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).
Sunday, March 13, 2016
A list of "researchers" who seem to have nothing to do with science.
Jessica Tyrrell, research fellow1 2, Samuel E Jones, associate research fellow1, Robin Beaumont, associate research fellow1, Christina M Astley, research fellow3 4, Rebecca Lovell, research fellow2, Hanieh Yaghootkar, research fellow1, Marcus Tuke, associate research fellow1, Katherine S Ruth, associate research fellow1, Rachel M Freathy, senior research fellow1, Joel N Hirschhorn, professor2 3 5, Andrew R Wood, research fellow1, Anna Murray, senior lecturer1, Michael N Weedon, associate professor1, Timothy M Frayling, professor1
Objective To determine whether height and body mass index (BMI) have a causal role in five measures of socioeconomic status.
Design Mendelian randomisation study to test for causal effects of differences in stature and BMI on five measures of socioeconomic status. Mendelian randomisation exploits the fact that genotypes are randomly assigned at conception and thus not confounded by non-genetic factors.
Setting UK Biobank.
Participants 119 669 men and women of British ancestry, aged between 37 and 73 years.
Main outcome measures Age completed full time education, degree level education, job class, annual household income, and Townsend deprivation index.
Results In the UK Biobank study, shorter stature and higher BMI were observationally associated with several measures of lower socioeconomic status. The associations between shorter stature and lower socioeconomic status tended to be stronger in men, and the associations between higher BMI and lower socioeconomic status tended to be stronger in women. For example, a 1 standard deviation (SD) higher BMI was associated with a £210 (€276; $300; 95% confidence interval £84 to £420; P=6×10−3) lower annual household income in men and a £1890 (£1680 to £2100; P=6×10−15) lower annual household income in women. Genetic analysis provided evidence that these associations were partly causal. A genetically determined 1 SD (6.3 cm) taller stature caused a 0.06 (0.02 to 0.09) year older age of completing full time education (P=0.01), a 1.12 (1.07 to 1.18) times higher odds of working in a skilled profession (P=6×10−7), and a £1130 (£680 to £1580) higher annual household income (P=4×10−8). Associations were stronger in men. A genetically determined 1 SD higher BMI (4.6 kg/m2) caused a £2940 (£1680 to £4200; P=1×10−5) lower annual household income and a 0.10 (0.04 to 0.16) SD (P=0.001) higher level of deprivation in women only.
Conclusions These data support evidence that height and BMI play an important partial role in determining several aspects of a person’s socioeconomic status, especially women’s BMI for income and deprivation and men’s height for education, income, and job class. These findings have important social and health implications, supporting evidence that overweight people, especially women, are at a disadvantage and that taller people, especially men, are at an advantage.
Klevius conclusion: Older people are generally shorter than younger generations. Older people also have less education than younger ones. And what was previously considered middle class is now lower "socioeconomic status" (the validity and value basis for this concept could also be harshly questioned). Today most youngsters go for a university degree. This was definitely not the case 50 years ago. Also, the top was much narrower back then when blue-collars were much more frequent.
And when it comes to fat women the age pattern is the same added by the fact that women of low "socioeconomic status" are often just that, fat.
Remids Klevius of a Swedish "study" that concluded that unemployment causes mental illness because there were was more mental illness among unemployed. However, were do you think people suffering from schizophrenia or mano-depressives end up - among the employed with good socioeconomic status or among unemployed with low?
Have these "researchers" even corrected for these extremely self evident facts?
What we do know though is that shorter people under equal circumstances have better health prospect. What we don't know is the exact formula for why people have become taller in the West (Japanese in Hawai constitute the classic example together with Skolt Samis in Russia/Fnland).
In most cases it's definitely not lack of nutrition that is the main factor. We have seen starving people growing to normal height without almost no flesh on their bodies.
There are some candidates though such as:
Growth hormone in Western food until it was stopped.
Shorter populations mixing with taller populations in a way that skews the mean.
Cultural "Hollywood" effect on women in choosing taller men in countries were their choice isn't restricted by backward anti Human Rights cultures.
However, we also know that there is always a regression backwards to a mean.
Albert Einstein was short compared to modern young Westerners.