat comes from islam, e.g. muslim Pakistan or muslim terrorists. Why? Simply because of the origin of islam, i.e. the Koran, Mohammad and the Hadiths that inspire islamic terror.
Muhammad: I have been made victorious by terror
The dictionary definition of terrorism is "the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear." Sadly, we are living in an age that we do not need to consult a dictionary to learn the meaning of terrorism. Even our children know about it and are affected by it.
Islamic terrorism, however, did not start in 9/11 of 2001, nor did it start with the Iranian Islamic Revolution in 1979. Islamic terrorism has its origin in the sayings and examples set by Muhammad.
In the last ten years of his life, after Muhammad migrated to Medina , he launched no less than 78 raids called qazwa (raid, ambush, sudden attack). Some of these qazwas involved the assassination of one opponent by one or a group of volunteers, and others were carried out by hundreds or thousands of warriors. Nonetheless a common characteristic of all Muhammad's incursions was that they were done without notice. The enemy was caught off guard without being given the chance to prepare himself or be armed. As such all Muhammad's victims were civilians.
The historian Abul Husain Muslim Nisapuri writes:
Ibn 'Aun reported: I wrote to Nafi' inquiring from him whether it was necessary to extend (to the disbelievers) an invitation to accept (Islam) before meeting them in fight. He wrote (in reply) to me that it was necessary in the early days of Islam. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) made a raid upon Banu Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others. On that very day, he captured Juwairiya bint al-Harith. Nafi' said that this tradition was related to him by Abdullah b. Umar who (himself) was among the raiding troops." Muslim 19: 4292
Muhammad used the same element of surprise in virtually all his raids. Bukhari writes:
Allah's Apostle (p.b.u.h) offered the Fajr prayer when it was still dark, then he rode and said, 'Allah Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. When we approach near to a nation, the most unfortunate is the morning of those who have been warned." The people came out into the streets saying, "Muhammad and his army." Allah's Apostle vanquished them by force and their warriors were killed; the children and women were taken as captives. Safiya was taken by Dihya Al-Kalbi and later she belonged to Allah's Apostle go who married her and her Mahr was her manumission. Bukhari 2.14.068
Here we read that Muhammad said: "the most unfortunate is the morning of those who have been warned." This should not be interpreted as announcing his plans for war. Actually not even his men knew which town they are going to attack until they reached at the gates of that town. He sent spies to the cities that he wanted to attack and ambushed them when they were least prepared. This "warning" should be interpreted with the understanding of the Muslim mind. As far as Muslims are concerned we are all warned. They have called us to convert or prepare to die. This is the warning. There will be no other warning. Now that they have issued the warning, we are all fair game. All the non-Muslims are legitimate targets of Islamic terrorism. Muslim warriors today, do what their prophet did and follow his examples. The pattern and the modus operandi, is already set. All Muslims' wars and conquests have been through raid. This has been always the case and the secret of their success. In one hadith Muhammad boasted, "I have been made victorious through terror". Bukhari 4:52.220
About four years after Hijra, an ambulant vendor came to Medina reporting that the tribes of Anmar and Tha'laba, (sun clans of Ghatfan) have gathered in Dhatal Riqa'. Upon hearing this news Muhammad left his loyal companion Utham in charge of the city and with a group of four hundred men (or seven hundred) warriors immediately headed to the place of the gathering of these Arab tribes. He found no one there but a few women, between them there was a beautiful girl. They captured the women. The men of the tribe took refuge in the mountains. (Ibn Sa'd Tabaqat V. 2 P. 59)
When the prayer time came, the Muslims were afraid that the Ghatafan men might descend from their mountain hideout and make a sudden attack on them while they were praying. Apprehending this fear, Muhammad introduced the 'prayer of fear,' where a party of faithful stands guard while the other party prays. Then they take turns. A revelation came from Allah on this provision regarding shortening of a prayer. (4:100-102)
And when you journey in the earth, there is no blame on you if you shorten the prayer, if you fear that those who disbelieve will cause you distress, surely the unbelievers are your open enemy. (4:101)
Two months after the raid of Dhatal Riqa' Muhammad received the news that a large group of Ghatfan has gathered in the oasis of Dumatal Jandal, between Hijaz and al-Sham to barter goods. This place was five nights journey from Medina . Muhammad immediately gathered one thousand of his followers. They rode during the night and hid during the day. Muhammad also took the informer who was from the tribe of Bani udhrah as the guide. He reached this group at night time and the footprints of their herds of goats and camels could were still on the ground. The Muslims raided the herds of the animals, some of the shepherds were killed and some escaped. Muslims collected a large spoil. When the news reached the people of Domat, they scattered and the Prophet found no one in their place. He stayed a few days and sent various groups to the neighborhood to investigate but they returned having found no one, except one man whom they took as captive. Muhammad asked him about the tribe, the man said when the people heard about the raid they escaped. The Prophet then called upon him to accept Islam, which he did and then the Muslims returned to Medina . (Ibn Sa'd Tabaqat V. 2 P. 60)
Muslim historian claim that Muhammad the Qatfan were planning to attack Muslims. This is typical Islamic mindset, that always blames their victims. As the their own tale makes it clear, these people were a bunch of nomads and herdsmen and not warriors. Today Muslims use the same excuses and blame their victims to justify thier crimes against humanity. As an Arab proverb says: Darabani, wa baka; Sabaqani, wa'shtaka " He struck me, and started crying; then he went ahead of me and charged me with beating him!" This has been Muhammad's and his followers modus operandi.
Klevius question: How come that Atheists are less sensitive than muslims? Ever heard about someone sentenced for inciting NON-RELIGIOUS hatred?
Klevius: Stop the Saudi dictator family's spread of hate and bombs - and you stop the spread of evil (so called "extremist") islam (i.e. original islam)!
Klevius hint for a winning ticket for Corbyn (now that UKIP shot itself in the foot by following sharia): Promise UK voters to get rid of relations with the islamofascist Saudi dictator family once and for all - and you are PM! In no time you will overfill the gaps you caused by aiming for Soviet time state socialism. Klevius doesn't like you because of that, but could forgive something if you contributed to limit the worst evil on the planet. And confiscate the hate spreading war criminals' assets in UK and give them to "moderate muslims" who prefer Human Rights instead of sharia. And start with the refugees from Saudi's direct or indirect attacks in Yemen and Syria etc. And as a pacifist you can't anyway support British weapons sale to war criminals, can you. Stand up, Corbyn!
Moreover, become an "islamophobe" - just like "moderate muslims" who resist basic Human Rights violating sharia islam! I mean, Iranians are no muslims anyway, according to the Saudi dictator family.
How the Term "Islamophobia" Got Shoved Down Your Throat
A 1,389 Year-Old 'Phobia'?
Here are some of the most disgusting members of Theresa May's Saudi sharia cabinet:
How many ordinary Brits share Michael Fallon's love of Saudi islamofascism?
Runnymede changed democracy to monarchism so to appease Saudi islamofascists.
Brian Whitaker: A spokesman for Philip Hammond said: "As MP for Runnymede and Weybridge, Mr Hammond attended the local community organized unveiling, in his own constituency, of a statue of HM Queen to mark her long reign. Hammond says his £2,000 watch was a constituency gift. Shouldn't the sheikh be a constituent to give it?
The signing of Magna Carta in 1215 took place at Runnymede, in a water meadow on the banks of the River Thames – a spot that today happens to lie in Hammond's parliamentary constituency.
on June 15 – a rainy day in Runnymede – a crowd gathered beneath umbrellas to watch the unveiling of the statue. Dignitaries in attendance included Philip Hammond (foreign secretary and MP for Runnymede), John Bercow (Speaker of the House of Commons), Daniel Hammond (MEP for the area) and Councillor Derek Cotty of Runnymede Magna Carta Legacy Ltd (who by then had become mayor).
Sheikh Marei Mubarak Mahfouz bin Mahfouz, one of the richest men in Saudi Arabia, who presumably donated a large chunk of the money. It was Sheikh Marei who also later presented Hammond with the £2,000 watch.
How and why Sheikh Marei came to be involved is still far from clear. According to the Telegraph, Daniel Hannan, the MEP, "helped source sponsorship" but considering his distaste for those who cosy up to Saudi businessmen we should probably assume he was not the one who recruited Sheikh Marei to the project. And Hannan's desire to have a thoroughly British monument to Magna Carta is still unfulfilled: there are now two monuments, one American funded, the other (at least in part) Saudi funded.
An equally interesting question is what prompted Sheikh Marei to give Hammond a £2,000 watch. According to the sheikh's lawyer, quoted in the Sunday Times, the watch "was a gift of appreciation for the kindness extended by Mr Hammond to Sheikh Marei on 15 June".
This act of "kindness" – whatever it was – occurred not at the unveiling ceremony but a day after, and there's a clue in the Sunday Times story:
"The sheikh was not present at the unveiling but arrived the next day and was shown the statue by Hammond. The sheikh later met the Queen."
So it's possible the watch was simply a thank-you to Hammond for accompanying Sheikh Marei to look at the statue. If so, the watch seems an unnecessarily generous reward, even by Saudi standards. But what of Sheikh Marei's meeting with the Queen? Is it possible that Hammond pulled some strings to arrange it, and was being rewarded for that? Perhaps other MPs should enquire further.
Sheikh Marei is head of the Marei Bin Mahfouz Group, which he founded in 1965. It's a trading, manufacturing and services company which operates mainly in Mecca and Jeddah and is said to be ranked 19th among Saudi Arabia's top 100 companies.
One of Sheikh Marei's sons, 45-year-old Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz, is a philanthropist who also cultivates connections with British royalty. Earlier this year he donated $370,000 to a charitable trust headed by Prince Charles which runs the 15th century Castle of Mey in Scotland, a former home of the late Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother. In recognition of his support, a wood on the estate was renamed the Mahfouz Wood.
In 2013 he became the first Bredon Fellow of Wolfson College, Cambridge, after making a "munificent" (but unspecified) donation to the college.
For reasons which I can't fathom, Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz is also known as the Lord and Baron of Abernethy – a Scottish feudal
Defending Human Rights violating sharia islam is political perversion
Klevius vs muslims (Human Rights vs islam) - who will win your heart and who is the hater? Take the test!
Acknowledgement for newcomers in simple English: To understand why islam itself is the source of evil do understand (check for youself if you don't trust Klevius) the following:
1 Islam originated in a bloodbath where muslims slaughtered all the Jews in Medina. And from then on it continued in pretty much the same way as the Islamic State today - only that, thanks to islam's backwardness, the West has superior technology to keep them down. In fact, islam has never produced any tech by itself (when did you last time buy a camera or car made in Saudi Arabia?). Why should it when the whole islamic ideology is based on slave parasitism (and today also Western oil money and aid/benefits). And the only "golden" in the so called "golden age" was the gold muslims got through their slaves. And later on the Ottoman muslim slave empire immediately started deteriorating after the West had abolished all kinds of slavery (except muslim sex slavery hidden as it is within sharia marriage and as "concubines" i.e. sex slaves).
2 The Koran is an Arabic nationalist supremacist slavery manual. Because early muslims were caravan robbers etc. criminals (i.e. parasites) they could only survive on what they could rob from others (which they called "infidels"). This is why islam became the worst and biggest slavery ideology ever.
3 Islam is today sharia via Saudi based and steered OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) which via 57 more or less criminal member states in United Nations (UN) has managed to democratically (although islam is anti-democratic and anti-Human Rights) establish itself as the muslim world Ummah with due Human Rights violating sharia (the so called Cairo declaration on "islamic human rights").
4 Islam is not islam without sharia so a muslim who rejects sharia (in any Human Rights violating form) isn't a real muslim - just a cultural "muslim" and therefore of no interest for Klevius islam criticism.
However, it's therefore extremely important that every muslim clearly and honestly declare whether s/he is an islamofascist (Human Rights violating sharia) or not.
Start by asking your muslim friend. S/he lies to you if s/he says s/he can be a believing muslim without such sharia. To believe in islam is to believe in Human Rights violating sharia. That's the very reason OIC rejected Human Rights in UN! And if s/he doesn't then s/he has committed the worst crime against islam and should be protected by Western Human Rights and due legislation based on them.
Saudi Arabia - the guardian and spreader of islamic hate
Saudi based OIC - and its islamofascist Saudi sharia Fuhrer Iyad Madani - constitutes islam today, and it's against the most basic of Human Rights!
OIC is a muslim extremist organization!
ICLA: The Cairo Declaration is recognized as a so-called "regional instrument" by the United Nations, but rarely, if ever, used or referred to. It is thus functionally redundant, yet its approval creates an unneeded and potentially dangerous ambiguity in the formal definition of the human rights. For Sharia is incompatible with democracy and fundamental human rights, as stated in 2003 by the European Court of Human Rights, and thus the Cairo Declaration is equally incompatible with any meaningful definition of human rights, as well as with several OSCE commitments.
Thus, to avoid willful misinterpretations of what "human rights" refer to, it would be good for the protection of human rights defenders to have the Cairo Declaration explicitly repudiated by those OSCE pS that also hold membership of the OIC. If they do not do so, they should provide a detailed justification for keeping this declaration on the books, and the intended use of it.
ICLA thus recommends that:
OSCE makes a statement that the Cairo Declaration has no relevance to its understanding of human rights.
OSCE pS that are also members of OIC explicitly repudiate the Cairo Declaration as being of no relevance, now or in the future, for the interpretation of "human rights".
Klevius: Nothing has happened since this was written in 2013! An eerie silence follows wherever islam puts its evil hand. Wake up dude! And you Brits, consider that your PM David Cameron has appointed a non-elected sharia muslim called Sayeeda Warsi as the "minister of faith islam and sent her as the official representative to the islamofascist OIC organization! Is this really what the majority of Brits want? Or are they just so thoroughly fooled and unaware! And no wonder when this "islamophobia" islamofascism has settled so deeply that you can't even apply for a job if you're known as critical of islam. All about islam is intimidation: physical, reputational, financial etc. Goebbels is certainly laughing in his grave.
Klevius Human Rights campaign against sharia fueled racist/sexist islamic hate
Klevius is anti sharia islam and anti sharia muslims - and very proud of it! Moreover, Klevius thinks he has a majority of "muslims" on his side - although most of them don't even know it as yet. And even those "muslims" who know it but stay muslim because of monetary advantages, have to admit Klevius' logic and their own evilness which could range from mild Human-rightsphobia to extrem muslim terrorism.
Muslim hate speech and acts against "infidels" are protected by Human Rights. However, there must be room for Human Rights people (without dhimmitude etc) in the world as well - or?! Face islam's hate Human Rights problem!
Warning for hateful muslims in policing, nursing, caring, public service etc. Unlike other weirdos muslim weirdos can refer to a "religious" book and "tradition" that so many say is "holy"* and of course excited by all the "diversity brainwashed/scared trained" people they encounter and read, according to whom islam is such a "nice and peaceful religion" that ought to be respected. All "monotheist" religions are based on sexism but islam is also the worst ideological crime ever against humanity throughout 1400 years.
* (negative) Human Rights, i.e. freedom from unnecessary impositions, is the only truly holy concept we need as a functioning worldwide morality. Civilized people of all sorts already know this and behave accordingly.
As it stands now, by referring to her/his "religion" a muslim can deny you things you can't deny her/him without facing accusations of "racism" or "hate", based on those very Human Rights the actual muslim in fact otherwise hates.
In a BBC debate one of those politically correct non-muslim politicians defended the stupid proposal to give muslims (of course he didn't mention muslims but used the usual proxy word "religious") the right to discriminate against non-muslims in a way non-muslims aren't allowed to discriminate muslims no matter how offended they are by the muslim's hateful racist/sexist sharia ideology.
Klevius investment hint: Muslim Sharia free zones will be very valuable in the future.Not the least for many "muslims".
Forget about saving rain forests etc! This is your new deal. Did you hear that you oily sheiks fearing a decrease in the popularity of your oil! Or are you running out of money after having invested so heavily in sharia zones?
Risks: That islam collapses even quicker than expected. However, even if you then may loose some money you may also comfort yourself with a fairer world.
Klevius vs ? billion muslims. He knows it's not fair - of course Klevius' Human Rights logic is irresistible in the long run compared to dividing hateful muslim sharia racism/sexism!
Klevius: On his blogs and sites 'Klevius' is interchangeable with 'Human Rights' because all they do is defending Human Rights. Unfortunately for muslims, islam makes itself the biggest target precisely because of its violation of Human Rights. Nowhere on Klevius' sites/blogs can you find ANYTHING not in line with this Human Rights defense!
Muslims: There doesn't exist a true muslim without her/him (via her/his support of sharia islam) violating the most basic equality principles of Human Rights.
Klevius: There is no defense for sex segregation/apartheid. Not even heterosexual attraction (of which Klevius has written the most essential analysis in the world of today - admittedly, the competition hasn't been very hard).
Muslims: Women are inferior to men and women's heterosexual attraction makes it necessary in islam to sharia hide/jail/restrict them physically and/or culturally (the means vary depending on muslim community/sub-settings).
Klevius: Human Rights make racism impossible.
Muslims: Islam is built on "infidel" racism.
Klevius: For secularism based on Human Rights.
Muslims: For an islamic state based on sharia.
Klevius: Atheist, i.e. lacking a "god" he otherwise could blame and instead protecting his moral attitude by hanging it on the most powerful of all moral codes namely the negative Human Rights.
Muslims: Whatever a muslim does it's "Allah's" will. And because "Allah's" will is not known then we have no tool whatsoever to know the inscrutable will of the muslim - other than the self evident Atheist conclusion that it's no more or less than the will of the muslim, and not of "Allah".
According to one of BBC's extremely few and misleading reports about OIC aims are to 'safeguard islamic holy places' (Klevius comment: Those places are already carefully destroyed by the Sauds) and toe ... (read more on Klevius beats BBC)
In Britain, the number of Muslim converts recently passed the 100,000 mark, according to a survey conducted by an inter-faith group called Faith Matters. The survey revealed that nearly two thirds of the converts were women, more than 70% were white and the average age at conversion was just 27.
Klevius explanation: Non-muslim women who marry muslims have to choose between a lower status as a non-muslim in the muslim family setting or convert.
The muslim system is extremely racist and sexist in this regard because everything is one-way directed towards the muslim man and islam and away from Human Rights. A non-muslim man isn't even allowed to marry a muslim woman without converting.
So instead of boasting about the high numbers they should be seen as utterly shamful in a civilized country.
So what should muslims do to avoid Klevius' criticism?
Nothing could be easier. Just refute Human Rights violating sharia and you don't hear anything from Klevius. Do as Ayaan Hiris Ali did!
From anti-islamic Magna Carta in 1215 to anti-fascist Human Rights in 1948 - and the islamofascism of today
Magna Carta Libertatum is the first rudimentary effort in a long struggle towards the final 1948 Human Rights declaration which PM David Cameron now again seems to betray by giving in for Human Rights violating sharia.
Back in 1215 Magna Carta (the first predecessor to Human Rights) was produced to stifle traitor King John's effort to islamize Britian. Compare this to the British PM Cameron's attacks on Human Rights while seemingly proposing Britain as the center of islamofascism outside Mideast (beginning with London sharia finance).
King John the Traitor, PM David Cameron and the islamofascist "king" Abdullah who pretended to be "reformist" while steering the country in an even more intolerant direction by new sharia inspired laws by early 2014 (e.g. equalizing Human Rights, Secularism and Atheism with "terrorism" and due penalties - compare Raif Badawi and others).
King John in the early 13th century sent envoys to Mohammed al-Nâsir asking for his help. In return King John offered to convert to Islam and turn England into a muslim state. The muslim jihadist Mohammed al-Nâsir's view on King John: "I never read or heard that any king possessing such a prosperous kingdom subject and obedient to him, would voluntarily ... make tributary a country that is free, by giving to a stranger that which is his own ... conquered, as it were, without a wound. I have rather read and heard from many that they would procure liberty for themselves at the expense of streams of blood, which is a praiseworthy action; but now I hear that your wretched lord, a sloth and a coward, who is even worse than nothing, wishes from a free man to become a slave, who is the most miserable of all human beings." Mohammed al-Nâsir concluded by wondering aloud why the English allowed such a man to lord over them — they must, he said, be very servile and soft.
Some more hateful muslims
Or are they no muslims precisely because of their hate?!
How come that the most powerful "ethnic"/"religious" group, which preaches violations of the most basic of Human Rights, is the one that is more protected than most other people?!
Muslims don't belong to a vulnerable minority. On the contrary, their Ummah nation is the biggest nation in the world and it's represented by the biggest organization in the world after UN itself, i.e. OIC (the Organization of Islamic Cooperation).
Muslims have chosen to hate, disrespect, and show contempt towards us "infidels" by believing in an ideology that is incompatible with Human Rights. Ok, Klevius could live with that because he isn't offended like many muslims would be in a similar situation. However, muslims haven't stopped there. They have also made this Human Rights violation to a threat against these very Human Rights by sharia criminalizing Human Rights. And as Klevius has always said, under Human Rights you can follow sharia (as long as it's legal) but under sharia you don't have access to Human Rights freedom. Moreover, as it stands now muslims are protected by those very Human Rights their sharia opposes and wants to eliminate.
Time to burn OIC's Human Rights violation and to indict the Saudi hate criminals and their supporters
Islam (the opposite to Negative Human Rights) is based on infidel racism and sexist rapetivism. It's islam's true origin, and the only tenet that cannot be reformed without erasing islam itself. However, instead of dealing with this most important issue, now criticism of this disgusting islamic supremacism is called islamophobia and suggested (by the most racist and evil organization out there) to be called "racism"!
Btw, did England incite hatred against the German Nationalsocialists thus causing unrest and chaos? And was Germany's attack reasonable because of an unfair Versaille treaty? Patrick Buchanan makes the case that, if not for the blunders of British statesmen the horrors of two world wars and the Holocaust might have been avoided? To this one may add that whereas Nationalsocialism was national and hence not totalitarian in a universal sense, islam is truly totalitarian, on a micro level as well as on a macro level.
57 islamic nations (OIC) have here agreed to adopt Sharia!
This man, Saudi "king" Abdullah (aka Mr X "president's" first call) is an oil parasite whose main task in life has been the spreading of evil islamism!
OIC, a Saudi initiated and supporting organization consisting of 56+1 islamist nations who have:
1 decided to violate Human Rights by replacing them with islamist Sharia which denies girls and women their rights given in the 1948 Human Rights Declaration
2 hijacked UN by constituting its biggest voting bloc
3 criminalized criticism against islam by calling it "islamophobia"
The mosque mouse, silenced by islam
Sept 28-30, 2010, the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), is sponsoring Sharia propaganda at the AIC's Chicago campus.
Founded in 1969 OIC is now a 56 (+ Palestine) state collective which includes every lslamic nation on Earth. Currently headed by Turkey's Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, OIC thus represents the entire muslim Umma and is the largest single voting bloc in the UN.
John Laffin warned in 1988 that the Jedda-based OIC, initiated and patronized by Saudi Arabia, is persuading Muslim nations to jettison even their inchoate adoption of "Western models and codes," and to revert to the pre-Western retrograde systems of Sharia.
According to Laffin, the Saudis offered sizable loans and grants in return for a more extensive application of Sharia.
Saudi Arabia also distributed an abundance of media and print materials which extended to non-muslim countries, including tens of millions of Korans, translated into many languages for the hundreds of millions of muslims (and non-muslims) who did not read Arabic.
And now two special US envoys to the OIC later (both the former, Sada Cumber, and current envoy, Rashad Hussain) will attend the Chicago OIC propaganda for the purpose of islamization.
Andrew Bostom : Elizabeth Kendal, in a recent commentary [4] about the plight of brutalized Egytpian Muslim "apostates" Maher el-Gowhary and Nagla Al-Imam, made a series of apt observations which illustrate the most salient aspect of Islam's persistent religious totalitarianism: the absence of freedom of conscience in Islamic societies. Egypt, Kendal notes, amended its secular-leaning constitution in 1980, reverting to its pre-colonial past and designating Sharia (Islamic law) as "the principal source of legislation" — an omnipresent feature of contemporary Muslim constitutions, including the new constitutions of Afghanistan and Iraq — rendering "constitutional guarantees of religious liberty and equality before the law illusory." This is the inevitable outcome of a Sharia-based legal system, because:
Sharia's principal aim concerning religious liberty, is to eradicate apostasy (rejection of Islam) through the elimination of fitna (anything that could tempt a Muslim to reject Islam) and the establishment of dhimmitude — the humiliation and subjugation of Jews and Christians as second class citizens [or non-citizen pariahs]; crippling systematic discrimination; violent religious apartheid …
In Egypt, as in virtually all Muslim states, a person's official religion is displayed on their identity card. According to Sharia, every child born to a Muslim father is deemed Muslim from birth. According to Sharia, a Muslim woman is only permitted to marry a Muslim man. (This is the main reason why Christian men convert to Islam, and why female converts to Christianity will risk life and liberty to secure a falsified/illegal ID, for without a Christian ID they cannot marry a Christian.)
There is no religious liberty in Islam, for Islam survives as religious totalitarianism that refuses rejection.
Islam's refusal to abide rejection by its votaries — the global Muslim umma's strident rejection of freedom of conscience — is now openly codified, and has been for two decades. The 1990 Cairo Declaration, or so-called "Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam", was drafted and subsequently ratified by all the Muslim member nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.
Both the preamble and concluding articles (24 and 25) make plain that the OIC's Cairo Declaration is designed to supersede Western conceptions of human rights as enunciated, for example, in the U.S. Bill of Rights and the UN's 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The opening of the preamble to the Cairo Declaration [5] repeats a Koranic injunction affirming Islamic supremacism (Koran 3:110; "You are the best nation ever brought forth to men … you believe in Allah"), and states:
Reaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which Allah made the best nation …
The preamble continues:
Believing that fundamental rights and universal freedoms in Islam are an integral part of the Islamic religion and that no one as a matter of principle has the right to suspend them in whole or in part or violate or ignore them in as much as they are binding divine commandments, which are contained in the Revealed Books of God and were sent through the last of His Prophets to complete the preceding divine messages thereby making their observance an act of worship and their neglect or violation an abominable sin, and accordingly every person is individually responsible — and the Ummah collectively responsible — for their safeguard.
In its last articles 24 and 25, the Cairo Declaration maintains
[Article 24] All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia. … [Article 25] The Islamic Sharia is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration.
Michael Hamilton: As noted in Shariah: The Threat to America, Ihsanoglu used the occasion of an earlier speech to an OIC Council of Foreign Ministers' conclave to declare war on freedom of speech:
In [the OIC's] confronting the Danish cartoons and the Dutch film "Fitna," we sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed. As we speak, the official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked.
Of late, the Organization of the Islamic Conference has taken to the United Nations its war against expression that gives offense to Islam. Last September, the Obama administration actually co-sponsored a resolution with Egypt (representing the OIC) in the UN Human Rights Council, calling on the United Nation's member states to limit such expression, as part of the OIC's ongoing campaign to have the UN recognize Islamophobia as a form of racism subject to prosecution under international law.
This effort to establish what it calls "deterrent punishments" for shariah slander is only one example of OIC activity at odds with American interests and the U.S. Constitution. Other examples include:
• Disrupting U.S. Efforts in Afghanistan: In the July 2010 edition of the OIC's "Islamophobia Observatory" Bulletin, the OIC sharply criticized Gen. Petraeus' counter-insurgency manual as "a manifestation of Islamophobia";
• Damaging Middle East Peace Negotiations: Since its founding, the OIC has pursued an aggressive anti-Israel campaign, including creating a fund for the intifada in 2001;
• Denies Civil Liberties and Freedom to Muslims and Non-Muslims: The OIC for decades has tried to deny American Muslims and others the protections of the UN Convention on Human Rights and the U.S. Constitution, insisting instead that they comply with the shariah apartheid doctrine formally adopted by the OIC's members as the so-called "Cairo Declaration of Human Rights."
According to the conference agenda published by the OIC New York UN Permanent Mission (http://www.oicun.org/9/20100727101615770.html), the executive director of the Chicago franchise of the Hamas-linked CAIR, Ahmed Rehab, will moderate a panel entitled: "The Role of the OIC and the Scope for its Relation with American Muslims."
In yet another ominous move, the Organization of the Islamic Conference has announced that it will meet on September 30 with American Muslim leaders – many of whose groups the federal government has identified in court as Muslim Brotherhood fronts – for the purpose of creating the "American Muslim Liaison Council to the OIC."
Question to: Nobel Prize Laureate Shirin Ebadi by David G. Littman (Representative: AWE & WUPJ)
My question is addressed to Madam Shirin Ebadi.
Thank you for your remarkable frank speaking here and your courage - a true lesson for us all.
A year ago, on Human Rights Day 2007, OIC Secretary-General Prof. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu stated that the OIC General Secretariat is considering the establishment of an independent permanent body to promote Human Rights in Member States in accordance with the provision of the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam and to elaborate an OIC Charter on Human Rights.
Four days later, on 14 December 2007, Pakistan's Ambassador Masood Khan - speaking for the OIC at the Human Rights Council -claimed that the 1990 Cairo Declaration was "not an alternative competing worldview on human rights," but failed to mention that the shari'a law was "the only source of reference" in that Declaration's articles 24 and 25 - the same shari'a law in which there is no equality between Muslim men and women and Muslims and non-Muslims. The Final Communiqué of the 3rd Extraordinary Session of the Islamic Mecca Summit on 8 December 2005 had provided a clear message on this - and on the UN system of human rights.
Madam, do you feel that the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam - and a future Islamic Charter based on shari'a law - would clash with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam and the International bill of Human Rights? To give one example: the marriage of girls at nine years old, as in Iran, since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Klevius comment: Islamic "monotheism" is the most evil form of the old Jewish "the chosen people" racism. The only meaningful difference is that whereas old Judaism was spread via the Vagina, islam is spread via the Penis (rapetivism). This fact together with islam's harsh apostasy ban (meaning leaving islam is considered a crime) and that muslim women are not allowed to marry non'muslims, explains why there are now less than 10 Million Jews but more than one Billion muslims.
OIC's Cairo declaration clearly violates girls/women's Human Rights. Under OIC's islamic Sharia a female doesn't really count as a fully human (only "truly" muslim men counts) because of islam's rigid sex segregation. Because of their sex females are, according to islam, forever and in all aspects of life, doomed to legal difference as prescribed by whatever Sharia happens to rule. To make this more simple to understand, just compare to the original Human Rights which expressly state that sex should not be an excuse for limiting girls' and women's freedom. And even more simple: Whereas under Sharia women are doomed to sex segregation, under Human Rights a woman can choose to sex segregate herself as well as to refuse to sex segregate herself (However, due to the detrimental effects of psychoanalysis this latter option isn't always open for girls because they may be labeled as "suffering" from gender identity disorder – see Klevius explanation of this repulsive psychiatyric intervention in girls' lives).
Negative Human Rights constitute the backbone of the Human Rights Declaration and the US Constitution. Islam/Sharia is the very opposite. This is why OIC violates the most important part of the Human Rights by replacing their freedom with medieval islamofascism.
Will the islamofascist Saud dictator family attack...
Are Theresa May and Donald Trump together charging...
Why is "islamophobia" again blamed when the islamo...
Klevius question to Theresa May: Was it Russia or ...
Is this "impeachment" spectacle, led by John McCai...
May's and Trump's Saudi hand-holding: How can Brit...
Klevius interference in the UK election: Brits! St...
Klevius question: How come that Atheists are less ...
BBC Fake News today eagerly asked a notorious Trum...
Peter Klevius sex and consciousness tutorial for U...
Klevius proudly presents the president of France 2...
How convenient! Hackers helped Macron to blur auth...
Can these fakers sink any lower - and when and how...
Brexit racism and immorality instead of fair play:...
Why is UKIP shooting itself in the foot with a Sau...