Klevius supports no border on Ireland. Follow the will of the people, i.e. let England leave and let Scotland and Northern Ireland stay. UK is an unconstitutional mess which now wants to leave EU without controlling its border to EU. A proper constitution would have demanded qualified majority in two consecutive elections/votes about such a crucial matter as Brexit - and being aware what the vote is about. The root of the problem is England's mad man Henry 8's colonialization of Ireland and lack of constitution. The preposterous "British" Brexit parody is then spiced with the government's and BBC's use of religious hate mongering etc. In summary UK is an anomaly of countries trying to be a state in a world of federal states united as countries.

Calling criticism of islam "islamophobia" is pure racism and also supports islamic racism and sexism

Theresa May & Co and state media BBC play with race cards

Theresa May & Co and state media BBC play with race cards

Klevius "islamophobic" heroine Nawal El Saadawi from Egypt

Klevius "islamophobic" heroine Nawal El Saadawi from Egypt
BBC isn't much interested in anti-semitism, homophobia etc. but uses them as an excuse for its Saudi/OIC supported "islamophobia" smear campaign against Human Rights.

Is BBC's Pakistan rooted and Saudi raised muslim(?) presenter Mishal Husain an "islamophobe" against evil* islam, or an apostate supporting toothless** "islam"? She doesn't fast during Ramadan but rather drinks some alcohol, and doesn't veil herself and says she doesn't feel any threats to her way of life (Klevius: thanks to Human Rights - not sharia islam), well knowing how muslim and non-muslim women suffer in muslim sharia countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia without Human Rights. What would she say to a muslim terrorist asking her if she's a muslim? Isn't it about time to stop this bigoted and hypocritical indirect support of islamofascism that this Saudi/OIC initiated "islamophobia" smear camopaign against Human Rights*** is all about?

* Human Rights equality violating sharia islam
** in line with the anti-fascist, anti-racist and anti-sexist U.N.'s 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration.
*** Socialists have an ideological problem with individual Human Rights, and are therefore vulnerable for islamism (see Klevius 1994).

Cameron's Britisharia Brexit

Cameron's Britisharia Brexit

Politicians against people

Politicians against people

Is UK turning into a militaristic unconstitutional islamofascist rogue state?

Is UK turning into a militaristic unconstitutional islamofascist rogue state?

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

Klevius CV

Are you or your representative(s) for or against basic 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Forerunners of the next iceage?

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

Warning for a muslim robot!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peter Klevius 1986 zero budget experimental refugee video

Wednesday, December 19, 2018

Football (no dude, not American handball) the world's most challenging and rewarding sport fits every sex, race - and size.

That's why the best teams are physically diverse, and the best managers those who can handle that diversity.

More than a year ago Klevius wrote:

The beauty of football is that it fits all sorts of (sporty) body constitutions. But due to the skill level needed in top football not every sporty individual may fit - no matter how good he/she is in an other sport.

Usain Bolt: "The boss of Puma knows Dortmund and he made the call. They said they didn't mind and they'd be excited to have me train with them." "I'm going to do that after the season and see what happens. It'd be something big for me - if I could get in the Manchester United jersey that'd be massive for me."

However, Usain's dream is to play for Manchester United.

Klevius (2017): Him being tall would certainly fit Mourinho's strange gathering of tall players - which fact may well turn out to be disastrous for the quality of Manchester United's footballing.

It did, didn't it. Only with the right mix of players can you get a really good team.

No wonder football (no dude, not American handball) is not only the world's most popular sport but also the most democratic one. And the play outside the pitch isn't football, and stupid or bribed referees on the pitch isn't either.

Xherdan Shaqiri (169 cm - i.e. same size as Messi) scoring one of his two goals in Liverpool's 3-1 win over Manchester United. This was also Jose Mourinho's last match as the manager of MU.

Klevius wrote:

Sunday, August 6, 2017

Islamofascist Qatar competing with islamofascist Saudi Arabia in the world's most popular sport - and Klevius contemplating sport bodies and performance.

BBC's poster boy Usain Bolt may not have been as good as BBC has tried to make him after all

Some 15 years ago Klevius launched a web page called A tribute to heroic women (and some tiny men) who showed the world (in the 1980's - before difference/glamour feminism shut the door for many a young girl! The page is part of klevius.info web museum and therefore not touched upon.

When Wilma Rudolph (180 cm/59 kg) back in 1960 run 100 m on a slow cinder track at 11.0 she wasn't anything close to a body builder.

Livio Berruti (180 cm/66 kg) run 1960 100 m in 10.2 and 200 m in 20.5 on a cinder track.

Jan Zelezny (182 cm/72 kg) still, after some 20 years, has the javelin world record 98,49 m (previous "record" by Hohn was made with a "sailing" javelin that isn't allowed anymore).

However, the same question about physical appearance and performance still remains. The best ones are never the really big ones or the really muscular ones.

The world's best striker trio ever consists of Messi 169 cm (who is considered the best), Neymar 175 cm (who is now the world's most expensive player) and Suarez 182 cm.

Oil/gas wealthy islamofascist dictatorships from the Arabian peninsula compete with each others to get their names associated with the world's best players in the world's best sport.

However, the beauty of football is that it fits all sorts of (sporty) body constitutions. But due to the skill level needed in top football not every sporty individual may fit - no matter how good he/she is in an other sport.

Usain Bolt: "The boss of Puma knows Dortmund and he made the call. They said they didn't mind and they'd be excited to have me train with them." "I'm going to do that after the season and see what happens. It'd be something big for me - if I could get in the Manchester United jersey that'd be massive for me."

However, Usain's dream is to play for Manchester United.

Klevius: Him being tall would certainly fit Mourinho's strange gathering of tall players - which fact may well turn out to be disastrous for the quality of MU's footballing.

Usain Bolt's decline has come during harder doping controls

Usain Bolt (195 cm/94 kg) beaten by the world's now fastest man Christian Coleman (175 cm/71 kg - 9.82 so far fastest time 2017).

Behind 9.58 sec world record (2009) holder Bolt, every other man to run under 9.79sec has served a drugs ban at some point in their career with Gay (9.69sec), Blake (9.69sec), Powell (9.72sec) and Justin Gatlin (9.74sec) all falling foul of anti-doping regulations.

Year     100 metres

2007     10.03    
2008     9.69    
2009     9.58    
2010     9.82    
2011     9.76    
2012     9.63    
2013     9.77    
2014     9.98    
2015     9.79    
2016     9.80    

2017 best 100 m

Rank     Mark     WIND     Competitor     DOB     Nat     Pos         Venue     Date

1     9.82     +1.3     Christian Coleman     06 MAR 1996     USA USA     1h1         Eugene (Hayward Field), OR     07 JUN 2017
2     9.90     +0.9     Yohan Blake     26 DEC 1989     JAM JAM     1         Kingston (NS), JAM     23 JUN 2017
3     9.92 A     +1.2     Akani Simbine     21 SEP 1993     RSA RSA     1         Pretoria (Tuks)     18 MAR 2017
3     9.92     -0.8     Justin Gatlin     10 FEB 1982     USA USA     1         London (Olympic Stadium)     05 AUG 2017
    9.93 A     +2.0     Akani Simbine     21 SEP 1993     RSA RSA     1r5         Pretoria (Tuks)     04 MAR 2017
    9.93     +0.4     Yohan Blake     26 DEC 1989     JAM JAM     1         Kingston (NS), JAM     20 MAY 2017
5     9.93     +0.8     Cameron Burrell     11 SEP 1994     USA USA     1h2         Eugene (Hayward Field), OR     07 JUN 2017
5     9.93     +1.6     Christopher Belcher     29 JAN 1994     USA USA     1h3         Eugene (Hayward Field), OR     07 JUN 2017
    9.93     +0.2     Christian Coleman     06 MAR 1996     USA USA     1h2         Sacramento (Hornet Stadium), CA     22 JUN 2017
    9.94 A     +0.2     Akani Simbine     21 SEP 1993     RSA RSA     1sf1         Potchefstroom (Puk McCarthur)     21 APR 2017
7     9.94     +0.9     Wayde van Niekerk     15 JUL 1992     RSA RSA     1r3         Velenje     20 JUN 2017
    9.94     -0.8     Christian Coleman     06 MAR 1996     USA USA     2         London (Olympic Stadium)     05 AUG 2017
8     9.95 A     +1.2     Thando Roto     26 SEP 1995     RSA RSA     2         Pretoria (Tuks)     18 MAR 2017
    9.95 A     -0.7     Akani Simbine     21 SEP 1993     RSA RSA     1         Potchefstroom (Puk McCarthur)     21 APR 2017
    9.95     -0.7     Justin Gatlin     10 FEB 1982     USA USA     1         Sacramento (Hornet Stadium), CA     23 JUN 2017
8     9.95     +0.7     Usain Bolt     21 AUG 1986     JAM JAM     1         Monaco (Stade Louis II)     21 JUL 2017

Monday, December 17, 2018

Klevius philosophy tutorial for Stanford: Referring to reason or a "god" in politics and Human Rights? Only a racist/sexist fascist* would have a problem digesting the self evident answer.

* Today's real fascists are those who haven't understood why fascism in the past was so widespread among politicians and ordinary people.

Rational politics needs to be anchored in rational Human Rights freedom, not in irrational sharia "belief" impositions. And who needs irrational politics anyway?

Nor can we accept a class society based on "beliefs".

When Klevius 16-year old daughter was finishing her university degree and went for a SAT test and due application for Stanford, Klevius tried to warn her that although her age might be seen positively, her fair skin might not be an asset because of "affirmative" actions etc. PC. However, what is much more important is that the quality of Stanford's teachings has dropped dramatically during the last decades. Here's just one example:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Religion and Political Theory
First published Thu Oct 2, 2008; substantive revision Thu Jan 15, 2015

Stanford concludes:

"...members of all parties to the debate agree that the task at hand is to articulate ways in which citizens of a deeply pluralistic liberal democracy can conduct their behavior in manners that are not only faithful to whatever religious identities they may have, but are also just and contribute to the common good."

Klevius: "are not only faithful to whatever religious identities they may have" completely misses the most essential, i.e. that "religious identities" may be (and in a strict definition of religion always are) incompatible with the political scenarios Stanford outlines as the very basis for this tendentious and crypto-polemical, biased article.

Religion that reaches the political sphere is always at odds with negative Human Rights precisely because religion is positive, i.e. has to impose something to be meaningful - without impositions no religion - whereas basic (negative) Human Rights freedom is the very opposite, i.e. a minimum space freed from impositions. This is the stumbling bloc islam (OIC) couldn't avoid, e.g. regarding the position of women, and therefore had to abandon Human Rights equality by adopting the Human Rights violating Cairo declaration (sharia) instead.

The basic idea of Human Rights starts from negative rights, i.e. the right of the individual not to be imposed restrictions due to, for example, sex, ethnicity, beliefs etc. This basic right therefore also excludes positive measures not necessary in a democratic society. Transferred to traffic that simply means that whatever "beliefs" you may have they shouldn't be allowed to give you the right to go against red light for example. Politics ought to be restricted in the same way as traffic. "Negative rights" of a self driving car would mean that the car is allowed to go wherever its human "driver" asks it to go, but within the restrictions that its connections to GPS and other cars (i.e. the overall flow of traffic) may impose. Politics is the way you organize social "traffic" with the least possible positive interference.

Compare the setting to traffic where there's no room whatsoever for "beliefs". A muslim has to obey exactly the same rules etc. as an Atheist, men and women etc. Islam* may ban women from driving but that has no bearing on rules and organization of traffic.

* Do note that there's no islam without someone using it. Islam is operational. Whenever you hear "it's not islam", this empty phrase is just a reflection of an other plattitude, namely "the many faces of political islam".

The only correct way to address Stanford's weird* problem formulation "is political authority to be grounded in the claims of revelation or reason" is to tackle it with the follow up question "is revelation politics". And if you insist it is, then take the consequences of not only whatever racism/sexism etc. slipping into the political domain but also that the individual who feeds the politicians, will be over run by group based actions not based in reason.

* If by politics we mean general (i.e. not in a private or particular setting) decision making and legislation based on generally understood (i.e. rational) argumentation, then there seems to be no place for irrational politics. And if we want to base politics in unversal Human Rights equality the only option is to avoid mixing in "beliefs", "faith" etc.

Don't let sexism and racism hide behind religion. What you're left with then is the only possible "religion" which might not fulfill your initial (racist/sexist or fascist?) motivation. This is why Klevius says islam is dying just as sex segregation (a main element in "monotheisms") has done for some time (see Klevius Warning for Feminism).

Adam Smith and Karl Marx referred to reason, as do most politicians today when explaining their stand point. They might refer to a belief in certain changes in market forces etc. but never to a "will of god".

Universal Human Rights equality is also based on reason, i.e. that anyone can agree it's not a "belief" but something one can rationally understand and evaluate ones actions against. In other words, whether you approve of anti-racist and anti-sexist Human Rights equality or if you rather stick to a racist and sexist belief you "justify" as a "will of god"..

Negative Human Rights is an unchanging moral principle that constitutes a logical bedrock for human conduct. For those of you already too confused by academic rants about "faith-based reasoning", let Klevius explain to you how an 'unchanging moral principle' is possible without other "beliefs" than the axiomatic 'human'.

Morality is by necessity always changing because, as Klevius wrote back in 1981*, the meaning of life is uncertainty.

* An article in Hufvudstadsbladet published in May 1981. It was laying for a long time on the editors desk because no one there seemed to understand it (Klevius takes full responsibility for that), and it was only published after recommendation by Georg Henrik von Wright (Wittgenstein's successor at Cambridge) who was a good friend of the chief editor Jan Magnus Jansson (presidential candidate in the 1980s) who then let it through and paid Klevius 500 Finnish Marks, i.e. approxim. $1,000 today. Not bad for a relatively short text very few understood. The article was titled Resursbegär (Demand for Resources) and was a precursor to Klevius 1992 book with same name (ISBN 9173288411), which elaborates with examples (see e.g. pp 30-33 where for the first time 'consiousness' and 'awareness', i.e. how we "think", is exemplified and explained). So why all this self citation and boasting, as you might see it? Well, isn't it quite obvious that lacking this info would make it much more likely that you'd dismiss Klevius as just an other opinoner and therefore also missing the deeper points.

Do note that it was only England/Wales that voted for Brexit - not the rest of UK.
An unfortunate feature of modern political liberalism is its acceptance of faith-based "reasoning" over rational Human Rights equality.

 This drawing about sex segregation by Klevius from 1979 has been on many exhibitions and since 2003 on the web. Do note the "steely" construction of the DNA "ladder.

Btw, Chinese products and investments don't come tied with "faith" tags. In this respect dealing with China instead of muslim oil dictators etc. would be less of a threat to Human Rights, right...

Thursday, November 29, 2018

Klevius suggests Musk should take a lot of dirt and bugs with him to Mars.

Musk allegedly said there's a 70% chance for him to move to Mars.
However, Klevius warns him that the ISS strains of Enterobacter were 79% likely to cause illness.

In Demand for Resources (1992:31, ISBN 9173288411) in a discussion about the olfactory organ that we call the brain, Klevius warned for (over)hygien being the most important factor causing allergies etc. Apart from pure logic and knowledge about super bugs etc., Klevius had an other experience with his newborn child who  had a bleeding navel that the nurses repeatedly cleaned with disinfection and asked us parents to do the same at home. However, we didn't and the navel was fine next day.

Newborn babies before modern hygiene got better used to their bacterial environment.

So what went wrong on ISS was that they didn't make the toilet dirty enough on Earth, in other words, surrounding it with a normal protective flora of germs. We don't live on oxygen and food alone, we need also to be embedded in a protective symbiotic "bubble" of a multitude of various germs.

Compare this to how Pygmies are protected against Ebola whereas the Bantu (i.e. Eurasian late comers to Central Africa
msee Klevius out-of-Asia theory below and on the web) are less well prepared.

Something similar will happen on Mars.

Also consider what Klevius wrote in

Klevius wrote:

Wednesday, August 3, 2016

Peter Klevius 1992 (and developing* ahead of others) theory on human evolution - and guts with brains

* It follows science, not bias, and is powered with exceptional intelligence (what, a dirty word?) and therefore seems to be at the ultimate edge of our collected understanding (compare "the extremely normal") - yet the least commented despite millions of viewers. And the few comments are usually from tragic ignorants who don't even have the most basic understanding of the topic.

"Ornamented" bacteria colonies (copyright* Peter Klevius - but do feel free to cite)

 * Klevius texts are usually way ahead of the time they're written down, i.e. truly original. However, precisely because of this they rarely get the attention they deserve. Moreover, due to general time-bound alterations in the discourse at stake, not to mention particular alterations in attitudes and values, connotations may vary and make reading more difficult, especially if the text was progressive for its time. However, Klevius texts can usually be safely "time-translated" because central concepts are thoroughly presented at the time of writing (this is the delicate balancing act Klevius mentions in the foreword to his book, i.e. connecting associations between author and reader. This is also why Klevius loves to "brag" by challenging readers to find serious thoughts by Klevius anywhere else earlier than Klevius. A good example is EMAH - the Even More Astonishing Hypothesis on human cognition. An other is sex segregation and the social state, a third one being Klevius analysis of the so called Negative Human Rights from a sex neutral point of view, a fourth is Klevius classification of human societies not according to what they do but what they want (see e.g. chapter Khoe, San, and Bantu in Demand for Resources), a fifth being an analysis of Freud, his daughter, and Margaret Mahler, from a sex segregation and "motherhood guilt" perspective (see e.g. Pathological Symbiosis), and a sixth could be Klevius analysis of the social state (see e.g. Angels of Antichrist), and a seventh... There are also loads of other minor discoveries made by Klevius, such as, for example, the crucial connection between Freud's emerging psychoanalysis and Caton's much earlier discovery of electrical brain activity, and a PhD thesis on Heterosexual attraction and the failure of feminist theory (compare Klevius web museum from 2007, klevius.info, and Gametes have nos sexes), etc. etc.,

All organisms, including us, are differently equipped bacteria colonies. The first such bacteria colonies probably evolved from bacteria "mats" that rolled into a membrane through which they could communicate nutrition/metabolism. This evolutionary step resembles Klevius view on how RNA much earlier cloaked itself in a protein capsid. Viruses may have evolved from self-replicating molecules that later on created the cells which conventionally have been seen as predecessors for virus. Klevius first got the idea as a late teenager when he first heard about prions, i.e. self-convoluting proteins. He wondered whether it could be possible that prions at some point wrapped around loose RNA, hence creating the first viruses. "Pre-life" amino acids capable of forming foldable proteins would have made this possible. RNA would hence constitute a proto-DNA.

When colonies of one-cell organisms got an outer membrane that could communicate food supply and disposal (incl. disposal of parts of itself) the next step was to create independent movement etc. This last stage led to a diversity of different solutions and approaches depending on environmental circumstances.

So in short, we are walking and thinking slaves of our guts. And the brain and its intelligence that we are so proud of (as long as it's not Klevius brain, of course) is created for the purpose of feeding our guts. When it produces tech, innovations, art etc., this is just a byproduct of its main duty to serve the gut bacterias.

Existencecentrism in an endless unimaginable Universe where the very question "why are we here?" resides (with all its connotations etc) inside existencecentrism, hence outside the very realm that it's supposed to address.

In Demand for Resources (1992, ISBN 9173288411) - where Klevius called this realm the unreachable - he sketched evolution and our position with a tool called 'existencecentrism', i.e. a fundamental bias that we can change but never get rid of. Klevius thought this axiomatic statement could stand as a basis for hunting down lower level bias in science. This approach was well received 1980 by George Henrik von Wright (the Finland-Swedish philosopher who succeeded Ludvig Wittgenstein at Cambridge) and was first published in the Finland-Swedish Hufvudstadsbladet 1981. Payment was Fmk 500.00 (so quite a distance from e.g. Hillary Clinton who gets enormous sums for opening her mouth in accordance to her muslim sharia masters).

According to Klevius (1981, 1992) the basic element in our understanding of Universe is motion that causes evolution and devolution in a causal stream of changing complexities.  This understanding, however, also locks itself on our metaphysical explorations.

Although Einstein taught us about the 4-dimensional space-time continuum relativity, few seem to have understood that this means that the farther we look the less we see. Combine this with the crazy "monotheist" idea of "creation from nothing" by a "god", and the confusion is total. Ever considered if this cultural limitation is the clue to why e.g. East-Asian Atheists score better IQ! "The one Universe" in the middle of the pic below is just a part of universe.

No wonder the "big bang" concept was invented by a cleric.

Klevius wrote:

Monday, January 9, 2012

The ridiculous idea about "one god" hampers CERN/LHC

Universe doesn't have limits - nor is it endless

In my book Demand for Resources (Resursbegär1992:21-22) I pointed out not only the dangers of such a senseless "model" as "Big Bang" but also how this "model" is trapped in a "monotheistic" view demanding "creation", i.e. a "starting point". Not only is such a "starting point" conceptually impossible (apart from its very obvious other limitations, e.g. how do you "bang" in "nothing") but it also fatally misdirects research focus because it assumes "a universe" or "the universe" where there's only universe.

A time trip back towards the "Big Bang" would only reveal a continuing growth of neighboring "universes". The space/time continuum and warping would make the "Big Bang" model laughable.

To my surprise I've noticed how many decently minded people seem to have great difficulties understanding how the great distances and the great limitations caused by the speed of light constant, warps every effort to take even quite small thought steps, say for example only within our own tiny galaxy. 

Cameras never lie - pictures do!

All space cameras, from our own eyes to the Hubble space telescope and its follow-ups, have in common that they don't take pictures of space but of themselves, i.e. photo reactions on the retina, CCD etc. These reactions are then interpreted by our knowledge. However, to describe such reactions as a picture of space is extremely misleading.

Kleius wrote:

Friday, April 5, 2013

Where's the star and where were you?

The illusion of a Universe

A ten billion year old supernova has been discovered. It means it died ten billion years ago, i.e. 5.5 billion years before our Sun was born.

The black area on the pic above corresponds to the white area on Klevius' Origin of Universe pic.

The nearest star, Proxima Centauri, is 4.2 light years from the Earth. Light travels at a speed corresponding to 7.5 laps around the Earth in one second.

The light from the farthest objects detectable by Hubble and other cameras (incl. radio waves etc), i.e. more than 13 billion years ago, marks the end of our capabilities, not the end of Universe. Because there is no "end" or "beginning". These terms are oxymorons and semantically absurd.

So next time you take a look at the stars do consider what you don't see.

Klevius wrote:

Thursday, March 15, 2012 (with some random updates)

The Red Deer Cave people add more evidence for Klevius’ ape/homo hybridization theory

The irrefutable art track in Northern Eurasia (see map below) has no contemporary equivalent in other parts of the world. Based on what we know now it had no fore bearers whatsoever in any period of time. Moreover, it seems that there was even a decline before "civilizations" started tens of thousands of years later! Yet Klevius seems to be the only one addressing this most interesting (besides genetics) fact! According to Klevius (and no one else so far) the new and more efficient brain evolved in a jungle environment (SE Asia?) and spread up until meeting with big headed Neanderthals hence creating the modern human who later spread and dissolved with archaic homos. In this process Homo erectus was most probably involved as well.

Updated info about the origin of Klevius' theory

Keep in mind that mainland SE Asia possibly harbored physically truly modern humans already before the time range (12,000/18,000 ybp - 98,000 ybp) of the Homo floresiensis remains in the Flores cave.

Liujiang, SE China (est. 100,000-140,000ybp)

If this Liujiang skull had been found in Africa or Mideast Wikipedia and other media would be overfilled. But this is all you get now (summer 2015 update) from Wikipedia about this extremely important skull:

The Liujiang skull probably came from sediment dating to 111 000 to 139 000 which would mean it's older than the oldest Homo floresiensis remains on Flores. Nothing even remotely close to this modern skull has ever been found in Africa, Mideast or Europe this early. In other words, we have the extremely archaic looking Red Deer Cave people 100,000 years after this extremely modern looking Liujiang population at approximately the same region. Even the least probable estimate of 70,000 bp would make Liujiang more modern looking than anything else.

Also compare Lake Mungo remains in Australia with an mtDNA that differs completely from ours (incl. Australian Aborigines). Sadly the remains have been kept out of further research because of stupid* "Aboriginal"(?!) greed (for the purpose of making certain people more "special" than others for no good reason at all (also compare the ridiculous Kennewick man controversy). Does it need to be said that the Mungo remains are as far from Australian Aborigines in appearance as you can imagine. However, according to Alan Thorne, 'Mungo could not have come from Africa as, just like Aboriginal Australians don't look like anybody from Africa, Mungo Man's skeleton doesn't look like anybody from Africa either. LM3 skeleton was of a gracile individual, estimated stature of 196 cm, which all sharply contrast with the morphology of modern indigenous Australians. Compared to the older Liujiang skull Mungo man had a much smaller brain.

* There's no way anyone can state who was "first" in Australia - and even if there was, then there's still no way of  making any meaningful connection to now living people.

In Demand for Resources (1992:28 ISBN 9173288411) in a chapter about human evolution, Peter Klevius used only one example, the remarkable Jinniushan skeleton/cranium:

In northern China near North Korean border an almost complete skeleton of a young man who died 280,000 years ago. The skeleton was remarkable because its big cranial volume (1,400cc) was not expected in Homo erectus territory at this early time and even if classified as Homo sapiens it was still big. The anatomically completely modern human brain volume is 1,400 cc and appeared between 50-100,000 years ago. One may therefore conclude that big brain volume by far predated more sophisticated human behavior (Klevius 1992:28).

Today, when many believe the skeleton is female, the brain size becomes even more remarkable.

Updated map

Most "mysteries" in genetics disappear by abandoning OOA and changing direction of HSS evolution. Only South East Asia offered a combination of tropical island/mainland fluctuations needed to put pressure on size reduction paired with evolutionary isolation in an environment where only those survived who managed to shrink their heads while keeping the same intelligence as their mainland kins with some double the sized brain. Homo floresiensis is evidence that such has happened there.

Denisovan is an extinct species of human in the genus Homo. In March 2010, scientists announced the discovery of a finger bone fragment of a juvenile female who lived about 41,000 years ago, found in the remote Denisova Cave in the Altai Mountains in Siberia, a cave which has also been inhabited by Neanderthals and modern humans. Two teeth and a toe bone belonging to different members of the same population have since been reported.

Analysis of the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of the Denisovan finger bone showed it to be genetically distinct from the mtDNAs of Neanderthals and modern humans. Subsequent study of the nuclear genome from this specimen suggests that this group shares a common origin with Neanderthals, that they ranged from Siberia to Southeast Asia, and that they lived among and interbred with the ancestors of some present-day modern humans, with about 3% to 5% of the DNA of Melanesians and Aboriginal Australians deriving from Denisovans. DNA discovered in Spain suggests that Denisovans at some point resided in Western Europe, where Neanderthals were thought to be the only inhabitants. A comparison with the genome of a Neanderthal from the same cave revealed significant local interbreeding, with local Neanderthal DNA representing 17% of the Denisovan genome, while evidence was also detected of interbreeding with an as yet unidentified ancient human lineage. Similar analysis of a toe bone discovered in 2011 is underway, while analysis of DNA from two teeth found in layers different from the finger bone revealed an unexpected degree of mtDNA divergence among Denisovans. In 2013, mitochondrial DNA from a 400,000-year-old hominin femur bone from Spain, which had been seen as either Neanderthal or Homo heidelbergensis, was found to be closer to Denisovan mtDNA than to Neanderthal mtDNA.

Little is known of the precise anatomical features of the Denisovans, since the only physical remains discovered thus far are the finger bone, two teeth from which genetic material has been gathered and a toe bone. The single finger bone is unusually broad and robust, well outside the variation seen in modern people. Surprisingly, it belonged to a female, indicating that the Denisovans were extremely robust, perhaps similar in build to the Neanderthals. The tooth that has been characterized shares no derived morphological features with Neanderthal or modern humans. An initial morphological characterization of the toe bone led to the suggestion that it may have belonged to a Neanderthal-Denisovan hybrid individual, although a critic suggested that the morphology was inconclusive. This toe bone's DNA was analyzed by Pääbo. After looking at the full genome, Pääbo and others confirmed that humans produced hybrids with Denisovans.

Some older finds may or may not belong to the Denisovan line. These includes the skulls from Dali and Maba, and a number of more fragmentary remains from Asia. Asia is not well mapped with regard to human evolution, and the above finds may represent a group of "Asian Neanderthals".

Jinniushan and Floresiensis - the keys to Denisovan and the truly modern humans

Jinniushan had a bigger brain than anything in contemporary Africa

In Demand for Resources (1992:28 ISBN 9173288411) in a chapter about human evolution, Peter Klevius used only one example, the remarkable Jinniushan skeleton/cranium:

In northern China near North Korean border an almost complete skeleton of a young man who died 280,000 years ago. The skeleton was remarkable because its big cranial volume (1,400cc) was not expected in Homo erectus territory at this early time and even if classified as Homo sapiens it was still big. The anatomically completely modern human brain volume is 1,400 cc and appeared between 50-100,000 years ago. One may therefore conclude that big brain volume by far predated more sophisticated human behavior (Klevius 1992:28).

Today, when many believe the skeleton is female, the brain size becomes even more remarkable.

Since 1991 when Klevius wrote his book much new information has been produced. However, it seems that the Jinniushan archaic Homo sapiens still constitutes the most spectacular anomaly (together with Homo floresiensis) in anthropology. So why did Klevius pick Jinniushan instead of one of the more fashionable human remains? After all, Klevius was a big fan of Rchard Leakey (he even interviewed him in a lengthy program for the Finnish YLE broadcasting company) and there was a lot of exciting bones appearing from the Rift Valley.

In the 1980s Klevius paid special attention to Australian aborigines and African "bushmen" and noted that the latter were mongoloid in appearance (even more so considering that todays Khoe-San/Khoisan are heavily mixed with Bantu speakers). But mongoloid features are due to cold adaptation in the north and therefore the "bushmen" had to be related to Eurasia. Klevius soon realized that the Khoisan speakers had moved to the southern Africa quite recently as a consequence of the so called Bantu expansion. More studies indicated that the "bushmen" had previously populated most of east Africa up to the Red Sea and beyond.

So the next step for Klevius was to search for early big skulled human remains in the mongoloid northern part of Eurasia. And that search really paid off.

This happened more than 20 years before the discovery of the Denisova bracelet and the human relative Denisovan in Altai. 

Klevius book Demand for Resources (1992) in which these thoughts about mongoloid traits were published also predates Floresiensis with more than a decade.

Both fossils show clear cold adaptation (mongoloid) traits. However, Jinniushan (right) is older and has a bigger cranial capacity although it's female.

Peter Brown (world famous for discovering/defending Floresiensis in 2004 and who had big trouble getting his PhD accepted because of a biased supervisor/institution): What makes Dali, as well as Jinniushan (Lu, 1989; Wu, 1988a), particularly important is that both of their facial skeletons are reasonably complete. This is an unusual situation in China as the only other middle Pleistocene hominids to have faces in China are the Yunxian Homo erectus (Li and Etler, 1992), which are both very distorted. Originating in the pioneering research of Weidenreich (1939a, 1939b, 1943) at Zhoukoudian, there has been strong support by Chinese Palaeoanthropologists for evolutionary continuity between Chinese H. erectus and modern humans in China. It has been argued that this is most clearly expressed in the architecture of the facial skeleton (Wolpoff et al., 1984). East Asian traits have been argued to include lack of anterior facial projection, angulation in the zygomatic process of the maxilla and anterior orientation of the frontal process, pronounced frontal orientation of the malar faces, and facial flatness. While some of these traits may occur at high frequency in modern East Asians (cf Lahr, 1996) they are not present in late Pleistocene East Asians, for instance Upper Cave 101 and Liujiang (Brown, 1999), or more apparent in Dali and Jinniushan than archaic H. sapiens from Africa or Europe. Recently there has been a tendency to link a group of Chinese hominin fossils, including Dali, Maba, Xujiayao, and Jinniushan, previously considered by some researchers to be "archaic Homo sapiens", with the Denisovians (Reich et al. 2010; Martinón-Torres et al. 2011) (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7327/full/nature09710.html). However, apart from a few teeth, the Denisovians are only known from palaeo DNA. There is also a great deal of anatomical variation in the Chinese "archaic Homo sapiens" group. It will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next decade, or so.

Klevius: It turns the conventional anthropological map on its head!

For a background to Klevius' theory see previous postings and Out of Africa as Ape/Homo hybrids and back as global Mongooids 

First and third from the left are Red Deer Cave people 14,300-11,500 years ago. Second and fourth the so called Venus from Brassempouy in France 25-26,000 years ago. The last pic is a reconstruction of a 1.9 Million year old Homo rudolfiensis skull. They all had flat broad cheeks, no chin and rounded forehead.

From the left: Red Deer Cave, Sami, Cro-Magnon

Was the sculptural portrait of Venus of Brassempouy made because she looked so different from Cro Magnon? Was she kept as a pet or something by her Cro Magnon captors?

There were certainly completely different looking modern humans living in Eurasia side by side some 26,000 years ago. And the only way to make sense of these enormous differences is Klevius hybridization theory, i.e. that the modern brain came from small ape-like creatures (compare the "scientists" who didn't believe that the small Homo floresiensis brain could be capable of tool-making, fire-making etc..

Debbie Martyr (an Orang Pendek* researcher): "the mouth is small and neat, the eyes are set wide apart and the nose is distinctly humanoid"
* Orange Pendek is the most common name given to a small but broad shouldered cryptid ceature that reportedly inhabits remote, mountainous forests on Sumatra.

Venus of Brassempouy, one of the world's oldest real portrait
(this one slightly retouched by Klevius)

The Red Deer Cave people, discovered in southern China and who lived some 14,300-11,500 years ago  had long, broad and tall frontal lobes behind the forehead, which are associated with personality and behavior.  However, they also express prominent brow ridges, thick skull bones, flat upper face with a broad nose, jutting jaws and lack a humanlike chin. Their brains were smaller than modern humans and they had large molar teeth (just like Denisovan), and short parietal lobes at the top of the head (associated with sensory data). According to Curnoe, "These are primitive features seen in our ancestors hundreds of thousands of years ago".
Unique features of the Red Deer Cave people include a strongly curved forehead bone, broad nose and broad eye sockets, flat and wide cheeks and wide and deep lower jaw joint to the skull base.
Klevius comment: Compare this description to Venus of Brassempouy on the pic, one of the world’s oldest portrait/sculpture of a human made some 25-26,000 years ago in what is now France.

This Cro Magnon could have been the captor of Venus of Brassempouy. Compare e.g. his protruding chin with the retracting one on Venus of Brassempouy. And keep in mind that the human chin has been an elusive and quite recent feature in human evolution. The delicate features we used to attribute to anatomically modern human while simultaneously attributing high intelligence may, in fact, not be connected at all. Slender and delicate skeletal features are not always connected with high cultural achievement. Quite the opposite when looking at skeletal remains outside the Aurignacian area..

In Dolní Věstonice, Eastern Europe a portrait of an almost modern Cro Magnon is now scientifically dated to at least 29,000 BP. The performance of its creator is on an extremely high cultural level when considering it predates Mideastern civilizations with some23,000 years, and that it evolved in a cultural tradition that has never been found in Africa or Mideast.

Klevius comment: Consider the circumstances. Small population and, at some stage, no previous "teachers". This northern part of the Aurignacian struck almost out of the blue unles you also consider the Denisova bracelet.

This extremely complicated to manufacture stone bracelet was made by the ape-like "non-human(?) Denisovan hybrid in Siberia >40,000 years ago by utilizing a drilling technology, comparable to modern machines, according to the researchers who found it.

Professor Ji Xueping ( Yunnan Institute of Cultural Relics and Archeology): “Because of the geographical diversity caused by the Qinghai-Tibet plateau, south-west China is well known as a biodiversity hotspot and for its great cultural diversity”.
Klevius comment: Compare what was said already 2004 (before the presentation of Homo floresiensis) on the web(and 1992 in book form): Genes were "pumped" back and forth through mostly the same (Central-Asian) geographical "veins" by frequent climate changes, hence prohibiting speciation but encouraging local "raciation".

According to Klevius' theory we got our modern brain intelligence from hybridization with apes (Pan?). These creatures were small and apelike although bipedal.  When they moved north they encountered cold adapted Homos with large skulls. This combination created the most intelligent people ever on the planet. However, when this extremely small population began expanding it dissolved with the big headed but stupid Homos hence empowering their intelligence while diluting its own. The mix became today's humans.

Homo floresiensis on Java (i.e. north of the Wallace line as opposed to thise found on Flores) may be, and the Denisovans in Siberia are variants on this hybrid path.

"Racial" distribution in accordance with Klevius' "Out of Siberia and back to Africa" theory (aka "Out of Africa as pygmies and back as global mongoloids"

Mongoloids and Australoids are the races most distant from each other because whereas Africa had a strong back migration of mongoloids Australia due to its location came to be less involved. This is also why the so called Caucasoid race (in a broad sense) came to populate what in Klevius terminology is called the "bastard belt" (the grey area on the map).

The senseless Mideastern "creation out of nothing" ideology got popular only because it boosted patriarchal sex apartheid (Adam created by "god" and woman created from Adam).

The incredibly stupid (see postings below) "Out of Africa" term only competes with the equally misleading and stupid "Big Bang" term - see Klevius new blog on the Origin of Universe (note that there's no 'the' in front of universe).

Genetic traces of Denisovan

Klevius' human evolution formula from hot to cold

Chimp/Homo hybridization  (FOXP2 variant) + meeting/mixing with Eurasian Homos = Denisovan (Floresiensis?) and leaves an early but misleading genetic Africa label due to the back and forth movement between Eurasia and Africa.

Denisovan (Floresiensis?) gets a better packed brain in island Indonesia through sea level isolation. Later on the opposite effect releases some of them into Asian mainland.

In summary, the oldest African genes are not human, and the later ones are just the result of mixing from back migration.

When Klevius in the 1980s got in contact with African aborigines he immediately was struck by their mongoloid appearance. Why on earth would African aborigines have traces of cold adaptation? Today we have the answer in Siberia.

Klevius wrote:

Monday, October 22, 2018

John Hawks again missed (since 1992 in a book and since 2003 on the web) Klevius' original science contribution re. social evolution of human societies.

Among serious anthropologists John Hawks' blog is the most read while Peter Klevius' blog is the least* read. Why? Is it because of Klevius' "Saudiphobia"/"islamo(fascism)phobia"?

 * So have patience with Klevius self-citations (and do read the chapter Science and References in Demand for Resources) which clearly are more important for general science than for Klevius own satisfaction.

 See Klevius 1992:40-44.

Richard Lee's The !Kung San: Men, Women, and Work in a Foraging Society came 1979 and was the main trigger of Klevius first letter to Georg Henrik von Wright (Wittgenstein's successor at Cambridge) on the topic and Klevius 1981 article Demand for Resources and 1992 book with the same title.

Out of respect and as support for Lee's work Klevius also bought the expensive  Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunter-Gatherers (1999), which, of course, was of no practical use for Klevius.

Here's John Hawks recent blog-post:

Hawks writes:

He (Lee) has written an article in this year’s Annual Review of Anthropology that examines both uses and misuses of hunter-gatherer ethnography in theory-building about human nature: “Hunter-Gatherers and Human Evolution: New Light on Old Debates.”

In the introduction to the article, he recounts a story involving his “Man the Hunter” co-editor, the late Irven DeVore:

    Senator William Fulbright of Arkansas, a brilliant US legislator in the 1960s and the founder of the scholarship program that bears his name, was just one public figure struggling to come to grips with the import of Lorenz’s theses. I vividly remember the late Irven DeVore coming into my office at Harvard University. “I just got off the phone with Senator William Fulbright calling from Washington,” Devore said. “He asked me ‘Professor DeVore, if Konrad Lorenz is right, how are we ever to negotiate a nuclear arms reduction treaty with the Soviet Union?’”

    DeVore reassured Fulbright that Lorenz’s views were far from universally accepted among anthropologists, that violence in human history was a variable not a constant, and that its causes and expressions were far more complex than could be explained simply by pure animal instinct.

    DeVore’s disclaimers appeared to calm Senator Fulbright’s nerves, and in fact the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) went on to successfully negotiate a series of nuclear arms reduction treaties over the years. Nevertheless, the question of violence in human history continued to animate the debate within anthropology, fueled by Robert Ardrey’s “killer ape” hypothesis in his books African Genesis (Ardrey 1961) and The Territorial Imperative (Ardrey 1966). Interest was sustained by Napoleon Chagnon’s (1968) influential ethnography of the “fierce” Yanomamo and more recently by the writings of Wrangham & Peterson (1996), such as Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence. I have labeled this persistent thread within anthropology and related disciplines as the “Bellicose School” (Lee 2014).

I am spending some time reading this review and taking notes, and it bears close reading. Lee’s theme is that many people who use “hunter-gatherers” as a category are actually lumping things that are quite different from each other. If you want to use ethnographic studies of today’s people to say anything about prehistoric people, you need to understand that any living group may be like ancient people in some ways, and very different from ancient people in other ways.

Klevius writes: When it comes to Konrad Lorentz I share Lee's view - as clearly stated on page 20 in Demand for Resources (1992):

Det finns ett flertal delikata kulturantropologiska fördomar som fått starka grepp på allmänheten. En sådan gäller föreställningen om människans aggressivitet som en oemotståndlig negativ biologisk kraft som måste få utlopp. Att hävda detta och samtidigt förorda kanaliserad aggressivitet i syfte att förmildra verkningarna av densamma innebär i själva verket att man kulturellt skapar och stimulerar beteendemönster av negativ karaktär. Fysiskt våld mot artfränder är liksom utvidgat resursbegär en inlärd egenskap. Den organiserade form av fysiskt våld mot artfränder som krig innebär verkar inte vara äldre än det utvidgade resursbegäret. Troligen hänger de intimt samman.

And translated from original English, i.e. Swedish, to modern English:

There are several delicate cultural-anthropological prejudices which have got a strong grip on the public. One is the view about human aggression as an irresistible negative biological force which has to be released. To argue this while simultaneously proposing channeled aggressiveness for the purpose of mitigating its effects, in fact, means that one culturally creates and stimulates patterns of negative behavior. Same species violence is, like expanded demand for resources, a learned behavior. The organized form of violence, i.e. war, seems not to be older than expanded demands for resources. They are likely intimately connected.

Demand for Resources by Peter Klevius (1992).

The civilized wo/man walks
back in her/his foot steps,
strikes a light and lets her/himself be enlightened
and glorified
Only the forgotten suffering,
and the shadow behind her/him,
hovering over the future,
are greater (P. Klevius 1992, title page).

"The archeologist of knowledge finds
in his/her digging
often him/herself"
(P. Klevius 1992:7)

The concept of freedom is created,
like diamonds,
only under pressure
(P. Klevius 1992:33)

More from Demand for Resources (1992, ISBN 9173288411):

So called civilized societies can be described as dynamic, hence contrasting against the more static appearance of the economic setting (lack of investment) of e.g. hunter-gatherers.

A re-classification of human societies departing from C. Levi-Strauss idea about "warm" and "cold" societies (Klevius 1992):

A  Without 'extended demands for resources' (EDFR).
B  Affected by EDFR but still retaining a simplistic, "primitive" way of life.
C  Civilized with EDFR

These categories are, of course, only conceptual. Applied to a conventional classification the following pattern appears:

1  The primitive stage when all were hunter/gatherers (A, according to EDFR classification).
2  Nomads (A, B, C).
3  Farmers (B, C).
4  Civilized (C).

As a consequence EDFR is here used as a concept tied to civilization (and its preliminary stages) The above also suggests a critique against our conventional conception of a simplistic connection between intelligence and performance as (wrongly) exemplified by C. Popper's scenario of a World 1-3 transition of human cultural development.

 (Implications of this view can be seen in Klevius theory of mind EMAH, The Even More Astonishing Hypothesis, which deals with the mind/body "problem" and the closing gap between not only humans and other living things but also betweenhumans and machines).

Here's the last part of the chapter Khoe, San and Bantu (in Demand for Resources, Klevius 1992). 

For those who don't master original English there are some modern English words as well in the text:

I begreppet San inryms de tre grupperna !Kung, !Xu och G!wi vilka alla har egna närbesläktade men självständiga språk. Av dessa grupper är det G!wi som kan antas stå närmast det klassiska samlar/jägarsamhället även om egentligen inga grupper i dag återfinns i de kulturmönster som förekom ännu på 50-60-talet.

En uppskattning av de traditionella egenskaperna i kulturmönstret hos San (konventionellt grupp 1, URB-grupp A) inkluderar frånvaro av domesticering, lös sammanhållning, ofixerad, icke hierarkisk beslutsordning samt i det närmaste obefintlig materiell status (undantag utgör t.ex. jaktvapen och byten före den oundvikliga fördelningen).

Patricia Draper har i anslutning till "The Harvard !Kung Bushmen Study Project" gjort en undersökning om skillnader i könsroller hos kringvandrande klassiska samlar/jägargrupper och stationära "mångsysslande" !Kung grupper. Hon fann då bl.a. "that !Kung society may be the least sexist of any we have experienced" samt att detta märks genom "women's subsistence contribution and the control women retain over the food they have gathered, the lack of rigidity in sex-typing of many adult activities including domestic chores and aspects of child socialization; the cultural sanction against physical expression of aggression; the smaller group size; and the nature of the settlement pattern." Hon noterar vidare att "authoritarian behavior is avoided by adults of both sexes." Alla dessa egenskaper naggades enligt Draper i kanten hos de stationära grupperna.

En pionjär då det gällde att påvisa hur lite arbete som San samlar/jägarna lade ner på födoanskaffning och boende var Richard Lee som 1963 studerade den bland antropologer numera välkända Dobe Base Camp 12. Han levde med dem, noterade metodiskt allt han såg, mätte och vägde såväl mat som människor, tog tid på allt de gjorde och resultatet av hans, och senare även andras arbeten kan sammanfattas i Marshal Sahlins ord: "If the affluent society is one where all the people's material wants are easily satisfied this is the first affluent society." Han fortsatte: "The human condition must keep man the prisoner at hard labor of a perpetual disparity between his unlimited wants and his insufficient means... " och vidare "There is (instead) a road to affluence, departing from premises... that human wants are few, and technical means unchanging but on the whole adequate."

I mitten av 70-talet kunde bl.a. Diane Gelburd konstatera att bushmännens liv i Dobe hade ändrat karaktär sedan Richard Lee's fältstudier. Hyddorna var byggda av lera istället för av gräs och stod längre ifrån varandra. En del fick dörrar i takt med att de fylldes med personliga ägodelar. Man byggde stängsel för djuren som man nu införskaffat. Likadant var det med benresterna som tidigare enbart bestått av lämningar från vilda djur men 1976 till 80% bestod av benrester från domesticerade djur.

Samtidigt skedde förändringar i de interna sociala relationerna. Fördelning av tillgångar minskade och formerna för t.ex. äktenskap komplicerades p.g.a. nya, förut okända problem kring egendomsfrågor.

"What explains the shattering of this society"? frågade sig John Yellen från The National Science Foundation anthropology program. Han fortsätter: "It hasn't been a direct force, a war, the ravages of disease..." och svarar slutligen: "1t is the internal conflicts, the tensions, the inconsistencies, the impossibility of reconciling such different views of the world."

Till detta kan tilläggas att Khoi och San har levt i flera tusen år sida vid sida utan att de samlande/jagande San blivit boskapshållare. Dessutom har de jordbrukande ochboskapsskötande Bantufolken för åtminstone 500 år sedan invaderat Khoisan?folkens traditionella marker.

Det är alltså något mer som skall till för att knäcka ryggraden på ett typiskt San-samhälle. Handlar det om en kritisk punkt för försörjningsunderlag/befolkningsstorlek? Finns det en nedre gräns för antalet individer i en fungerande samlar/jägarkultur? I vilket skede exakt bryts det sociala immunförsvaret gentemot utvidgade resursbegär ner?

Oavsett om det finns en kritisk punkt eller om det är fråga om en långsamt ökande spänning som efter hand får det ena fästet efter det andra att ge efter så ser vi här uppkomsten av den spricka mellan kulturformer där det utvidgande resursbegäret med varierande framgång slagit rot.

Sunday, October 28, 2018

Peter Klevius 1992: Jurisprudence is the perfect science, and 2018: Human Rights need to be negative, global and sex independent to avoid religious, nationalist or "community" imposed exceptions.

ECHR, Elisabeth Sabaditsch Wolff, Peter Klevius, Jurgen Habermas - and the incompatibility of sharia with Human Rights

It was wrong and cowardice by the  European Court of Human Rights to (in practice) agitate* for more Human Rightsphobia among muslims. And the reason is what Klevius calls the "Mishal Husain-syndrome"**.

* ECHR hid behind "margin of appreciation" (see below) and utilized some less elegant patterns of speech by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, hence again blinking the clear connection between islamic teachings and muslim assaults on "infidels" and Human Rights. Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff could have got away with calling Mohammad (not to be confused with Mohammad Salman) a pedophile by just saying it in a slightly different way (see ECHR verdict below). So in short, ECHR hid behind multiple barriers: 1) margin of appreciation 2) utilizing clumpsy wording by the accused 3) utilizing a diffuse "the rights of muslims (which muslims? not Mishal Husain I gather - Mohammad Salman?!) to have their religious feelings protected". Moreover, the fact that muslim sharia isn't compatible with Human Right is the very allure of true evil islam. because it paves the way for allowing open racism and sexism. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali used to say: We shouldn't tolerate intolerance.

BBC's  presenter Mishal Husain says she's a muslim but doesn't follow sharia, i.e. she doesn't fast during Ramadan but rather drinks some alcohol, nor does she use veils or similar muslim attires.  So when she also says "I don't feel any threats against my way of life" Klevius considers it deeply offensive against all those women who have their Human Rights crashed because of muslim sharia.

** "Michal Husain-syndrome" stands for presenting islam and muslims as a Potemkin village, i.e. painting muslims and islam as something true sharia muslims/islam is not. Also compare the evil Saudi "prince" and "custodian of islam" and war criminal etc. muslim terrorist Mohammad Salman who wants to "justify" his Western way of life while calling himself a muslim and utilizing the world's muslims and islam for his hegemonic efforts. No wonder he since many years back has been called the word's most dangerous muslim".


Annual Report on 2003 of the European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe, re. sharia incompatibilty with Human Rights:

    Noting that the Welfare Party had pledged to set up a regime based on sharia law, the Court found that sharia was incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy as set forth in the Convention. It considered that “sharia, which faithfully reflects the dogmas and divine rules laid down by religion, is stable and invariable. Principles such as pluralism in the political sphere or the constant evolution of public freedoms have no place in it”. According to the Court, it was difficult to declare one’s respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverged from Convention values, particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, its rules on the legal status of women and the way it intervened in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.

Three member countries of the Council of Europe have ratified both the European Convention on Human Rights and the Cairo Declaration, which is a declaration of Human Rights compatible with the sharia. These countries are Albania, Azerbaijan and Turkey. One must add that the Russian Federation and Bosnia and Herzegovina have not signed the Cairo Declaration but are members observers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and they have signed the ECHR.

OIC's Cairo Declaration of 5th August 1990 stipulates inter alia that “islam is the religion of unspoiled nature”. It does not contain a right to freedom of religion, does not confirm the equality before the law of all humans regardless of their sex, religion or no-religion, and Article 25 stipulates that “The islamic shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration”. In other words," Human Rights can go to Hell" as many muslims write on their posters.

Klevius answer: Only if it wants to be as close to Universal Human Rights as possible.

Dear reader, if you wonder why Klevius doesn't use capitals on muslims and islam - take a look at BBC which doesn't use capitals for Atheism, although the latter is way closer to Human Rights moral than sharia muslims/islam. There are also technical/grammatical reasons but Klevius has no time right now to also explain that. 

 Drawing called 'Human Rights rather than religion' by Peter Klevius 1979.

Many  of the principles stated in muslim sharia contravene the principles which are recognized as Human Rights, and first of all, freedom of/from religion, women's rights and the one way marriage system which leads to ever more muslims through birth (compare Obama who is technically an apostate).

According to muslim sharia, a muslim does not have the right to change his religion to another religion or to Atheism. If he does so, he is an apostate, which generates his civil death (opening of his succession) and deserves a death penalty or in some muslim "communities" just expulsion, condemnation etc. racist/sexist abuse. When it comes to women it really doesn't matter if she is muslim or not except that she under sharia always has to foster the kids to become muslims.

Saudi war criminal "prince" and Mohammad al Issa "reform" islam to fit Saudi islamofascism against Human Rights by demanding EU to condemn "islamophobia" i.e. Human Rights.

  Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff: On Thursday, 25 October 2018 the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights) ruled that my conviction by an Austrian court for discussing the marriage between Prophet Mohammed and a six year old girl, Aisha, did not infringe my rights of freedom of speech.

    I was not extended the courtesy of being told of this ruling. Like many others, I had to read it in the media.

    The ECHR found there had been no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights and that right to expression needed to be balanced with the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected, and served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria.

    In other words, my right to speak freely is less important than protecting the religious feelings of others.

    This should ring warning bells for my fellow citizens across the continent. We should all be extremely concerned that the rights of Muslims in Europe NOT to be offended are greater than my own rights, as a native European Christian woman, to speak freely.

    I am proud to be the woman who has raised this alarm.

    I am also optimistic. Since giving my seminars in Austria in 2009, we have come a very long way.

    Ten years ago the press labeled me a “confused doom-monger” and I was compared to Osama Bin Laden. Now, Islam is being discussed in every sphere of life and people are waking up to the reality of a culture so opposed to our own.

    The cultural and political threat posed by Islam to Western societies is now widely recognized and discussed. It is fair to say European society, as well as the political realm, is undergoing an enlightenment, as it is more awake than ever to the need to defend our own Judeo-Christian culture.

    I believe my seminars in 2009, and subsequent work have contributed to strong push back against an Islamic culture which is so at odds with our own. And note with interest that only one sentence out of 12 hours of seminars on Islam was a prosecutable offense. I assume the remaining content is now officially sanctioned by our Establishment masters.

    It is obvious to me that public education and discourse on the subject of Islam can have a fundamental and far-reaching impact, even if our state or supra-national authorities try to stifle or silence it, in order to appease a culture so foreign to our own.

    This fight continues. My voice will not and cannot be silenced.

European Court of Human Rights and its decision which neglects the (negative*) rights of non-muslims to have their feelings protected - or no protection on an equal basis, which still would leave muslims with a problematic (religious) tendency to actively imply supremacy in accordance to Koranic interpretations and acts by Maohammad.

* see Klevius tutorial on Negative Human Rights.

Background: ECHR judges are elected for a non-renewable nine-year term. The number of full-time judges sitting in the Court is equal to the number of contracting states to the European Convention on Human Rights, currently 47. Judges cannot hear or decide a case if they have a family or professional relationship with a party. So what about religion?

Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,
any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges
considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final
judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.

Decision of the Court

Article 10 ((freedom of expression)

The Court noted that those who choose to exercise the freedom to manifest their religion under
Article 9 of the Convention could not expect to be exempt from criticism. They must tolerate and
accept the denial by others of their religious beliefs. Only where expressions under Article 10 went
beyond the limits of a critical denial, and certainly where they were likely to incite religious
intolerance, might a State legitimately consider them to be incompatible with respect for the
freedom of thought, conscience and religion and take proportionate restrictive measures.
The Court observed also that the subject matter of the instant case was of a particularly sensitive
nature, and that the (potential) effects of the impugned statements, to a certain degree, depended
on the situation in the respective country where the statements were made, at the time and in the
context they were made. Accordingly, it considered that the domestic authorities had a wide margin
of appreciation in the instant case, as they were in a better position to evaluate which statements
were likely to disturb the religious peace in their country.

The Court noted that the domestic courts comprehensively explained why they considered that the
applicant’s statements had been capable of arousing justified indignation; specifically, they had not
been made in an objective manner contributing to a debate of public interest (e.g. on child
marriage), but could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad
was not worthy of worship. It agreed with the domestic courts that Mrs S. must have been aware
that her statements were partly based on untrue facts and apt to arouse indignation in others. The
national courts found that Mrs S. had subjectively labelled Muhammad with paedophilia as his
general sexual preference, and that she failed to neutrally inform her audience of the historical
background, which consequently did not allow for a serious debate on that issue. Hence, the Court
saw no reason to depart from the domestic courts’ qualification of the impugned statements as
value judgments which they had based on a detailed analysis of the statements made.

Klevius analysis of ECHR's ambiguous decision: 

As Klevius has written since the early 1990s, ECHR's main jurisprudential fuse* is the problematic 'margin of appreciation' - see e.g. Angels of Antichrist (1996), several judgements were Klevius has represented the claimant, as well as many of Klevius articles on the subject. And perhaps most importantly, do read Klevius analysis in Demand for Resources (1992:50-51). Here's a short example where Peter Klevius sides with Jurgen Habermas in a match against misdirected state power:

* In Demand for Resources (Klevius 1992:43, ISBN 9173288411) in a chapter dealing with science and citations, jurisprudence is pointed out as "the perfect scientific project" due to the fact that it, instead of searching for answers, starts with an already existing answer, i.e. the law. And in difficulties interpreting the legislator most nations ask their Supreme Court which can either correct or send it back to the legislator for a better distinction. However, ECHR's fuse is "the margin of appreciation", i.e. to excuse themselves by referring to national law.

Original Swedish text from Demand for Resources (Klevius 1992, ISBN 9173288411):

Jag tar mig friheten att citera några lösryckta men i sammanhanget intressanta citat av Jurgen Habermas:

Habermas: "Det lidande som orsakas av kontingenserna i ett okontrollerat förlopp får en ny kvalitet i den mån vi tilltror oss förmågan att kunna ingripa förnuftigt i det. Detta lidande är då negativet till ett nytt behov."

Klevius: Denna process, d.v.s. följden av den till synes goda tanken att lägga tillrätta sociala fenomen som betraktas som oönskade, leder till nya, okontrollerade "motsvängningar" som i sin tur kräver nya insatser i en kumulerande, aldrig sinande ström.

Habermas: "Då eftersträvas nämligen överhuvudtaget inte längre en förnuftig konsensus medborgarna emellan om hur de praktiskt skall behärska sina livsvillkor. I dess ställe kommer försöket att på teknisk väg uppnå kontroll över historien i form av en fulländad förvaltning av samhället."

Klevius: Till detta ändamål styckas verkligheten upp i mer och mer sofistikerade utbildningslinjer i vars slutända tjänsteprofilen mejslas fram i symbios och växelverkan med lagstiftning.

Habermas: "Det ena värdets företräde framför det andra, alltså värdets anspråkpå att vara bindande för handling, kan helt enkelt inte berättigas. Ideologikritik på denna nivå bevisar ofrivilligt att en fortskridande erfarenhetsvetenskaplig rationalisering, som är begränsad till teknisk kontroll, betalas med en proportionell tillväxt av irrationalitet inom själva området för praxis."

Klevius: Irrationaliteten yttrar sig rent konkret i att verksamhetens nettoresultat blir negativt (vägt efter de värderingar som initierade processen).

Habermas: "Men eftersom fördomen hämtar sin egenartade objektivitet ur denna sammanbindning av undanhållen autonomi, förnekad frihet och förhindrad tillfredsställelse, kräver en kritisk upplösning av den existerande osanningen, av villfarelsen som substans, i sin tur något som går utöver den förnuftiga insikten. Framför allt krävs kardinaldygden mod."

Klevius: Verksamhetens negativa nettoresultat förnekas med hänvisningen till att verksamheten växt fram som en produkt av dess inneboende välvilja. Att kritiskt granska denna verksamhet blir följaktligen inopportunt (Klevius 1992:50-51).
Google translation with just some minor corrections of the worst - Klevius is a lazy (or healthy, as he himself prefers to call it) guy. Btw, who will support a good English (and perhaps other languages as well) translation of the whole tiny book?:
I take the liberty of quoting some loose but in the context, interesting quotes by Jurgen Habermas:

Habermas: "The suffering caused by contingencies in an uncontrolled process is given a new quality to the extent that we think we have the ability to intervene sensibly in it. This suffering is then the negative for a new need."

Klevius: This process, i.e. the consequence of the seemingly good idea of ​​correcting social phenomena considered unwanted leads to new, uncontrolled reactions which in turn require new efforts in a cumulative, never-ending stream.

Habermas: "At the very least, there is no longer a sensible consensus between the citizens as to how they will practically master their living conditions. Instead there's the attempt to technically gain control over history in the form of a total management of society."

Klevius: To this end, reality is split up into more and more sophisticated lines of education in which the final bureaucratic profile is hammered out in symbiosis and interaction with legislation.

Habermas: "The privilege of one value over an other, i.e. the claim about a value to necessitate action, simply can not be justified. Ideological criticism at this level will inevitably prove that progressive experiential rationalization, limited to technical control, leads to a proportional increase in irrationality in the very field of practice itself."

Klevius: This irrationality reveals itself in terms of a negative net result (weighted by and against the values ​​that initiated the process).

Habermas: "But because the prejudice retrieves its peculiar objectivity from this interlink of retarded autonomy, denied freedom and prevented satisfaction, a critical dissolution of the existing misunderstanding, of the error as substance, in turn requires something beyond reasonable insight - it requires courage (here Google suggested that 'cardiovascular wear is required' - which is indeed an interesting point of view)."

Klevius: The negative net result of the activity is blinked by referring to the fact that the activity emerged as a product of inherent goodwill. Critically reviewing this activity therefore becomes inevitably unwelcomed (Klevius 1992: 50-51)