Peter Klevius: It's the hegemony, stupid!

$-embezzler (since 1971) US (with Google/Youtube/CIA*) censors Peter Klevius who 1992/1994 solved "the biggest mystery in science" - and after 2006** was 100% proven empirically right - and now tries (in vain?) to make it accessible in the ocean of AI produced nonsense boosted by US fight for continuing its stolen $-hegemony, which sucks the blood of "allies" and "adverseries" alike.

* Google has become part of US militant (and criminal) hegemony survival desperation.
 

* The unique craniopagus Hogan twins were born 2006 with connected thalami but separate cortices, and due separate personalities. In this research Peter Klevius was aided by a good brain (father won Gothenburg's chess championship many times over four decades, and sister won IBM's talent test with IQ 167). Peter Klevius intelligence was perhaps best described by the Finnish neuroscientist professor J. Juurmaa, who in the 1990s wrote: "Ajatuksen kulkunne on ilmavan lennokas ja samalla iskevän ytimekäs" which translated to English would mean something like: "Your train of thought is spaciously high-flying and at the same time punchily concise." This he wrote in a long letter answering Peter Klevius question about the effects on the visual cortex on individuals who have been blind from birth. This inquiry was part of Peter Klevius check up of his already published 1994 EMAH theory (the Even More Astonishing Hypothesis - alluding to Francis Crick's book The Astonishing Hypothesis)), so to get a qualified confirmation that the "visual cortex" in born blinds is fully employed with other tasks than vision. Juurmaa's description of Peter Klevius is in line with philosopher Georg Henrik von Wright's (Wittgenstein's self-appointed successor at Cambridge) 1980 assessment, and more importantly with Peter Klevius own experience, and perhaps most importantly when assessing consciousness and AI. Only his 1981 article Resursbegär (Demand for Resources) was paid for (Fmk 500) mainly because Georg Henrik von Wright liked it and convinced the editor in chief (Jan-Magnus Jansson) to publish it despite Peter Klevius lacking any academic credentials.

Peter Klevius (and top science) is now censored from commenting anything on Youtube because of these (now deleted by Youtube) comments and replies:

comment on US-China

 
ways to change the world   dex hunter-torricke
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aO_2ncAj9M&list=TLPQMDMwODIwMjYGtuPSzgDoYw&index=2

The danger isn't AI or China, but US desperation because of US $-embezzling since 1971 that has created a bubble hegemony that China's success now challenges. US therefore wants to contain China while continuing freeloading on the rest of the world. Do realize that China doesn't need to aggressively/violently push itself because it has the attraction that US lacks. So the only feasible solution is cooperation with China.

Comments on consciousness (the biggest mystery in science)

Peter Klevius comment on Iain McGilchrist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNAC_QVY9BU&list=TLPQMDIwODIwMjZQMkTgNsxjDQ&index=3 that was repeatedly censored:

Halleluja! What a Western missionary revival meeting of evil (ask Palestinians etc.) irrational "God"/"soul" semantics padding overinflated egos who think they're better than all incl. Atheist East Asians. The only meaningful brain divide is the connected thalami of the unique Hogan twins who proved Peter Klevius 1992/1994 consciousness theory correct 2006-. 1992 Peter Klevius introduced 'existencecentrism', i.e. the undeniable fact that our reality is not only limited by our mind but also determines our interpretation/understanding of whatever our senses bring. Although language is great, it also opens up for irrationality and "qualia" nonsense - feral humans and animals can only be rational. Moreover, no other culture/society has ever come up with the silly (and dangerous) idea of an "outside" the world "God" who created "out of nothing", but instead have creation myths out of already existing primordial beings (e.g. earth mating with heaven etc). And true religion (re/back, ligare/bond) is ancestor worship in all societies - not missionary evil.  


reality hoffman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtCYwr3quI&list=TLPQMjIwNzIwMjaIvArnp9cQWQ&index=4

Based on my 1981 published evolution/devolution formula, I, Peter Klevius, 1992 introduced the concept of existencecentrism (instead of the ambiguous anthropocentrism), which states that the only possible reality is trapped inside the mind, and that whatever we think, it can only be understood/distorted based on what's already in the mind. Existencecentrism is based on the fact that all cultures - except the irrationhal and self-asserting Judeo-Christian "God" delusion (which defines "God" and "creation out of nothing" as "outside" human understanding) - base their creation myths on something primordial already existing but coming alive (e.g. earth mating with heaven etc.). Existencecentrism made it possible for Peter Klevius to solve "the greatest mystery in science" 1992-1994 with consciousness residing in the thalamus with obligated connections to the neural circuit in the cortex based on synaptic pruning - which eliminates the need for memories, categories etc. which are all semantic products. Only humans have the capacity to be irrational through language, while feral humans and animals can only be rational. The 1992-1994 theory called EMAH (i.e. the Even More Astonishing Hypothesis - alluding to Francis Crick's book The Astonishing Hypothesis) was empirically proven right by the birth of the unique craniopagus Hogan twins born 2006 with connected thalami but separate cortices and due separate personalities.  


rorty
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn2F2BWLZ0Q

The world isn't "out there" as Rorty wrote 1989. Our existencecentrism makes it impossible to even talk about any other reality than the one inside the mind, because that thinking can only happen inside the mind. It's plain conceited arrogance to assume that Western Judeo-Christian delusional belief in an irrational (i.e. "outside" the mind) "monotheistic God" somehow would be superior to all other worldviews - and therefore fit for missionary colonialism. In my 1992 book I, Peter Klevius, pointed out that no other cultures have ever argued for the senseless creation out of nothing by a "God" that's defined as outside the world and incomprehensible and unreachable for the human mind. Instead all other cultures/societies have various already existing primordial beings that are then coming alive - compare e.g. heaven and earth mating etc. And to blur the line between the impossible belief in an irrational "monotheistic God" and more mindful worldviews, this delusional narrative is then called 'religion' together with non-monotheistic but sensible views. The word 'religion', i.e. re-ligare, means 'tie back', i.e. ancestor worship, i.e. what all human cultures practice. The Judeo-Christian hegemonism in modern times has been led by US against Atheist countries, most recently against Japan tech supremacy in the 1990s and now China,s dito. And behind it all is US dollar theft 1971 that has made its hegemony possible - until China (again) surpassed the West with superior R&D.


wittgensteins contribution
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVKWlEq09tQ&list=TLPQMjMwNjIwMjY16P5uQWQLwg&index=1

A good lecture. I, Peter Klevius, solved consciousness (the "RAM" in the thalamus) in my book 1992 by introducing existencecentrism (the limit of mind) and the stone example (irrationality made possible by language - animals and feral humans cannot be irrational), told Francis Crick and several magazines, and got it empirically confirmed through the 2006 birth of the  unique craniopagus Hogan twins with connected thalami but separate cortices and personalities. However, unfounded paranormal views and "qualia" nonsense seem more popular. In summary it's all about the pruning of synaptic connections by what the thalamus has projected into the cortex, i.e. lived experience builds up our mind, of which we learn to share parts of with others (compare Wittgenstein's 'language game'). Thalamus is like a camera sensor that has projected/pruned your synaptic connections with the growing familiarity of incoming data (repetition is the mother of education). So whatever you are conscious about it has to be understood against the background of your previous experience. This means that whatever sensory pattern hits you, it is determined to point (roughly) to that same synaptic association pattern in the cortex - much like the RAM is determined to address the proper parts of the HD/SSD. There are no pics etc. planted in your neurons - only a chaotic (for someone else looking into your brain) synaptic pattern that only you have become familiar with. Running amok AI is no different from e.g. running amok islamist "God" believers and "infidel" haters. And although they've been more tolerated out of fear of "islamophobia" accusations, let them and AI face the negative (individual, not "community") Human Rights in the 1948 UDHR.  


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41bIJ7hYbLs&list=TLPQMjcwNjIwMjZCjBMBKeZrxg&index=3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3zzSqloBBg

Peter Klevius comment (see Peter Klevius blogpost to get a better overview of the groundbreaking analysis).

Of course there's no physical connection between key strokes and the meaning of a sentence - other than the imprinted adaptation to understand language. Reason and free will delusions are products of and in language. No need for a "soul" etc. groundless magic to explain e.g. how people with split corpus callosum can make sense of both parts. According to Peter Klevius (1992, 1994), the thalamus coordinates it. Sadly, the most important part of the brain has been treated as a simple "relay station". According to Peter Klevius (1992,1994) the young brain adapts to incoming longtime signals imprinted by the thalamus (synaptic pruning), and later builds on top of this stock of neural circuitry - which is chaotic for anyone else except the origo. However, except for feral ones, human interaction is added, which includes language, which introduces rational and irrational use of concepts - like e.g. "soul". Although language is pruned into the mind as everything else, its pros incl. improved communication while its cons incl. conceptual ambiguities. According to existencecentrism (P. Klevius 1992), there cannot be anything outside our mind/s - other than mind speculations based on what's already inside the mind. Therefore anything "defined" as being out of reach for the human mind is irrational semantics inside the mind. I, Peter Klevius, solved consciousness (the "RAM" in the thalamus) in my book 1992 by introducing existencecentrism (the unreachable "outside" the limit of mind) and the stone example (irrationality made possible by language - animals and feral humans cannot be irrational), told Francis Crick and several magazines, and got it empirically confirmed through the 2006 birth of the unique craniopagus Hogan twins with connected thalami but separate cortices and personalities. However, unfounded paranormal views and "qualia" nonsense seem more popular. In summary it's all about the pruning of synaptic connections by what the thalamus has projected into the cortex, i.e. lived experience builds up our mind, of which we learn to share parts of with others (compare Wittgenstein's 'language game'). Thalamus is like a camera sensor that has projected/pruned your synaptic connections with the growing familiarity of incoming data (repetition is the mother of learning). So whatever you are conscious about it has to be understood against the background of your previous experience. This means that whatever sensory pattern hits you, it is determined to point to that same association pattern in the cortex - much like the RAM is determined to address the proper parts of the HD/SSD. There are no pics etc. planted in your neurons - only a chaotic (for someone else looking into your brain) synaptic pattern that only you have become familiar with. Running amok AI is no different from e.g. running amok islamist "God" believers and "infidel" haters. And although they've been more tolerated out of fear of "islamophobia" accusations, let them and AI face the negative (individual, not "community") Human Rights in the 1948 UDHR. However, militant Judeo-Christian values are now again peaking in the West because the chickens of US enormous $-theft 1971 are coming home to roost (because of China's success) in the form of renewed anti-communist/anti-Atheist US led smear campaigns (compare Yellow Peril and Red Scare). Chinese culture - like every other human culture before contaminated with "monotheist" delusion (a "God" cannot exist "outside" the mind) - rests on ancestor warship, i.e. the "soul" is the social "after-life" of the dead among the still living. In the 1980s a dying woman said to Peter Klevius that she was horrified of ending up in Hell because of having had an illegitimate child. But death is the ultimate anesthesia I tried to comfort her. 




Peter Klevius, solved consciousness (the "RAM" in the thalamus) in a book 1992 by introducing existencecentrism (the limit of mind) and the stone example (irrationality made possible through language - animals and feral humans cannot be irrational), told Francis Crick and several magazines, and got it empirically confirmed through the 2006 birth of the  unique craniopagus Hogan twins with connected thalami but separate cortices and personalities. However, unfounded paranormal views and "qualia" nonsense seem more popular. In summary it's all about the pruning of synaptic connections by what the thalamus has projected into the cortex, i.e. lived experience builds up our mind, of which we learn to share parts of with others (compare Wittgenstein's 'language game'). Thalamus is like a camera sensor that has projected/pruned your synaptic connections with the growing familiarity of incoming data (repetition is the mother of education). So whatever you are conscious about it has to be understood against the background of your previous experience. This means that whatever sensory pattern hits you, it is determined to point (roughly) to that same synaptic association pattern in the cortex - much like the RAM is determined to address the proper parts of the HD/SSD. There are no pics etc. planted in your neurons - only a chaotic (for someone else looking into your brain) synaptic pattern that only you have become familiar with. Running amok AI is no different from e.g. running amok islamist "God" believers and "infidel" haters. And although they've been more tolerated out of fear of "islamophobia" accusations, let them and AI face the negative (individual, not "community") Human Rights in the 1948 UDHR. 


Highlighted reply
@mbmb6743
14 hours ago
 @peterklevius4566   It may be that the brain is conscious just as the elbow bends. To ask "how" or "why" is it conscious, would therefore be as mundane as to ask "how" or "why" does it bend. In other words I don't disagree. Of course it's impossible to escape our own physicality; this, if I understand aright, is what is meant by exiscentrism. Or, as Emerson says, "All the thoughts of a turtle are turtle." 

I peeked at your blog the other day and it contributed to a feeling I had today (I say "feeling" on purpose) - To really feel, to know, what consciousness is, is to have a roof no higher than one's own height, over one's head. - This feeling was uncanny, and only a little bleak; it was an almost mystical feeling, though I'm referring to a kind of grounded mysticism, something I think Wittgenstein had. It's easy to imagine a super-genius (an "ubermensch"?) being in this state of mind at all times: someone who not only knows but perhaps more importantly feels - again at all times - the present moment, the eternal Now, call it whatever.



@mbmb6743 replied: "This would seem to have implications for deja vu. What's your take on that? Btw, consciousness "grows" with experience, like a plant; but how do we explain the seed?"
1 day ago


@peterklevius4566
0 seconds ago
 @mbmb6743  The seed has a DNA blueprint. However, consciousness is built on our heavily limited senses. Our biology restricts access to any "outside reality", though inside our mind we may speculate abt "outside" but to no worth. We simply need to accept not  being allmighty gods as I wrote in my 1992 book which introduced 'existencecentrism'' and the fallacies of language. Many philosophers and scientists wrongly presume their views being extravert, when they can only be introvert. Whatever our instruments tell us, it can only be understood by what's already in the mind. 

Comments on Youtube abt the completely unfounded "out of Africa" hoax (https://peterklevius.blogspot.com/2023/01/how-pliocene-pleistocene-panama-isthmus.html).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WWek0PhD-g

The out of Africa delusion is really about racism, i.e. against the East Asians. Just one of numerous examples: It took some 20 years for Chris Beard to get Eosimias from China and Myanmar to be accepted as earliest Anthropoids. The racist out of Africa and anti-Asia community's subversive campaign is widely known but little talked about. Phylogeny after phylogeny were in the 1990's desperately altered into out of Africa and later always disproved in silence. Only Homo still clings on without any reason to do so. 


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spjH7wqms9g&list=TLPQMTEwNTIwMjbBCdZZ0Xtw5A&index=5

"Out of Africa" emerged when the Piltdown scandal punctured Eurocentrism. "Out of Africa" is PC biased pseudoscience eagerly trying to squeeze in whatever simian and hominid fossils as evolved in Africa (e.g. Aegyptopithecus etc.). In the 1990s (at a time of increased anti-East Asian racism due to Japan challenging US and EU) much phylogenetics was altered to fit "out of Africa". Cambridge still warns prospective students that focus ought to be on Africa. However, fossils and old DNA mutations in moderns aren't "cradles", and a continent cannot speciate omnivorous and easily moving Homos. Already in my 1992 book's chapter 'Human evolution' I used Jinniushan's big brain, northern location and flat face ("mongoloid"/cold adaptated), as pointing to early Homo sapiens, while asking: 'Why didn't he (now she) go to the Moon with 200 kyr time to do so before HSS? According to Peter Klevius, SE Asian volatile archipelago continuosly produced new species and hybrids to the beat of climate (sea level) oscillations - the last one some 60-70 kyr producing (selection via island/jungle brain dwarfing without losing intelligence at times of high sea level) HSS which then conquered the whole world after entering mainland at low sea level. Some followed the tropics while others went to the fat and protein rich north filling big relative's brains with the last updated "CPU" which then spread in diluted form all over the world creating existing phenotype pattern. Jinniushan and Homo floresiensis (LB1) women are the most important evolutionary fossils so far - and the least discussed as perfectly fitting out of SE Asia. 


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Txvxo7qMp_E

According to Peter Klevius, it's neither Africa nor China because continents lack enough isolation for successful anthropoid speciation - only occasional hybridization. The cradle of hominines was the volatile SE Asian archipelago. However, NE Asia hybridized the big-skulled "mongoloid" (cold-adapted) phenotype that then conquered the world and explains the phenotypical pattern still seen today. Homo sapiens spread from est to west, which also explains how the chin is just a remnant of the jutting jaw of the Neanderthals whom we genetically consumed (together we have some half of their genome). Moreover, the oldest Khoisan DNA came from Asia when smaller lightskinned "mongolized" H. sapiens followed a subtropical path down to Africa possibly after 30,000 BP where they then got stuck due to the Bantu expansion 4,000 BC to 500 AD. Also compare similar looking Shompen and South American natives. Africa is a genetic and fossil end station of species from SE Asia, the real cradle. This explains the "puzzling" variety in space and time of hard to fit overlapping fossil species and hybrids. 


Peter Klevius:
Bipedal apes were in Eurasia at least 12 MA, i.e. long before Sahelanthropus in northern African Mediterranean river environment, but after climate cooling only survived in more tropical environment. And of course there are Australopithecine fossils all over South Asia yet to be found. Lack of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. Modern H. sapiens have globular skulls. The oldest are from outside Africa, e.g. Apidima 1 in Greece which dates to more than 210,000 BP. However, this globularity may be traced back a million years because H. floresiensis also possessed it with additional modern feaures while also possessing Australopithecine like post-cranial features. As Peter Klevius has written since 2012, Homo could only have evolved on a tropical archipelago with fluctuating landbridges due to increased sea level oscillations (see flow chart on Peter Klevius anthropology). And every time a new species landed on mainland Asia, the small skulled dark skinned tropical ones continued along tropical lines while others went to the fat and protein rich north and got bigger unrestricted brains and "mongolized" (cold adapted) faces. This latter observation Peter Klevius wrote about already in his book Resursbegär (Demand for Resources) 1992 when comparing the big skulled Jinniushan fossil from northern China with similarly "mongolized" (cold adapted) faces of Khoisan people in southern Africa.


👍 Someone liked your comment: "The oldest advanced HSS art and tools are found in Asia (Sulavesi and Siberia). The "pan-African" model with multiple speciations is hilarious! What stopped access to the Afro-Eurasian continent for the most advanced Homos - and why would they fail where H. erectus made it to China more than 2 MA?! And geneticists must understand that archaic mutations in moderns lack "GPS". According to Peter Klevius, we (HSS) clearly originated in SE Asian volatile archipelago to the beat of accelerating climate oscillations in Pleistocene, and are now alone after the latest brain update made us fill the Earth and genetically consume the rest - so e.g., together we've ~50% of the Neanderthal genome. Following the Mekong river (real) HSS was in northern Laos at least 86,000 BP. The out of Africa PC pseudoscience has no valid ground. According to Peter Klevius, the Afro-Eurasian continent lacked enough isolation of its potential "Mitochondrial Eves" for successful Homo speciation - only hybridization (see flow chart on Peter Klevius Anthropology). And oldest DNA mutations in modern African HSS ("mongoloid", i.e. cold adapted Khoisan) don't prove an African origin (the recent s.c. Bantu expansion hybridized the intruding Eurasians to look "African", and archaic Pygmies to become modern HSS - however, their Ebola resistance wasn't always transfered). Moreover, the most important "missing link", the Homo floresiensis woman (with an advanced Homo head and advanced Australopithecine body) didn't "raft" to Flores but evolved in SE Asia and got stuck on the "wrong" side of the Wallace line. Out of Africa is really about US boosted PC racism - spiced with "monotheistic" anti-Atheism - , i.e. against East Asians. It emerged after the long lasting Piltdown hoax eventually punctured British Eurocentrism. And in the 1990s - at a time of increased anti-East Asian racism due to Japanese tech challenging US and EU - phylogenetics etc. were eagerly altered to fit "out of Africa" models and later disproved in silence. Only Homo still clings on without any reason to do so. And Cambridge still warns prospective students that focus ought to be on Africa. In this headwind it took some 20 years for Chris Beard to get Eosimias from China and Myanmar to be accepted as earliest Anthropoid fossils. The PC racist out of Africa and anti-Asia community's subversive campaign is widely known but sadly little talked about. However, according to Peter Klevius, the cradle of hominines was the volatile SE Asian archipelago, and NE Asia hybridized the big-skulled "mongoloid" (cold-adapted) phenotype that then conquered the world and explains the phenotypical pattern still seen today. HSS spread from east to west (just like other s.c. "African animals"), which also explains how the Cro-Magnon chin is just a remnant of the jutting jaw of the Neanderthal. Africa is a genetic and fossil dump of species from SE Asia, the real cradle. This explains the "puzzling" variety in space and time of hard to fit overlapping fossil species and hybrids. Bipedal apes were in Eurasia at least 12 MA, i.e. long before Sahelanthropus in northern African Mediterranean river environment, but after climate cooling only survived in more tropical environment. And of course there are Australopithecine fossils all over South Asia yet to be found. Modern H. sapiens (HSS - i.e. definitely not Jebel Irhoud) have globular skulls. The oldest are from outside Africa, e.g. Apidima 1 in Greece which dates to more than 210,000 BP. However, this globularity may be traced back at least a million years because H. floresiensis also possessed it with additional modern feaures together with Australopithecine like post-cranial ones. As Peter Klevius has written since 2012, Homo could only have evolved on the SE Asian tropical archipelago with fluctuating landbridges due to increased sea level oscillations. The back and forth from savannah to jungle honed a better CPU without increasing the size. And every time a new species landed on mainland Asia, the small skulled dark skinned tropical ones continued along tropics while others went to the fat and protein rich north and got bigger unrestricted brains and "mongolized" (cold adapted) faces. This latter observation Peter Klevius wrote about 1992 in his book Resursbegär (Demand for Resources) when comparing the big skulled Jinniushan fossil from northern China with similarly "mongolized" (cold adapted) faces of Khoisan people in southern Africa."
6 days ago



@EvoBio-SJC replied: "It not about race or PC... Humans coming from Africa is the least controversial position based on most recent genetic data. Most males who do not come from African descent, have the same mutation on their Y chromosome. M168 specifically. This has been found in almost 100% of men from China, North America, Siberia, India, Australia... how can they all share the same mutant version of the Y chromosome if they do not share the same origin story? 

African men, do no possess this mutation (unless they have recent non-African ancestry). Also, yes anatomically modern humans existed outside of Africa for possibly 100,000s of years prior to 60,000-70,000 years ago (likely, timeframe for the Out-of-Africa Model). 

But the anatomically modern humans who lived outside of Africa, prior to 60,000-70,000, likely all died. Some remnants may have been incorporated into the "successful" waves out of Africa (occurring during or after 60,000-70,000). 

I do agree, that South East Asia was a lost cradle of human kind. I made a video on this topic - https://youtu.be/igMv4yFjuOg. My thinking is that, Homo erectus rafted to flores and luzon islands independently, and there, evolved into Homo floresiensis and Homo luzonensis respectively. Neither Flores or Luzon were connected by land, and there is no reason to believe Homo erectus could not create simplistic water vessels. I will read some of Peter Klevius recent articles as I am not familiar with it. Thank you for your comment and discussions."
9 days ago



👍 Someone liked your comment: "A genetist must understand that old mutations in modern Africans don't tell the birth location. According to Peter Klevius, we (HSS) clearly originated in SE Asian volatile archipelago to the beat of accelerating climate oscillations in Pleistocene, and are now alone after the latest brain update made us fill the Earth and genetically consume the rest - so for example, together we've ~50% of the Neanderthal genome. Following the Mekong river HSS was in northern Laos at least 86,000 BP, and 51,000 BP produced the world's oldest realistic painting in Sulawesi. The out of Africa PC pseudoscience has no valid ground. According to Peter Klevius, the Afro-Eurasian continent lacked enough isolation of its potential "Mitochondrial Eves" for successful Homo speciation - only hybridization (see flow chart on Peter Klevius Anthropology). And oldest DNA mutations in modern African HSS ("mongoloid", i.e. cold adapted Khoisan) don't prove an African origin (the recent s.c. Bantu expansion hybridized the intruding Eurasians to look "African", and archaic Pygmies to become modern HSS - however, their Ebola resistance wasn't always transfered). Moreover, the most important "missing link", the Homo floresiensis woman (with an advanced Homo head and advanced Australopithecine body) didn't "raft" to Flores but evolved in SE Asia and got stuck on the "wrong" side of the Wallace line. Out of Africa is really about PC racism, i.e. against East Asians. "Out of Africa" emerged after the long lasting Piltdown hoax eventually punctured British Eurocentrism. And in the 1990s - at a time of increased anti-East Asian racism due to Japanese tech challenging US and EU - phylogenetics etc. were eagerly altered to fit "out of Africa" models and later disproved in silence. Only Homo still clings on without any reason to do so. And Cambridge still warns prospective students that focus ought to be on Africa. In this headwind it took some 20 years for Chris Beard to get Eosimias from China and Myanmar to be accepted as earliest Anthropoid fossils. The PC racist out of Africa and anti-Asia community's subversive campaign is widely known but sadly little talked about. However, according to Peter Klevius, the cradle of hominines was the volatile SE Asian archipelago, and NE Asia hybridized the big-skulled "mongoloid" (cold-adapted) phenotype that then conquered the world and explains the phenotypical pattern still seen today. Homo sapiens spread from east to west (just like other s.c. "African animals"), which also explains how the Cro-Madnon chin is just a remnant of the jutting jaw of the Neanderthal. Africa is a genetic and fossil dump of species from SE Asia, the real cradle. This explains the "puzzling" variety in space and time of hard to fit overlapping fossil species and hybrids. Bipedal apes were in Eurasia at least 12 MA, i.e. long before Sahelanthropus in northern African Mediterranean river environment, but after climate cooling only survived in more tropical environment. And of course there are Australopithecine fossils all over South Asia yet to be found. Modern H. sapiens (HSS - i.e. not Jebel Irhoud) have globular skulls. The oldest are from outside Africa, e.g. Apidima 1 in Greece which dates to more than 210,000 BP. However, this globularity may be traced back a million years because H. floresiensis also possessed it with additional modern feaures together with Australopithecine like post-cranial features. As Peter Klevius has written since 2012, Homo could only have evolved on the SE Asian tropical archipelago with fluctuating landbridges due to increased sea level oscillations. And every time a new species landed on mainland Asia, the small skulled dark skinned tropical ones continued along tropical lines while others went to the fat and protein rich north and got bigger unrestricted brains and "mongolized" (cold adapted) faces. This latter observation Peter Klevius wrote about 1992 in his book Resursbegär (Demand for Resources) when comparing the big skulled Jinniushan fossil from northern China with similarly "mongolized" (cold adapted) faces of Khoisan people in southern Africa. https://peterklevius.blogspot.com/2023/01/how-pliocene-pleistocene-panama-isthmus.html"
9 days ago

👍 Someone liked your comment: "The "pan-African" model with multiple speciations is hilarious! What stopped access to Afro-Eurasia?! And geneticists must understand that old mutations in moderns lack "GPS". According to Peter Klevius, we (HSS) clearly originated in SE Asian volatile archipelago to the beat of accelerating climate oscillations in Pleistocene, and are now alone after the latest brain update made us fill the Earth and genetically consume the rest - so e.g., together we've ~50% of the Neanderthal genome. Following the Mekong river (real) HSS was in northern Laos at least 86,000 BP, and 51,000 BP produced the world's oldest realistic painting - in Sulawesi. The out of Africa PC pseudoscience has no valid ground. According to Peter Klevius, the Afro-Eurasian continent lacked enough isolation of its potential "Mitochondrial Eves" for successful Homo speciation - only hybridization (see flow chart on Peter Klevius Anthropology). And oldest DNA mutations in modern African HSS ("mongoloid", i.e. cold adapted Khoisan) don't prove an African origin (the recent s.c. Bantu expansion hybridized the intruding Eurasians to look "African", and archaic Pygmies to become modern HSS - however, their Ebola resistance wasn't always transfered). Moreover, the most important "missing link", the Homo floresiensis woman (with an advanced Homo head and advanced Australopithecine body) didn't "raft" to Flores but evolved in SE Asia and got stuck on the "wrong" side of the Wallace line. Out of Africa is really about PC racism, i.e. against East Asians. "Out of Africa" emerged after the long lasting Piltdown hoax eventually punctured British Eurocentrism. And in the 1990s - at a time of increased anti-East Asian racism due to Japanese tech challenging US and EU - phylogenetics etc. were eagerly altered to fit "out of Africa" models and later disproved in silence. Only Homo still clings on without any reason to do so. And Cambridge still warns prospective students that focus ought to be on Africa. In this headwind it took some 20 years for Chris Beard to get Eosimias from China and Myanmar to be accepted as earliest Anthropoid fossils. The PC racist out of Africa and anti-Asia community's subversive campaign is widely known but sadly little talked about. However, according to Peter Klevius, the cradle of hominines was the volatile SE Asian archipelago, and NE Asia hybridized the big-skulled "mongoloid" (cold-adapted) phenotype that then conquered the world and explains the phenotypical pattern still seen today. Homo sapiens spread from east to west (just like other s.c. "African animals"), which also explains how the Cro-Madnon chin is just a remnant of the jutting jaw of the Neanderthal. Africa is a genetic and fossil dump of species from SE Asia, the real cradle. This explains the "puzzling" variety in space and time of hard to fit overlapping fossil species and hybrids. Bipedal apes were in Eurasia at least 12 MA, i.e. long before Sahelanthropus in northern African Mediterranean river environment, but after climate cooling only survived in more tropical environment. And of course there are Australopithecine fossils all over South Asia yet to be found. Modern H. sapiens (HSS - i.e. not Jebel Irhoud) have globular skulls. The oldest are from outside Africa, e.g. Apidima 1 in Greece which dates to more than 210,000 BP. However, this globularity may be traced back a million years because H. floresiensis also possessed it with additional modern feaures together with Australopithecine like post-cranial features. As Peter Klevius has written since 2012, Homo could only have evolved on the SE Asian tropical archipelago with fluctuating landbridges due to increased sea level oscillations. And every time a new species landed on mainland Asia, the small skulled dark skinned tropical ones continued along tropical lines while others went to the fat and protein rich north and got bigger unrestricted brains and "mongolized" (cold adapted) faces. This latter observation Peter Klevius wrote about 1992 in his book Resursbegär (Demand for Resources) when comparing the big skulled Jinniushan fossil from northern China with similarly "mongolized" (cold adapted) faces of Khoisan people in southern Africa. https://peterklevius.blogspot.com/2023/01/how-pliocene-pleistocene-panama-isthmus.html"
13 days ago


@EvoBio-SJC
9 days ago
It not about race or PC... Humans coming from Africa is the least controversial position based on most recent genetic data. Most males who do not come from African descent, have the same mutation on their Y chromosome. M168 specifically. This has been found in almost 100% of men from China, North America, Siberia, India, Australia... how can they all share the same mutant version of the Y chromosome if they do not share the same origin story? African men, do no possess this mutation (unless they have recent non-African ancestry). Also, yes anatomically modern humans existed outside of Africa for possibly 100,000s of years prior to 60,000-70,000 years ago (likely, timeframe for the Out-of-Africa Model). But the anatomically modern humans who lived outside of Africa, prior to 60,000-70,000, likely all died. Some remnants may have been incorporated into the "successful" waves out of Africa (occurring during or after 60,000-70,000). I do agree, that South East Asia was a lost cradle of human kind. I made a video on this topic - https://youtu.be/igMv4yFjuOg. My thinking is that, Homo erectus rafted to flores and luzon islands independently, and there, evolved into Homo floresiensis and Homo luzonensis respectively. Neither Flores or Luzon were connected by land, and there is no reason to believe Homo erectus could not create simplistic water vessels. I will read some of Peter Klevius recent articles as I am not familiar with it. Thank you for your comment and discussions. 

Peter Klevius answer:

Out of Africa is a (fraudulent) patch work of uncertainties instead of science. And the "genetic African descent" is an empty illusion lacking any scientific value, because mutations have no location and because the whole of Africa is a mess of immigration. And no, Homo floresiensis is absolutely not Homo erectus in any sense because it got limbs for climbing like australopithecines, and didn't shrink but actually grew in size on Flores over a million years. Instead of drumming for the "out of Africa" PC pseudoscience I suggest a more critical stance. But it might be less good for monetizing though. But I think it could benefit your reputation when the bubble inevitably bursts.

Why was the spoked wheel invented in Siberia, and why was PIE born out of Uralic? Peter Klevius: Because of intelligent mongolic women.

 

Only Peter Klevius interdisciplinary* science analysis of highly intelligent mongolic females having children with kurgan males, explains why the spoked wheel invention spread from Siberia to the rest of the world, and why Tocharian is related to Uralic Samojedic.

* Peter Klevius masters interdisciplinary science studies better than most because of high IQ, protected from "peer review" bias, and only focusing on what he is best at, i.e. low hunging scientific fruits. Peter Klevius intelligence was perhaps best described by the Finnish neuroscientist, J. Juurmaa, who in the 1990s wrote: "Teidän ajatuksen kulku on ilmavan lennokas ja samalla iskevän ytimekäs" which translated to English would mean something like: "Your train of thought is airy and lively and at the same time punchy to the point." This he wrote in a long letter answering Peter Klevius question about the effects on the visual cortex on individuals who have been blind from birth. This inquiry was part of Peter Klevius check up of his already published EMAH theory (1994), so to get a qualified confirmation that the "visual cortex" in born blinds is fully employed with other things than vision. Juurmaa's description of Peter Klevius is in line with philosopher Georg Henrik von Wright's 1980 assessment, and more importantly with Peter Klevius own experience, and perhaps most importantly when assessing consciousness and AI.

For most people trying to do interdisciplinary science studies are doomed to fail, or worse (as can be seen by much nosense published in Nature etc).

In anthropology and linguistics Peter Klevius benefited from learning archaic Swedish and Finnish as a child. The family he was kidnapped to at age two, spoke a very old type of Swedish. Moreover, many old neighbors and family friends/contacts were refugees from Karelia and therefore talked old Finnish, although their children talked modern Finnish. As a result Peter Klevius has no problem with whatever strange Swedish or Finnish dialects. Later he started seeing the obvious advantage of such bilingualism ("Finland-Swedish"), and connected it with the spread of the Goths, Vikings etc. 

As interdisciplinary science combines multiple academic disciplines to address complex problems, this approach not only allows for a more comprehensive understanding and innovative solutions, but also puts demands on the scientist that few can handle without slipping into personal bias. Except for a better than usual brain, and the self-evident need not to be affected by forces outside the scientific focus, the scientist must also possess the opposite, i.e. unbiased personal understanding of the topic. Ironically, the rigidity in a scientific field often shields it from wider perspectives while also may contribute to highly biased overall attitudes thoroughly wrapped in scientific jargon - compare e.g. the completely unfounded "out of Africa" mantra.

And...

Women from the NE brought intelligence and taught their daughters.

According to Peter Klevius, in the (forest) contact zone mongolic women were taken by kurgan men (compare Kalevala) and produced more intelligent offspring, because, according to Peter Klevius, the sparsely populated north had preserved much of the original HSS intelligence that then spread/mixed over the world in diluted form. And when Peter Klevius wrote Origin of the Vikings 2005/2006 he based it on islamic slave price lists (Abbasid starting around 750 AD - i.e. contemporary with the Staraja Ladoga site) which clearly pointed out fair-skinned slave girls from the north as the most valuable (excl. eunuchs). Due to much of European Russia back then speaking Finno-Ugric languages, this explains the success of the bilingual "Finland-Swedish" Vikings.

Mongolic mothers influenced bilingualism by talking their own Finno-Ugric mother tongue to their children, who later also learned Indo-European languages from the surrounding society, yet also affecting the development of Indo-European branches. Moreover, the non-mongolic forest dwelling kurgan people became the Finns who mixed with Saami women, hence creating two very different Finno-Ugric speaking phenotypes.

Proto-Indo-European (PIE) was spoken from approximately 4500 BCE to 2500 BCE.

 

A number of possible parallels of mostly Uralic, in particular Samoyedic, and Yeniseian to the typological traits of Tocharian sets it apart from PIE. This is in line with Peter Klevius view that PIE was the result of North Eurasian language(s) southern movement and mixing with existing southern languages (e.g. Kartvelian). Tocharians reached the Tarim Basin from the Afanasievo culture in Altai 3300-2500 BC.

No one knows what a word is in spoken language, which fact constitutes an enormous blur in linguistics.

According to Peter Klevius, languages started as the combination of meaning bearing single sounds. This polysynthetic transition became highly inflected and lacking words, which are the product of later writing systems. 

The next step produced a variety of agglutinative languages of which later on many became affected by writing systems and due introduction of words.  

Most languages except later Indo-European ones, are still to some extent agglutinative, depending on how words are defined. However, Tocharian is the only, but most important, exception in the Indo-European family. And, according to Peter Klevius (2006), while PIE "words" are only artificially linguistically reconstructed, modern Finnish still today contains real proto-Uralic "words", i.e. meaning bearing sounds and sound combinations (see e.g. Origin of the Vikings). Modern Finnish constitutes of only some 200-300 true Finnish words, while the rest are mostly loanwords. When the Finland-Swede Mikael Agricola in the 16th century translated Finnish sounds to orthography, this had a huge effect on what is now modern Finnish. On the pro-side came the fact that exact Finnish pronaunciation can be understood by anyone: 1) who always puts intonation on the first syllable, and: 2) who uses the alphabetic sounds correctly - i.e. not as the English mess. But do remember that u in Finnish is pronounced as o, while o is pronounced as å, and 3) that double vowels always mean long. Following this simple rules you can read out Finnish text as a native Finn. However, Mikael Agricolas linguistic intervention radically changed how Finns speak compared to Saami and many other related Finno-Ugric languages.

Iceage refuges were rooted in Eurasiatic - IE came much later.

Eurasiatic and Nostratic in the cross hair of rigid linguistic orthdoxy spiced with Western boosting of Indo-European (essentially the Old Nordic creole we call English).

According to Peter Klevius it's self-evident that PIE arose in an already existing agglutinative Eurasian context (Uralic, Jenisejan, Ket etc.). Listen to Edward Vajda.

Peter Klevius: Why was the most important evolutionary fossil, 106 cm Homo floresiensis woman from SE Asia, ridiculed and pathologized, while random ape bones of the same size female ape from NE Africa was titled "the marvellous Lucy"?!

According to Peter Klevius, the cradle of humans (like of most s.c. "African animals") was the volatile tropical SE Asian archipelago. Small Homos spread during low sea level via mainland tropics, while others got bigger in the cooler but fat and protein rich north. This formula explains the "puzzling mess" of hybrids and phenotypes.

Today we (HSS) are all one remaining species because the big skulled "mongoloid" (cold adapted) flat faces spread and mixed all over. 

The world's tallest healthy man Väinö Myllyrinne moving around with ease.

Peter Klevius and Svante Pääbo agree: There was a significant boost in modern human (HSS) intelligence.

 According to Peter Klevius, this was due to the latest brain shrinking during high sea level that forced some humans back into the jungle, where the evolutionary pressure again favoured better packed neuronal circuits. When this latest brain update during low sea level entered mainland Asia, it became more pronounced in the big skulled northern "mongoloids", which then took over the world resulting in the (vanishing*) phenotype pattern we still see today. Following the Mekong river HSS was in northern Laos at least 86,000 BP.

* The small get bigger and the big get smaller on average. However, although Peter Klevius is  average global height (but sons well over average)  - thanks to a back mutation in his 1/3 Sami mother - his crania is much larger than average, even in Europe.

Papuan and Australian HSS negritos got extinct because of waves of bigger HSS.

The fossil of the 106 cm Homo floresiensis woman (left) found on Flores in SE Asia, consists of an almost intact skeleton belonging to a single individual. Ribs from other H. floresiensis were found in the same cave but not used to "improve" the original. However, the similar sized ape* fossil called Lucy (right) from NE Africa consists of random bones collected in different locations over a year (incl, some Baboon ribs).

* Bipedal apes have been around for at least 12 millions years without getting a more human like brain before around two million years.

Homo floresiensis compared to Roonka skull from Australia. Homo floresiensis had unique dental morphology, with teeth that were similar in size to those of short modern humans.

If some of the Roonka burials are close to 7,000 years in age this suggests that the post-Pleistocene reduction in body size and robusticity in south-eastern Australia (Brown 1989, 1992) occurred between 10,000 and 7,000 years BP.

The oldest and most sophisticated HSS art and tools are found in SE Asia (Sulavesi) and Siberia.

The "pan-African" model with multiple speciations and "raftings" is just hilarious! What stopped access to the Afro-Eurasian continent for the most advanced Homos - and why would they fail where H. erectus made it to China more than 2 MA?! And why would s.c. "African animals" (giraffes, antelopes etc.) evolve in the opposite direction to humans?

And geneticists must understand that archaic mutations in moderns lack "GPS". According to Peter Klevius, we (HSS) clearly originated in SE Asian volatile archipelago to the beat of accelerating climate oscillations in Pleistocene, and are now alone after the latest brain update made us fill the Earth and genetically consume the rest - so e.g., together we've ~50% of the Neanderthal genome - and a chin resulting from less protrusion. 

The out of Africa PC pseudoscience has no valid ground. According to Peter Klevius, the Afro-Eurasian continent lacked enough isolation of its potential "Mitochondrial Eves" for successful Homo speciation - only hybridization. And oldest DNA mutations in modern African HSS ("mongoloid", i.e. genetic cold adaptation traits in Khoisan) disprove an African origin. 

The recent s.c. Bantu expansion hybridized the intruding Eurasians to look "African", and archaic Pygmies to become modern HSS - however, their Ebola resistance wasn't always transfered. 

Moreover, the most important "missing link", the Homo floresiensis woman (with an advanced Homo head and advanced Australopithecine body) didn't "raft" to Flores but evolved in SE Asia and got stuck on the "wrong" side of the Wallace line. 

The burial of evolutionary science.

 

Out of Africa is now really about US boosted racism - spiced with "monotheistic" anti-Atheism - , i.e. against East Asians. It emerged after the long lasting Piltdown hoax eventually punctured British Eurocentrism. And in the 1990s - at a time of increased anti-East Asian racism due to Japanese tech challenging US and EU - phylogenetics etc. were eagerly altered to fit "out of Africa" models and later usually disproved in silence. Only Homo still clings on without any reason to do so. And Cambridge still warns prospective students that focus ought to be on Africa.

In this headwind it took some 20 years for Chris Beard to get Eosimias from China and Myanmar to be accepted as earliest Anthropoid fossils. The PC racist out of Africa and anti-Asia community's subversive campaign is widely known but sadly little talked about. 

Africa is a genetic and fossil dump that puzzles everyone who thinks it's not. 

The "puzzling" variety in space and time of hard to fit overlapping fossil species and hybrids, incl. later bipedal apes which were in Eurasia at least 12 MA, i.e. long before Sahelanthropus in northern African Mediterranean river environment, but after climate cooling only survived in more tropical environment. And of course there are Australopithecine fossils all over South Asia yet to be found.

Modern H. sapiens (HSS - i.e. definitely not Jebel Irhoud) have globular skulls. The oldest are from outside Africa, e.g. Apidima 1 in Greece which dates to more than 210,000 BP. However, this globularity may be traced back at least a million years because H. floresiensis also possessed it with additional modern feaures together with Australopithecine like post-cranial ones. 

As Peter Klevius has written since 2012, Homo could only have evolved on the SE Asian tropical archipelago with fluctuating landbridges due to increased sea level oscillations. The back and forth from savannah to jungle honed a better CPU without increasing the size. And every time a new species landed on mainland Asia, the small skulled dark skinned tropical ones continued along tropics while others went to the fat and protein rich north and got bigger unrestricted brains and "mongolized" (cold adapted) faces. This latter observation Peter Klevius wrote about 1992 in his book Resursbegär (Demand for Resources) when comparing the big skulled Jinniushan fossil from northern China with similarly "mongolized" (cold adapted) faces of Khoisan people in southern Africa - and asked why he (now classified as the largest female fossil ever found) didn't go to the Moon with a 1400cc brain and 200,000 years time to do so before HSS.

Our ancestor wasn't a clumsy chimp immigrant in Africa but an extinct gibbon like ape in SE Asia.

 

 

 

We have nothing in common with clumsy knuckle-walking chimps, but a lot with monogamous gibbons who are superior brachiators (arm swinging). Their ball-and-socket wrist joints allow them unmatched speed and accuracy when swinging through trees. They are the fastest of all tree-dwelling, nonflying mammals. On the ground, gibbons can walk bipedally because their Achilles tendon morphology is more similar to that of humans than that of any other ape.  

How climate change made human evolution possible.

 

 

 .

How Peter Klevius evolution formula (1981) explains why existencecentrism (P. Klevius 1992) is essential to understand the human mind*.

*  'Mind' is here to be understood as the latest state of the individual's (or humankind's) adaptation to sensory input imprinted via the thalamus in a way that makes any new input pattern obliged to hit (roughly/dynamically) the same original association pattern. For this process to work no "qualia" is possible other than as obscure concepts in language. In fact, to understand the mind one has to separate it from language. Or more precisely, one has to understand language as sensory input in general - compare Peter Klevius stone example (1992) - but realize its capability of irrational illusions. There's no table in the brain to support a toddler learning to walk - s/he is just adapted to it as part of her/his surroundings. Same with a sunset etc. The neuronal circuit is just a chaotic "film" emulsion where different association patterns have become familiar to the individual. And scanning the brain shows just that, i.e. a chaotic pattern unlike anyone else's, except for more general structures due to similar biology.

The main point of Peter Klevius concept 'existencecentrism' (1992) is that the only reality is the one inside the mind, and that it's impossible to even talk/think about something "outside" the mind because any such speculation is 100% determined/understood by what is inside the mind.

A pile of house building material has the potential for a variety of different houses. However, the more the house is built the less possibility for variation. Same applies to the mind, according to Peter Klevius (1981, 1992, 1994, 2004). This means that the more the brain (mind) adapts to its limited (existencecentrism) surrounding, the less room for other views. First threshold for the growing young human (fetus, baby etc.) is the limit of the senses. The second is the ackumulation of synaptic adaptations which makes the individual naturally (walking etc.) and socially (talking etc.) fluent, but further also limits access to alternative understanding because of the mind “going native”*.

* "Going native" is a concept in social anthropology when a researcher “becomes” one with the culture under study.

Peter Klevius evolution formula from 1981 applied to the mind.

 This article appeared as a s.c. "under-liner" (under strecket) on the editorial page and was back then paid Fmk 500 to the author. 

The understanding of what the senses bring is limited to what they have brought before (P. Klevius 1992). This is in line with Peter Klevius evolution formula (published 1981) where the basic element of existence is motion, and the causality of events constitutes a complex of evolution and devolution (synaptic pruning). Evolution can be said to be the consequence of the variables of causality in where the complexity of older structures is reinforced (compare s.c. counterfactual relation). This development stays in an apparent opposition to thermodynamics which theoretically leads to what is called "maximum entropy", i.e. the state where no additional pruning is needed (compare e.g. walking and talking in general). Thus, one could fatalistically say that evolution in fact only constitutes components of causality on its way to uniformity, where the end point of evolution is determined by its external frame of reference, and can be summed up in the words of the philosopher Hegel: 'Pure being and nothingness are identical' (P. Kotilainen* 1981). 

* Kotilainen (mother's maiden name) was the last of three names labelled on Peter while still a child - the others being Lundberg (married to the mother) and Lindroos (who kept the kidnapped child in secret for many years). Ironically, the proper name Kinnmark (the bio father who admitted fathering the child and promised to marry the mother but never did) was never applied.

Peter Klevius congratulates Ghana for taking a point against English cheaters* - but thinks they deserved all three points.

* UK not only cheats by playing WC football as several separate countries while playing track and field as one (Team GB).  

It seems that England benefits from referee bias. Moreover, England also seems to be very lucky in which group they end up in international tournaments etc. favorable decisions. Does it really benefit those who want to be proud of their team?

Harry Maguire's 2018 WC clumsy cheat must be one of the worst in football history. After all, he dived inside the penalty area without no one even close to touch him. And his plan seems to have been that he should have got in contact with the defender. However, the defender elegantly avoided him. Harry Maguire is also notorious for using his big frame to aggressively push down players so to get headers - without referees reacting. Why? Because he played for England.

Sam Wallace (Telegraph Sport): There were knife-edge moments for England twice in the latter stages when Honduran referee Saíd Martínez decided that breakaway attacks from the African side did not end in fouls by English players. Both involved the substitute Prince Kwabena Adu. On the first occasion, Jordan Pickford jumped at him and Martínez decided that the Ghana man had made the contact as he ran through. If it had been the other way around, it would have been a red card for Pickford. Then Martínez decided that Ezri Konsa did not foul Adu as he ran on goal in the 79th minute, even though it looked very much like there had been contact from the England defender. But it will not just have been those decisions that upset Ghana manager Carlos Queiroz. Generally speaking everything that might have been a split decision went England’s way and a few more besides.

Trump's egocentrism only fills the already 1971 made mold of the criminal rogue terrorist state $-embezzler US desperation when now facing losing its stolen hegemmony because of China's success.

However, Peter Klevius wonders whether you* really understand how cheated you are by $-thief US totalitarian finance and media dictatorship and warmongering - and how it robs your country of access to Chinese high tech?

* Absolutely no offense because most people have valid excuses for "not seeing the forest for all the trees".

Alex Lo: A genocidal warmongering nation disguised as a democracy? From its inception to the present, the US rarely distinguishes between diplomacy and war. Today, it has ambassadors working in one-third of the world’s countries, but has special force operators active in three quarters of them

Peter Klevius: Yes, the pathological symbiosis between US and UK made both of them piracy states. However, the 1971 dollar theft planted the seed for a giant step on the rogue state ladder.

Some headlines re. UK's former colony, $-freeloader US desperate attacks on China, the world's oldest civilization. After all, the world's by far oldest pottery was made in China, as was the world's oldest millet and rice cultivation. Although Western definitions of a civilization are deliberately made to exclude China, antone who seriously dig into Chinese prehistory and history, will be convince that everything point to China being more advanced earler than Sumer - and probably also being the source of later development in the West.  

 

Human Rights Watch (essentially a US government organ for anti-China propaganda): 'The Tiananmen Massacre was precipitated by the peaceful gathering in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square and other Chinese cities in April 1989 of students, workers, and others calling for free expression, democratic reform, and an end to corruption. On June 3-4, People’s Liberation Army soldiers opened fire upon and killed numerous protesters and bystanders in Beijing. Chinese authorities have long banned commemorations of the massacre on the mainland. No steps have been taken to provide information or compensation to the families of those who died or to prosecute those responsible for the killings.'

Peter Klevius: Not exactly! Compare text  below which is based on early US sources before the US made history falsification.

Listen to Chai Ling, leader of the Tiananmen riots who wanted to provoke Chinese leadership "to shed blood" while she went to US.

Peter Klevius wrote: 

Media's US led depiction of the 1989 Tiananmen "democracy"* riots in China is as far you can get from the truth.

May 23, 2024

* Even if some of the violent rioters really believed that "democracy" would be better for China, history now tells them how wrong they were. Moreover, just consider dollar embezzler (1971-) US reaction if China had become even stronger technologically, economically, politically and morally (if the latter is even possible for a 1.4 billion country)? That wouldn't have extended US stolen hegemony, right.

$-freeloader US extreme anti-China cognitive, financial, militaristic warfare is made possible with US 1971 stolen world dollar hegemony and is a crime against humanity and most people are too busy/ignorant to understand the danger of the cornered US - but instead fear China which offers best consumer goods, infrastructure etc, without imposing its system as US does! 

 Sadly, many haven't understood the enormity of US financial fraud 1971. And US economists - and some stupid US puppets called "allies" - just "explain" away how US as the only country in the world can prosper and militarize the rest of the world despite constant trade deficit. "We're just so good" is Bloomberg's and others answer!

When US 1971 stole* the world dollar it could manipulate it as it wanted and have the world pay for its trade deficit. However, China is now back and challenges it with superior tech which makes consumers happy. China's capitalist reform got severely hit 1988-89 because of US Feds chock rate increase. That caused havoc in a still extremely vulnerable China on its path out from Maoism.

 * 1944 Bretton Woods "agreement" pegged the world dollar to US dollar which was then pegged to gold under US Feds custodianship. 1971 US was bankrupt and arbitrarily violated the gold connection but kept the custody over the world dollar. Although it hit poor countries the most, China was especially vulnerable because it was in an intensive opening-up trade development following Deng Xiaoping's capitalist reform policy. 

Peter Klevius analysis of the US controlled media massacre of the truth about the Tiananmen square incident by neglecting cause and effect while producing anti-China* smear. 

* No, it's not just CCP! Undemocratic Christian theocracy US uses Sinophobia as synonymous with "democracy", well knowing that the absolute majority of Chinese people don't share the US view on "democracy", although young Chinese in the late 1980s realized the difference in living standard between US and China after Deng Xiaoping opened up the China that Mao had closed. So when US again manipulated the world dollar it hit hard (up to 19% 1989 inflation from 7% 1987) on China's economy. 

 Peter Klevius agrees with Klaus Schwab (WEF) who said "I respect China's tremendous achievements … over the last forty years. China could act as a role model for many countries, but in the end, each country should be left to make its own decision regarding the system it wants to adopt. We should be very careful in imposing systems but the Chinese model is certainly a very attractive model for quite a number of countries." Peter Klevius: Especially for US!

Wu'er Kaixi (aka Örkesh Dölet) Of Uyghur heritage from Xinjiang had a leading role during the 1989 protests.

Peter Klevius: What did he think about the old Uyghur jihad battle cry "kill the Han and the Hui"?

Summary of Peter Klevius Tiananmen analysis: There were two distinct and mutually exclusive groups of protesters who were not distinguishable by their appearance. 

The absolute majority were peaceful protesters. However, the rest were intent for violence, and their leaders even openly admitted that they wanted to provoke PLA to also use violence "so the world could see it". But even this wasn't enough. As crit­ics of Chai Ling’s role in the move­ment point to the infam­ous “last words” interview she gave to US journ­al­ist Philip Cun­ning­ham on May 28, just days before the riots. With the move­ment facing an uncer­tain future, a deeply pess­im­istic and fear­ful Chai gave video testi­mony to Cun­ning­ham in which she described her intention to leave the square, adding “I want to live”. But, other stu­dents would have to stay until the square was “washed with blood,” she said.

Much of the rioters brutality was the result of Beijing’s decision on June 2 to send in unarmed soldiers to clear the Square. The unarmed soldiers  were set upon immediately by rioters around the Square waiting for the chance to attack the soldiers. Beijing’s armed battalions were sent in later.

US Embassy daily reports of what was happening at the time.

The US Embassy report for June 4 notes:

    “the beating to death of a PLA soldier, who was in the first APC to enter Tiananmen Square, in full view of the other waiting PLA soldiers, appeared to have sparked the shooting that followed.”

So it was the rioters, not the government soldiers, that started the bloody confrontation.

State Department chroniclers continue their unbiased summary of events:

    “.. the initial moves against the students suggested to many that the Chinese leadership was still, as of the morning of June 3, committed to a relatively peaceful resolution to the crisis.”

From there we go to:

    “fascinating eyewitness accounts of the disorganized and confused retreat of PLA soldiers from the center of Beijing after their advance on Tiananmen Square was halted by crowds of demonstrators on the morning of June 3.’ ..the soldiers were ridiculed by Chinese citizens and scolded by elderly women who called them “bad boys” and “a disgrace to the PLA.”

On the day after, on June 4, however: “thousands of civilian (rioters - not peaceful protesters) stood their ground or swarmed around military vehicles. APCs were set on fire, and demonstrators besieged troops with rocks, bottles, and Molotov cocktails.”

Media reports confirmed this rioters violence.

According to the Wall Street Journal of June 4:

    “As columns of tanks and tens of thousands soldiers approached Tiananmen many troops were set on by angry mobs … [D]ozens of soldiers were pulled from trucks, severely beaten and left for dead. At an intersection west of the square, the body of a young soldier, who had been beaten to death, was stripped naked and hung from the side of a bus. Another soldier’s corpse was strung at an intersection east of the square.”

Even ABC, later to one-sidedly dramatize cruelties by government forces, describes how in front of the Australian embassy a PLA solder was beaten to death, disembowelled and left with his penis stuck in his mouth.

But those who condemn government violence  at Tiananmen need to explain the seeming hatred of the government among protesters that triggered Tiananmen events .

Chai Ling, like many other Tianamen rioters became Christian and welcomed in US. Listen to her video to measure her bloodthirstiness - and cowardice.

The "tank man" hoax* 

* The photographer used Peter Klevius favorite film camera (before F4) Nikon Fe2. 10 years earlier Peter Klevius bought a Nikon Fe because of its fast (for fill in flash) titanium shutter, which also handled better in cold than Canon's slow and cold sensitive fabric shutter. Moreover, whereas Canon A1 was useless with low battery (which was also really expensive), Nikon Fe (and Fe2) could still do B and 1/90 mechanically. Double exposure and good depth and field control also helped. However, the best thing was the wonderful metering system with both manual and auto relative to each other on the side of the viewer.

Although the "tank man" photo is authentic, its usage is almost never. As Peter Klevius has always said: Cameras never lie - pictures do. And in this case it's the presentation against a background on an extremely distorted Western presentation of the "Tiananmen massacre", that completely eliminates the "hero" against the "evil CCP" mantra - at a time when CCP had abandoned everything Maoist. 

Peter Klevius was first reluctant to even mention the "tank man" in the post because he thought most people already understood the silliness in it. However, a brief check revealed that BBC and other fake media still uses it deeply tendentiously and polemically. According to Peter Klevius, the incident clearly shows that PLA had strong orders to be careful with non-violent people no matter what they did. Otherwise any army would hav just taken the guy for interrogation - as any police would have done in any other country. Moreover, his strange behavior can only be described as either mad or just joking in front of the crowd. There was nothing to "protest" against - or did he want them to park on a normally busy street, or even worse, return to Tiananmen square?! 

1) 5 June 1989 everyone in Beijing knew that PLA wouldn't hurt non-violent civilians. Yes, that happened accidently in the chaotic battle the day before with the rioters who deliberately started the violence (already 3 June) against unarmed PLA soldiers whom they burned alive and hanged etc. That the PLA may have used excessive force is in line with any army in a similar situation. Just listen to Chai Ling and understand how deliberate the provocations from the rioters side were. Btw, also check the Waco siege and similar incidents in US.

2) It didn't happen at Tiananmen square, and the tanks were not going against protesters but just the contrary, i.e. back home.

3) Little, or nothing is publicly known of the man's identity or that of the commander of the lead tank. 

4) An endless list of "theories" have been put forward. Shortly after the incident, London newspaper Sunday Express named him as "Wang Weilin" (王维林), a 19-year-old student who was later charged with "political hooliganism" and "attempting to subvert members of the People's Liberation Army." This claim has been rejected by internal Chinese Communist Party documents, which reported that they could not find the man, according to the Hong Kong-based Information Center for Human Rights. One party member was quoted as saying: "We can't find him. We got his name from journalists. We have checked through computers but can't find him among the dead or among those in prison."

There are several conflicting stories about what happened to him after the "demonstration". In a speech to the President's Club in 1999, Bruce Herschensohn, former deputy special assistant to US President Richard Nixon, alleged that he was executed 14 days later; other sources alleged he was executed by firing squad a few months after the Tiananmen Square protests. In Red China Blues: My Long March from Mao to Now, Jan Wong writes that she believes from her interactions with the government press that they have "no idea who he was either" and that he is still alive somewhere on the mainland. Another theory is that he escaped to Taiwan and remains employed there as an archaeologist in the National Palace Museum. This was first reported by the Yonhap news agency in South Korea.

The Chinese government has made few statements about the incident or the people involved. The government denounced him as a "scoundrel" once on state television. In a 1990 interview with Barbara Walters, then-General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party Jiang Zemin was asked what became of the man. Jiang first stated (through an interpreter), "I can't confirm whether this young man you mentioned was arrested or not", and then replied in English, "I think [that he was] never killed." The government also argued that the incident evidenced the "humanity" of the country's military.

In a 2000 interview with Mike Wallace, Jiang said, "He was never arrested." He then stated, "I don't know where he is now." He also emphasized that the tank stopped and did not run the young man over.

Cui Guozheng, was an unarmed cook in the 348th Regiment of the 116th Division. He was murdered by rioters because he did not stay close enough with the other troops.

Read how Peter Klevius solved "the biggest mystery in science".

A recorded public time-line of Peter Klevius original research on evolution, consciousness, existencecentrism, anthropology and sociology 1979-2012 - and some thoughts about self-citation  

Read Peter Klevius in-depth research on The Psychosocial Freud Timeline.

Read Peter Klevius Origin of the Vikings from 2005 - now again available after Google deleted it 2014 and again in February 2024. 

Read how climate change made human evolution possible in SE Asian volatile archipelago - not on a continent like Africa. 

Peter Klevius opposite reading and correction of Greenland data compared to researchers biased with climate hysteria.

 Read how two craniopagus twins born 2006 solved the "greatest mystery in science" - and proved Peter Klevius theory from 1992-94 100% correct.  

 Read Peter Klevius thesis Pathological Symbiosis in LVU on how a hoax child-psychoanalytic concept is still used by the Swedish social state to abduct children on subjective grounds.  It also reveals (see email correspondens in appendix) how legislators were lured to pass a Human Rights violating law which was then blinked by ECHR because it was seen as below the "margin of appreciation". 

 

Peter Klevius started as an empty origo/singularity whose existencecentrism (mind) now is the sum of his experience with his surroundings and due synaptic adaptations, while also constituting part of the surroundings of others. A canvas which doesn't have a soul/self of its own but does reflect what it has experienced and adapted to. However, the false impression of having a "self", "free will" etc. rests on language, i.e. the use of the word 'I' which animals and humans without language lack. As a human with language you are in the same position as Peter Klevius, and together we all (incl. non-language humans) make up the total existencecentrism of humankind - and the key to a universal human with (negative) Human Rights without irrational exceptions and impositions. So when Peter Klevius talks/writes/acts, he does so against a background that includes the latest synapses combinations in his brain as well as what his other nerve signals bring to his thalamus from his body and other surroundings. 

Peter Klevius (1981, 1992): The ultimate question ought to be: What is it like to be a stone? There's no difference between human consciousness polished through living, and the "consciousness" of a stone that has been smoothly shaped in streaming water against other rocks, stones etc. It started its "life" as a rugged piece of rock in a mountain and adapted to its life in streaming water down hill, or perhaps as a piece of rock falling on a beach and polished by waves. 

 

How US robs the world

 

.