TheresaMay's racist robbing of EU citizens' Human Rights

The Saudi Fuhrer of Saudi based islamofascist OIC

BBC's compulsory fee funded propaganda for Saudi sharia islam

Support Klevius' Atheist anti-fascism against islamofascism

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

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

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

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

So let's face islam with this definition.

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

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

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

Sayeeda Warsi like all sharia muslims is against basic Human Rights

Theresa May is for sharia and EU - but against EU's Human Rights Court which condemns sharia

Klevius is probably now the world's foremost expert on sex segregation (sad isn't it), and islam (the worst cime ever) is the foremost expression of sex segregation. By 'islam' Klevius means the same as true sharia supporting (and therefore against the most basic of Human Rights) muslims.

British muslim jihadists: Samantha Lewthwaite, Mishal Husain and Michael Adebolajo (who murdered Le

Tuesday, December 31, 2013


Racist BBC quotes racist Sun's rant against EU citizens - but what if...


Muslims are over represented in immigtation, birth statistics, crimes etc - yet we don't hear BBC even mentioning it





The Sun's and BBC's slur: 'Passengers waved their 75 euro tickets and chanted “Anglia, Anglia” as they set off on a three-day 1,400-mile trip across mainland Europe.'

and



'Among those eager to cross our new open borders were a convicted thief and his “apprentice” son — plus others who claimed they were bent on stealing scrap metal and raking in benefits.'


Klevius question: Is it only racist when muslims are mentioned? Or would a similar page as above but about muslims have been ok and quoted by BBC jn the same scare mongering and racist way?

Moreover, muslims have a hate ideology called islam that, if not carefully filtered by wishful and deliberately misleading reading of its tenets (always remember that OIC and the Sharia is incompatible with Human Rights) clearly approves of racist and sexist jihadism.


Saturday, December 28, 2013

Klevius history tutorial on the deep perversity of Judaic monotheisms: The chosen people (racism); the genitally mutilated children (abuse); sex apartheid (sexism); and slave economy


Dear fellow Atheists! You constitute the biggest ideological group on Earth - yet we hear almost nothing about it! Consider all these pompous and extremely racist "monotheist god" agitators whose voices are sprayed all over society without anyone even reflecting over how deeply offending and degrading they are against Atheists, Buddhists, Shintoists etc etc! No, we don't need more religion, we need less. And "freedom of religion" should only be understood as having the right to believe in whatever, yet not having the right to impose it on others. (Negative) Human Rights is pure freedom without imposition. Religion is racism.

Btw, if a random muslim has the right not to serve you because of your beliefs (in atheism, music, wine, pork, dogs or whatever) you should have the right to demand not to be served by muslims at all!


The true history of God - sorry about that Karen Armstrong

There never was any space for a "first mover". Space has only one dimension (in this context) and that dimension is 'now'. No beginning, no end, just now. Read your Einstein and try to understand the word 'relativity' when gazing the stars. What you (and Hubble) see is 'now'! "Big bang" was invented by a Catholic priest to make "creation" sound cooler. Silly, isn't it! Where should it bang? In front of God? A muslim suicide bomber can't see the bang and the suffering it causes around her/him because s/he is in it.

In a constantly changing world there can never be a "moral base" other than the basis for Human Rights, i.e. that all should be treated as equals - just as in traffic. Not even leftists are offended by giving way for those coming from the right.

God people always (and usually after much resistance, trouble and suffering) have to eventually give up or reform alter their holy hollow tenets - no matter if we're talking gay rights, women's rights, or whatever.

Atheism is the only straight way to Human Rights!


God is racist and has always been against Human Rights - that's his very allurement!


The ancient Persian (which is extremely young compared to proto-Uralic) word for god 'khoda' connects to the even more ancient Finnish 'koti' and Finno-Ugric 'kota' (=home/house/seed vessel - see Klevius definition of religion and the Vagina gate), Saami 'goahti'. German Gott (god) and Swedish gott (good) as well as Gotland (pronounced Gottland), the island in the Baltic sea that constituted a (the?) main Viking hub in their slave trade with Jews and muslims. Btw, English is a Scandinavian language and e.g. 'cottage' is a direct derivative from Finnish 'koti' - funny spelling though, especially compared to Finnish which is spelled exactly as it is pronounced).


Origin of islam, a late Judaic sect, focusing on enslavement of others, that became the worst racist/sexist hate crime ever against humanity


Racist monotheism is never good for your moral. How could it possibly be when you tell individuals that their "god" is superior, hence ending up with millions of private "gods" which are then said to be one in collectives defined by this "communal god" which only exists through its political and militaristic expressions.


The true history about the Judaic Penis oppression of the Vagina people


From Sumerian genderless pronouns to Semitic sex apartheid


For most of today's speakers of Indo-European languages the he/she devision seems almost self-evident - until they learn Finnish, Japanese, Mandarin or some other non-Semitic and non later Indo-European languages.

Moreover, linguistic gender divide in third person singular is a relatively recent phenomenon in the history of human languages. It first emerged within Semitic languages. We can only speculate why, but a qualified guess by Klevius would connect it to the same social and environmental factors that caused Judaism.

The civilization process in the Middle east was introduced by the non-Semitic Sumerians. However, when Semitic groups attacked, dissolved and displaced them, a pattern emerged whereby non-Semitic Indo-European related groups begun assimilating a gender divide in third person singular.

Originally, there were only an animate (masculine/feminine) and an inanimate (neuter) gender. This view is supported by the existence of certain classes of Latin and Ancient Greek adjectives which inflect only for two sets of endings, one for masculine and feminine, the other for neuter. Further evidence comes from the Anatolian languages which exhibit only the animate and the inanimate gender.


Judaism, the world’s only “monotheism” and its many Vagina/Penis branches or sects

Judaism (a late ”branch” of Zoroastrianism) has in different manifestations cursed itself and the world for some Millenniums. It was chiseled out on the bedrock of a racist “chosen people” and sexist rapetivism (i.e. female sex duties) approach. However, a crucial moment was when a particular branch of Judaism introduced the Penis as the sole custodian of one way (apostasy ban) “muslimhood”. This caused an explosion of “muslims”, although this development was paralleled with an even bigger explosion of abused slaves and parasitism in a variety of forms. But the real corner stone of all Judaic tradition, sex apartheid, has reached its peak in islam. To an extent that it now has clashed against Human Rights resulting in a divided UN.  


Look wherever you like now or in the past, and you won't find any peace or equality where Judaic monotheisms have left their marks. 

If anything at all should be taught to our children about religion  it should be its racist and sexist origin and its disastrous consequences!

The only people chosen by the only god - a bedrock formula for sectarianism and disaster - no the least for themselves


The Big Bang and the Big Divide







Monotheist religions are now busy coming to terms with the (for them) surprising fact that women can be seen as fully human beings


Adam was made a copy of God and Eve was made out of one of Adam's least important bones (a broken rib usually self heal and you don't necessarily even need all of them).

However, many Eves still strongly oppose the freedom of other women.

Monotheist reformism: A desperate and continuing in vain pursuit in trying to make bad history look good - or accepting the evil as "god's will", i.e. staying ortodox


The Judaic formula:

1   The chosen people

2   Marked by genital mutilation (circumcision) and the condemnation of sex not giving possibility for procreation (compare Onan who "spilled" his semen) and the sanctioning of Homophobia, all for the sole purpose of as effective rapetivism as possible.

3   Extreme sex segregation to a point where even language became affected. There is a direct linguistic connection between sexist language and Judaic monotheisms? Only (later - i.e. affected by Semitic) Indoeuropean and Semitic languages have this silly and unnecessary gender apartheid personal pronouns he/she!

4   Specialization in slave finance due to the handy racist ideology of we and the others, the infidels, who could be murdered, tortured, raped and enslaved (compare Canaanites).



These are some of the human faces of the main threat to Human Rights

Crimes against humanity and violation of the most basic Human Rights in the name of islamofascist Sharia. Rape or accomplice to rape, perverting the course of justice, media and finance manipulation etc etc. Possibilities for indictment may be some or all of these - or maybe more. It may be reasonable to assume that the actions of this scumbag has caused a lot more harm than Rupert Murdoch ever has (you know, the Brit whom BBC has chased for more than a year by now ' that very BBC whose commercial Mideast section functions as a channel for islam propaganda).


This rape accused Saudi islamofascist*, Alwaleed bin Talal, censors what you learn in schools and universities and in most news channels.

Here kissing/hugging Sudan's "president" Bashir who is arrested (although not produced as yet) by ICC. 

 * Definition of islamofascism: The deliberate neglect of the most basic Human Rights. And don't let them lure you by calling islamofascist Sharia "islamic human rights"!
!
Klevius question:  Why is the female person (sex slave under Sharia rapetivism?)  looking down? And what does she see? The origin of islam?!























According to rumors members of European royalty partied on Turama together with lots of drugs and prostitutes. The Spanish court dismissed the rape case despite witnesses, semen, traces of drugs etc  were available.

Saudi based islamic Sharia organization OIC is the most powerful voting unit in UN and is also the foremost threat to UN's 1948 Human Rights Declaration. It has long since abandoned every Human Right that doesn't comply with Koranic Sharia.











Former OIC Secretary General, the Turk Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, and Alwaleed bin Talal. The other persons on the pic don't count because of their sex - other than if they say the right thing and if that is in accordance with that very Sharia that is so basically different from Human Rights that OIC had to abandon Human Rights altogether!












Thursday, December 26, 2013


Klevius presents Saudi islamofanatic Iyad Madani, the new Fuhrer of Saudi based OIC - all muslims Sharia organization


Ask muslims and others if they are really aware of how UN now has become the sanctifier of Human Rights violations!


What many seems to have a problem understanding is the simple fact that OIC's Sharia in UN was voted through by 57 OIC (UN's biggest voting bloc) more or less islamofascist member states plus their supporters, AND that the main reason was to hinder UN from criticizing these countries for their Human Rights violations.



Saudi islamofanatic Iyad Madani, new OIC Fuhrer and more dangerous to the free world and Human Rights than any ordinary jihadist. We don't know anything about him except that he is academically almost illiterate. However, we don't need to because OIC is a racist fascist organization and Saudi Arabia is the world's most intolerant country.


 In July, a Jeddah criminal court found Raif Badawi, who started the 'Free Saudi Liberals' website to discuss the role of religion in Saudi Arabia, and who has been in prison since June 2012, guilty of insulting islam through his Free Saudi Liberals website and in television comments.

Raif Badawi was sentenced to seven years in prison and 600 lashes.

Apostasy, the act of changing religious affiliation, carries an automatic death sentence in Saudi Arabia, along with other crimes including blasphemy. No other religion than islam is allowed in Saudi Arabia.




Sayeeda Warsi, Cameron's not elected Minister of faith islam, eagerly supports Saudi Sharia islamofascism via OIC and the British House of Lords, but presents it for the Brits in a clear lie, i.e. in words that deliberately hides the real agenda from the British people.

How many of your friends even know about OIC? Not to mention OIC's Sharia agenda in UN under the deceptive title "islamic human rights"!

Klevius alternative vision for how we can tackle this global crisis caused by religion (i.e. Judaism) in general and islamofascism in particular:


One. Ensuring that extremists like Sharia Warsi aren't able to twist history for their divisive islamofascist ends...

...demonstrating that co-existence between totalitarian islam and the rest has never succeeded and that sectarianism is inevitable inside islam.

Two. Proving that the presence of islam is a threat to identity...

...and realizing that islam's accommodating of other faiths only strengthens and secures muslims own racism.

Three. Showing that religious freedom for totalitarian islam isn't just an evil thing in itself...

...but it's an evil thing for economies and for societies to progress and flourish as well. When did you last time buy a good camera or some other sophisticated technical product made in Egypt or Saudi Arabia?

And four: making sure our response to this global crisis is not sectarian, but united, strong and, ultimately, effective our only effective weapon is Human Rights.

It's important to realize that all branches of Judaism are rooted in the racist "the chosen people" dogma. And that there are no other such silly religions around!




Wafa Sultan: The problem with the muslims is that they do not distinguish between their prophet and their own noses. When you criticize Muhammad, his actions, and his life, it is as if you chopped off their noses. The islamic teachings have become dreadful in the skulls of the muslims. I see no alternative but to open up these skulls, and to clean the life-threatening cancerous cells in these brains.


Klevius etymology lesson for women: Did you know that there is a direct linguistic connection between sexist language and Judaic monotheisms? Only (later)Indoeuropean and all Semitic languages have this silly and unnecessary gender apartheid he/she!









.


Klevius presents Saudi islamofanatic Iyad Madani, the new Fuhrer of Saudi based OIC - all muslims Sharia organization


Muslims are by far the most common perpetrators of hate crimes. These racist hate crime acts are clearly based on their religion, islam, and boosted by hate mongering islam propaganda often paid for by the Saudis. Yet in Britain the whole topic of muslim hate crimes against other "wrong" muslims or non-muslims is turned upside down (islamophobia) and therefore not addressed at all!

Ask muslims and others if they are really aware of how UN now has become the sanctifier of Human Rights violations!


What many seems to have a problem understanding is the simple fact that OIC's Sharia in UN was voted through by 57 OIC (UN's biggest voting bloc) more or less islamofascist member states plus their supporters, AND that the main reason was to hinder UN from criticizing these countries for their Human Rights violations.



Saudi islamofanatic Iyad Madani, new OIC Fuhrer and more dangerous to the free world and Human Rights than any ordinary jihadist. We don't know anything about him except that he is academically almost illiterate. However, we don't need to because OIC is a racist fascist organization and Saudi Arabia is the world's most intolerant country.


 In July, a Jeddah criminal court found Raif Badawi, who started the 'Free Saudi Liberals' website to discuss the role of religion in Saudi Arabia, and who has been in prison since June 2012, guilty of insulting islam through his Free Saudi Liberals website and in television comments.

Raif Badawi was sentenced to seven years in prison and 600 lashes.

Apostasy, the act of changing religious affiliation, carries an automatic death sentence in Saudi Arabia, along with other crimes including blasphemy. No other religion than islam is allowed in Saudi Arabia.




Sayeeda Warsi, Cameron's not elected Minister of faith islam, eagerly supports Saudi Sharia islamofascism via OIC and the British House of Lords, but presents it for the Brits in a clear lie, i.e. in words that deliberately hides the real agenda from the British people.

How many of your friends even know about OIC? Not to mention OIC's Sharia agenda in UN under the deceptive title "islamic human rights"!

Klevius alternative vision for how we can tackle this global crisis caused by islamofascism:


One. Ensuring that extremists like Sharia Warsi aren't able to twist history for their divisive islamofascist ends...

...demonstrating that co-existence between totalitarian islam and the rest has never succeeded and that sectarianism is inevitable inside islam.

Two. Proving that the presence of islam is a threat to identity...

...and realizing that islam's accommodating of other faiths only strengthens and secures muslims own racism.

Three. Showing that religious freedom for totalitarian islam isn't just an evil thing in itself...

...but it's an evil thing for economies and for societies to progress and flourish as well. When did you last time buy a good camera or some other sophisticated technical product made in Egypt or Saudi Arabia?

And four: making sure our response to this global crisis is not sectarian, but united, strong and, ultimately, effective our only effective weapon is Human Rights.



Wafa Sultan: The problem with the muslims is that they do not distinguish between their prophet and their own noses. When you criticize Muhammad, his actions, and his life, it is as if you chopped off their noses. The islamic teachings have become dreadful in the skulls of the muslims. I see no alternative but to open up these skulls, and to clean the life-threatening cancerous cells in these brains.











.

Saturday, December 21, 2013


UK muslim Anjem Choudary is "too intelligent" and therefore dismissed as an "extremist muslim" when telling the truth about islam


According to islam a Saudi soldier is much more worth than a British soldier


British born and British citizen Anjem Choudary in BBC's Today Programme, made a fool of John Humphrey (BBC presenter who usually sits with an other UK muslim - although born in Pakistan - Mishal Husain) and everyone with extremely naive and/or ignorant views on islam.

The former leader of Islam4UK and Al-Muhajiroun, refused to condemn the islamic Halal slaughter of soldier Lee Rigby on a street in Woolwich, London.

John Humphrey referred to him as "a leader of your community, or some part of your community".

Asked to condemn the Woolwich murder, Choudary, who also led the banned Al-Muhajiroun Islamist group, refused and kept switching the topic to British foreign policy which justified the Halal slaughter of Lee Rigby.

In an attempt to rein him in, Humphreys said: "Let's do a deal here this morning". He suggested Choudary condemned the murder, and then they would talk about British foreign policy. Choudary declined, asking instead why they were not discussing deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan (obviously he forgot all the killings in Syria supported by many muslim countries - on both sides).

He also completely dismissed the Muslim Council of Britain as Cameron's "paid-up lackeys" and explained that he did not believe in democracy.


Klevius comment: In the interview Choudary in effect to 100% confirmed Klevius' and OIC's view on islam and Sharia covering all the world's muslims. And you know Klevius but if you don't know OIC you better look it up asap!









And because islam is such a lovely and peaceful religion (i.e. most muslims aren't active terrorists) British PM Cameron has decided to open up for more Sharia in UK while dismissing Human Rights and poor EU citizens which might infringe on the muslim quota.


PM Cameron's most important ally in forming London into islam's world capital outside Middle east is the islamofascist OIC and its world Sharia.


Klevius question: How much benefit etc (don't forget  all the tax money going to "religious teachers" etc) do muslims consume compared to non-muslim EU citizens?

Thursday, December 19, 2013


Most muslims were peaceful while British soldier Lee Rigby was Halal slaughtered on a London street


How many more jihadists will London have per invested Arab dollar?






And because islam is such a lovely and peaceful religion (i.e. most muslims aren't active terrorists) British PM Cameron has decided to open up for more Sharia in UK while dismissing Human Rights and poor EU citizens which might infringe on the muslim quota.


PM Cameron's most important ally in forming London into islam's world capital outside Middle east is the islamofascist OIC and its world Sharia.


Klevius question: How much benefit etc (don't forget  all the tax money going to "religious preachers" etc) do muslims consume compared to non-muslim EU citizens?

Tuesday, December 17, 2013


George W Bush perfectly completed his mission to topple Saddam Hussein - but missed islam. That was his real naivity!


When Bush said "islam is a great and peaceful religion" he shot himself in the foot


George W Bush and the Marines etc. fought the most effective (and with least proportional casualties ever) war against a muslim tyrant who had (and NO ONE denies it) used chemical weapons on a massive scale against his own people. However, when the job was done in a couple of weeks the even bigger enemy, islam (the worst crime ever against humanity) continued fighting. The casualties caused by Bush' extremely successful invasion to topple Saddam Hussein and free Iraq, were a tiny fraction of the casualties later caused by islam itself. However, people keep confusing Bush and islam. Why? Is it because they so stubbornly believe that Bush was right in his naive and wrong assessment of islam?!


Here you see three of Allah's fighters - 

and the one in the middle might well be the worst.




When you understand that BBC's presenter Mishal Husain really fits the pic together with Michael Adebolajo, the muslim murderer of the British soldier Lee Rigby on a London street, - then, and only then you understand the real trouble with islam and its evil origin!


Yes, of course you will repeat the meaningless babble that "he isn't a real muslim" while fully understanding the complete hollowness of such a remark. But you do it in your desperate but unfounded hope that somehow islam will turn good one day. Yes, islam can be castrated, but the only sword suitable for that task is Human Rights. And as you, Mishal Husain, well know, OIC has stopped that effort in UN via its Sharia declaration. Moreover, OIC wants every country to criminalize criticism of islam, the worst crime known to history. So what is needed is a complete rejection of OIC and its Sharia!


So when will BBC ask (what they should have done before employing her) whether she supports OIC and their Human Rights violating Sharia?



This is OIC










Saturday, December 14, 2013


What Britain needs to urgently know now is whether BBC's Mishal Husain is an evil Sharia muslim


It's the most "Westernized" (appearance and perceived beliefs) islamofascists who constitute the most effective army of islamofascism.

So,

Is BBC's presenter Mishal Husain an evil lier or a true (or "radical"* if you prefer) muslim believing in Human Rights violating Sharia?

* by "radical" Klevius means someone who supports the tramping of the most basic Human Rights.

Klevius gives you the tools needed for the analysis.

Here you see three of Allah's fighters - 

and the one in the middle might well be the worst.




When you understand that BBC's presenter Mishal Husain really fits the pic together with Michael Adebolajo, the muslim murderer of the British soldier Lee Rigby on a London street, - then, and only then you understand the real trouble with islam and its evil origin!


Yes, of course you will repeat the meaningless babble that "he isn't a real muslim" while fully understanding the complete hollowness of such a remark. But you do it in your desperate but unfounded hope that somehow islam will turn good one day. Yes, islam can be castrated, but the only sword suitable for that task is Human Rights. And as you, Mishal Husain, well know, OIC has stopped that effort in UN via its Sharia declaration. Moreover, OIC wants every country to criminalize criticism of islam, the worst crime known to history. So what is needed is a complete rejection of OIC and its Sharia!


So when will BBC ask (what they should have done before employing her) whether she supports OIC and their Human Rights violating Sharia?



It's precisely the stretched and deceptive presenting of islam and muslimhood as something nice and fully compatible with Human Rights etc.


I wouldn't be too surprised if Mishal Husain herself hasn't thought the whole thing through, but rather continued to deny it by squeezing herself against the margins of a Westernized pseudo islam spiced with some easily targeted, and mainly religious remnants of pre-Human Rights Western culture.

A telling example is her choice of whom to interview today regarding the recent sex segregation scandal initiated by Nicola Dandridge, Chief Executive of Universities UK who supported islamofascist sex apartheid on British universities. Mishal Husain chose a true islamofascist muslim, Tariq Ramadan, who belongs to the Muslim Brotherhood, and. as a supposed "balance", a woman heading a girl school!  In other words, Mishal Husain wanted to protect islamic backwardness and sexism by using an example that was 1) irrelevant for the debate and 2) a marginal phenomenon from a vanishing past - not what normal people consider normal and equal relations between the sexes. She could also have called the couch for England's women's football team and asked why they excluded men. But she didn't, she picked a more confusing target of course.




This is OIC









Klevius question: 


Does islam even classify as a 'religion'? 

 It has only been assumed but never truly tested!

Thursday, December 12, 2013

Peter Klevius is the world's foremost expert on sex segregation - and it's easy because of a total lack of competition!




 Islamosexist women on UK universities



Dear reader, if you, like Klevius, agree that it's sexist not to let women do what they want, then you also share Klevius view that these women are not only deeply sexist, but also alarmingly hypocritical.

Moreover, these kind of influential women truly support Klevius (and Weininger's) conclusion that women constitute the main obstacle against women's emancipation.

Or how else would you explain these two women and many others who state that allowing women freedom is against women's rights. In other words, they want to force all women to conform to their view.

And of course, to become an influential sexist woman is today supported by the most sexist of ideologies, i.e. islam. An ideology that openly violates basic Human Rights by replacing them with Sharia.

The disastrous "separate but equal" doctrine of islam and UK universities

Africa was suffering under a disastrous Koranic/islamic slave raid/trade Umma imperialism for some 800 years before the first Europeans arrived. Was Africa then "separate but equal"?

In 2013, Universities UK published the document "External speakers in higher education institutions" which provoked controversy over its acknowledgement that audiences might be segregated to satisfy the demands of muslim speakers. The guidelines follow the principle that segregation is permissible if the Equality Act 2010 is followed and equal priority is given to all groups, in a manner similar to the former "separate but equal" doctrine in United States constitutional law.


A well paid "specialist in equality" spits out the most unbelievable non sense in her desperate effort to cover up her support for islamosexism


Listen to this guttural babbling Nicola Dandridge, Chief Executive of Universities UK, vomited in a BBC interview when asked why she doesn't want to defend women's right to sit were they want: 'You're the one who suggests that they don't have the right to sit where they want'. I.e. she actually meant that women's right to sit where they wanted was an infringement against those women who wanted to be segregated!



the whole interview is here


And here some more from the same woman in an other interview:


 Nick Cohen to Nicola Dandridge:

    Why not go further? Why not segregate all lectures at universities? Or as, I said to Dandridge, why not segregate by race?

    Well she replied, Universities UK cannot recommend racial segregation because Parliament has banned it.

    What about speakers insisting that homosexuals sit on one side of a hall and heterosexuals on another?

    Dandridge did not want to see gays singled out, she said. Not in the least.

    ‘What’s your problem with women, then? Why should they come last?’

    ‘Because gender difference is visible.’


Klevius comment: And by 'gender' she stupidly meant e.g. breasts, which do not belong to the gender category at all. You don't call a breast 'she', do you!

Warning to you girls who want to decide over your lives - and let other girls decide over their lives! Watch up for this woman!














Leicester University is one of the world's most sexist universities. You may not believe me but the truth is (an other professor witnessed it) that a female professor, Barbara Misztal, when presented with criticism against islam's rejection of women's full Human Rights via Sharia, said "Why don't you want to let women lead their lives as they wish". Yes, you got it right. She saw the restriction of women's rights as a right! Moreover, she also blamed the messenger for not allowing women to NOT HAVE THEIR FULL RIGHTS!

Barbara Misztal's  female students need to know this, and as usual, it seems that Klevius is the only one daring to really address this ultimate and extremely disastrous and even dangerous sexism.



Sharia sex segregation or Human Rights for girls/women?



In every possible form of Sharia girls/women are forced to lead their lives in sex apartheid of varying degrees. But according to Human Rights every girl/woman has the right to decide herself what kind of life she wants to lead - incl. a sex segregated life if she so wishes.

In islam women and non-muslims are all "infidels", and the only thing that really distinguishes a woman as muslim is her "duty" towards islam to reproduce (physically and/or culturally) as many new muslims as possible - and of course to have the Sharia duty to serve as a sex slave for her muslim husband.

Isn't that funny, muslims need a law to get sex while for me such compulsory sex equals rape!



In John Peters Humprey's world view "infidels" didn't exist


John Peters Humphrey (peace be upon him and Human Rights) is the last prophet of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights - and he is utterly defamated by muslim Humanrightsophobes - yet all the Billions of Human Rights followers take it (too?) calmly.

John Peters Humphrey (who actually existed and who wasn't a pedophile or a murderous scumbag or a fanatic warlord or a terrorist) wrote the first draft of the Universal Human Rights Declaration (peace be upon him and Human Rights).


And finally


It's sex segregation, not gender segregation! It wasn't their gender but their female bodies that were segregated. No one asked them about their gender views before they were seated!

Peter Klevius has relentlessly for a long time tried to point out these stupidities surrounding sex segregation. Take a look at this as a starter:




Thursday, March 14, 2013


Klevius sex and gender tutorial


Klevius quest of the day: What's the difference between the Pope and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg?


Klevius hint: It's all about 'not sameness' and Human Rights! Human Rights IS 'sameness' stupid!


When God was created he was made like Adam.

When the basic idea of Universal Human Rights was created it was made like Adam AND Eve.

And for you who think heterosexual attraction, i.e. that women are sexier than men, could be (exc)used as a reason for depriving women of legal sameness. Please, do think again!And read Klevius Sex and Gender Tutorial below - if you can!




                           The Plan of God


A Cardinal, a Pope and a Justice "from medieval times"





Keith O'Brien has reiterated the Catholic Church's continued opposition to civil partnerships and suggested that there should be no laws that "facilitate" same-sex relationships, which he claimed were "harmful", arguing that “The empirical evidence is clear, same-sex relationships are demonstrably harmful to the medical, emotional and spiritual wellbeing of those involved, no compassionate society should ever enact legislation to facilitate or promote such relationships, we have failed those who struggle with same-sex attraction and wider society by our actions.”

Four male members of the Scottish Catholic clergy  allegedly claim that Keith O'Brien had abused his position as a member of the church hierarchy by making unwanted homosexual advances towards them in the 1980s.

Keith O'Brien criticized the concept of same-sex marriage saying it would shame the United Kingdom and that promoting such things would degenerate society further.


Pope Francis, aka Jorge Bergoglio: Same-sex is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God." He has also insisted that adoption by gay and lesbian people is a form of discrimination against children. This position received a rebuke from Argentine president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who said the church's tone was reminiscent of "medieval times and the Inquisition".




Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: 'Sex' is a dirty word, so let's use 'gender' instead!


Klevius: Let's not!


As previously and repeatedly pointed out by Klevius, the treacherous use of 'gender' instead of 'sex' is not only confusing but deliberately so. So when Jewish Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg proposed gender' as a synonyme for 'sex' (meaning biological sex) she also helped to shut the door for many a young girl's/woman's possibilities to climb outside the gender cage.

The Universal Human Rights declaration clearly states that your biological sex should not be referred to as an excuse for limiting your rights.







Islam (now represented by OIC and its Sharia declaration) is the worst and most dangerous form of sex segregation - no matter in how modern clothing it's presented!


Klevius Sex and Gender Tutorial

What is 'gender' anyway?


(text randomly extracted from some scientific writings by Klevius)


 It might be argued that it is the developing girl, not the grown up woman, who is the most receptive to new experience, but yet is also the most vulnerable. Therefore we need to address the analysis of the tyranny of gender before the point at where it's already too late.  I prefer to use the term ‘female’ instead of ‘woman’ so to include girls, when appropriate in this discussion. I also prefer not to define women in relation to men, i.e. in line with the word 'universal' in the Human Rights Declaration. In short, I propose 'gender blindness' equally as, for example, 'color blindness'. And keep in mind, this has nothing to do with biological differences.

According to Connell (2003:184), it is an old and disreputable habit to define women mainly on the basis of their relation to men. Moreover, this approach may also constitute a possible cause of confusion when compared to a definition of ‘gender’ which emphasizes social relations on the basis of ‘reproductive differences’.

To really grasp the absurdity of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's and others habit of confusing 'gender' with 'sex' one may consider that “normal” girls/women live in the same gender trap tyranny as do transsexuals.

The definition of ‘acquired gender’ is described in a guidance for/about transsexuals as:

Transsexual people have the deep conviction that the gender to which they were assigned at birth on the basis of their physical anatomy (referred to as their “birth gender”) is incorrect. That conviction will often lead them to take steps to present themselves to the world in the opposite gender. Often, transsexual people will undergo hormonal or surgical treatment to bring their physical identity into line with their preferred gender identity.

This evokes the extinction of the feminine or women as directly dependent on the existence of the masculine or men. Whereas the feminine cannot be defined without the masculine, the same applies to women who cannot be defined - only described - without men.

Female footballers, for example - as opposed to feminine footballers, both male and female - are, just like the target group of feminism, by definition distinguished by sex. Although this classification is a physical segregation – most often based on a delivery room assessment made official and not at all taking into account physical size, strength, skills etc. - other aspects of sex difference, now usually called ‘gender’, seem to be layered on top of this dichotomy. This review departs from the understanding that there are two main categories that distinguish females, i.e. the physical sex belonging, for example, that only biological women may participate in a certain competition, and the cultural sex determination, for example that some sports or sporters are less ‘feminine’ than others.

‘Gender’ is synonymous with sex segregation, given that the example of participation on the ground of one’s biological sex is simply a rule for a certain agreed activity and hence not sex segregation in the form of stipulated or assumed separatism. Such sex segregation is still common even in societies which have prescribed to notions of general human freedom regardless of sex and in accordance with Human Rights. This is because of a common consensus that sex segregation is ‘good’ although, as it is seen here, its effects are bad in the long run.

In Durkheim’s (1984: 142) view ‘organized despotism’ is where the individual and the collective consciousness are almost the same. Then sui generis, a new life may be added on to that of the main body. As a consequence, this freer and more independent state progresses and consolidates itself (Durkheim 1984: 284).

However, consensus may also rest on an imbalance that is upheld and may even strengthen precisely as an effect of the initial imbalance. In such a case ‘organized despotism’ becomes the means for conservation. As a consequence, the only alternative would be to ease restrictions, which is something fundamentally different from proposing how people should live their lives. ‘Organized despotism’ in this meaning may apply to gender and to sex segregation as well.

According to Connell (2003) whose confused view may be closer to that of Justice Ginsburg, gender is neither biology, nor a fixed dichotomy, but it has a special relation to the human body mirrored in a ‘general perception’. Cultural patterns do not only mirror bodily differences. Gender is ‘a structure’ of social relations/practices concentrated to ‘the reproductive arena’, and a series of due practices in social processes. That is, gender describes how society relates to the human body, and has due consequences for our private life and for the future of wo/mankind (Connell 2003:21-22). However, the main problem here involves how to talk without gender.

Sex should properly refer to the biological aspects of male and female existence. Sex differences should therefore only be used to refer to physiology, anatomy, genetics, hormones and so forth. Gender should properly be used to refer to all the non‑biological aspects of differences between males and females ‑ clothes, interests, attitudes, behaviors and aptitudes, for example ‑ which separate 'masculine' from 'feminine' life styles (Delamont 1980: 5 in Hargreaves 1994:146).

It seems that 'masculine' and 'feminine’ in this definition of gender is confusingly close to the ‘mystique about their being predetermined by biology’ when compared to the ‘reproductive arena’ and ‘reproductive differences’ in Connell’s definition of gender. However, although gender, according to Connell (2003: 96), may also be ‘removed’ the crucial issue is whether those who are segregated really want to de-sex segregate? As long as the benefits of a breakout are not clearly assessable, the possible negative effects may undermine such efforts.Hesitating to run out through an opened door to the unknown doesn't necessarily mean that you don't want to. Nor does it mean that you have to.

According to Connell (2003:20) the very key to the understanding of gender is not to focus on differences, but, instead, to focus on relations. In fact, this distinction is crucial here because relations, contrary to differences, are mutually dependent. Whatever difference existing between the sexes is meaningless unless it is connected via a relation. On the one hand, big male muscles can hardly be of relational use other than in cases of domestic violence, and on the other hand, wage gaps cannot be identified without a comparative relation to the other sex.

Biological determinism is influential in the general discourse of sports academia (Hargreaves 1994:8). However, what remains to analyze is whether ‘gender’ is really a successful concept for dealing with biological determinism?

‘To explain the cultural at the level of the biological encourages the exaggeration and approval of analyses based on distinctions between men and women, and masks the complex relationship between the biological and the cultural’ (Hargreaves 1994:8).

With another example: to explain the cultural (driver) at the level of the technical (type of car) encourages the exaggeration and approval of analyses based on distinctions between cars, and masks the complex relationship between the car and the driver. However, also the contrary seems to hold true;. that the cultural (driver/gender) gets tied to the technical/biological. The ‘complex relationship’ between the car and the driver is easily avoided by using similar1 cars, hence making the driver more visible. In a sex/gender setting the ‘complex relationship’ between sex and gender is easily avoided by distinguishing between sex and culture2, hence making culture more visible. The term ‘culture’, unlike the term ‘gender’ clearly tries to avoid the ‘complex relationship’ between biology and gender. The ‘complex relationship’ makes it, in fact, impossible to distinguish between them. On top of this comes the ‘gender relation’ confusion, which determines people to have ‘gender relations’, i.e. to be opposite or separate.

This kind of gender view is popular, perhaps because it may serve as a convenient way out from directly confronting the biology/culture distinction, and seems to be the prevalent trend, to the extent that ‘gender’ has conceptually replaced ‘sex’, leading to the consequence that the latter has become more or less self-evident and thus almost beyond scrutiny. In other words, by using ‘gender’ as a sign for ‘the complex relationship between the biological and the cultural’, biological determinism becomes more difficult to access analytically.

The distinction between sex and gender implied in these quotations, however, does not seem to resolve the issue, precisely because it fails to offer a tool for discriminating biological aspects of differences from non-biological ones, i.e. those that are cultural. This is also reflected in everyday life. ‘Folk’ categories of sex and gender often appear to be used as if they were the same thing. Although 'masculine' and 'feminine' are social realities, there is a mystique about their being predetermined by biology. Furthermore the very relational meaning of ‘gender’ seems to constitute a too obvious hiding place for a brand of essentialism based on sex. Apart from being ‘structure’, as noted above, gender is, according to Connell (2003:20), all about relations. However, if there are none - or if the relations are excluding - the concept of sex segregation may be even more useful.

In Connell’s analysis, gender may be removed (Connell 2003:96). In this respect and as a consequence, gender equals sex segregation. In fact it seems that the 'masculine' and 'feminine’, in the definition of gender above, are confusingly close to the ‘mystique about their being predetermined by biology’ when compared to the ‘reproductive arena’ and ‘reproductive differences’ in Connell’s (2003:21) definition of gender. The elusiveness of gender seems to reveal a point of focus rather than a thorough-going conceptualization. So, for example, in traditional Engels/Marx thinking the family’s mediating formation between class and state excludes the politics of gender (Haraway 1991: 131).


What's a Woman?


In What is a Woman? Moi (1999) attacks the concept of gender while still emphasizing the importance of the concept of the feminine and a strong self-conscious (female) subject that combines the personal and the theoretical within it. Moi (1999: 76), hence, seems to propose a loose sex/gender axis resting on a rigid womanhood based on women’s context bound, lived experience outside the realm of men’s experience.

Although I share Moi’s suggestion for abandoning the category of gender, her analysis seems to contribute to a certain confusion and to an almost incalculable theoretical abstraction in the sex/gender distinction because it keeps maintaining sex segregation without offering a convincing defence for it. Although gender, for example, is seen as a nature-culture distinction, something that essentializes non-essential differences between women and men, the same may be said about Moi’s approach if we understand her ‘woman’ as, mainly, the mainstream biological one usually classified (prematurely) in the delivery room. If the sexes live in separate spheres, as Moi’s analysis seems to imply, the lived, contextual experience of women appears as less suitable for pioneering on men’s territory.

This raises the question about whether the opening up of new frontiers for females may demand the lessening or even the absence of femininity (and masculinity). In fact, it is believed here that the ‘liminal state’ where social progression might best occur, is precisely that. Gender as an educated ‘facticity’ then, from this point of view, will inevitably enter into a state of world view that adds itself onto the ‘lived body’ as a constraint.

It is assumed here that we commonly conflate constructs of sex, gender, and sexuality. When sex is defined as the ‘biological’ aspects of male and female, then this conceptualization is here understood as purely descriptive. When gender is said to include social practices organized in relation to biological sex (Connell 1987), and when gender refers to context/time-specific and changeable socially constructed relationships of social attributes and opportunities learned through socialization processes, between women and men, this is also here understood as descriptive. However, when description of gender transforms into active construction of gender, e.g. through secrets about its analytical gain, it subsequently transforms into a compulsory necessity. Gendering hence may blindfold gender-blind opportunities.

In conclusion, if gender is here understood as a social construct, then it is not coupled to sex but to context, and dependent on time. Also it is here understood that every person may possess not only one but a variety of genders. Even if we consider gender to be locked together with the life history of a single individual the above conceptualization makes a single, personal gender impossible, longitudinally as well as contemporaneously. Whereas gender is constructive and deterministic, sex is descriptive and non-deterministic. In this sense, gender as an analytical tool leaves little room for the Tomboy.


The Tomboy - a threat to "femininity"


Noncompliance with what is assumed ‘feminine’ threatens established or presumed sex segregation. What is perceived as ‘masculinity’ or ‘maleness’ in women, as a consequence, may only in second place, target homosexuality. In accordance with this line of thought, the Tomboy embodies both the threat and the possibilities for gendered respectively gender-blind opportunity structures.

The Tomboy is the loophole out of gender relations. Desires revealed through sport may have been with females under the guise of a different identity, such as that of the Tomboy (Kotarba & Held 2007: 163). Girls throw balls ‘like girls’ and do not tackle like boys because of a female perception of their bodies as objects of action (Young 2000:150 cited in Kotarba & Held 2007: 155).

However, when women lacking experience of how to act in an effective manner in sport are taught about how to do, they have no problem performing, quite contrary to explaining shortcomings as due to innate causes (Kotarba & Held 2007: 157). This is also opposite to the experiences of male-to-female transsexuals who through thorough exercise learn how to feminize their movements (Schrock & Boyd 2006:53-55). Although, according to Hargreaves (1994), most separatist sports philosophies have been a reaction to dominant ideas about the biological and psychological predispositions of men and women, supposedly rendering men 'naturally suited to sports, and women, by comparison, essentially less suited (Hargreaves 1994:29-30), the opposite may also hold true. Separatism per definition needs to separate and this separation is often based on biological differences, be it skin colour, sex or something else.

From this perspective, the Tomboy would constitute a theoretical anomaly in a feminine separatist setting. Although her physical body would possibly qualify as feminine, what makes her a Tomboy would not.

The observation that in mixed playgrounds, and in other areas of the school environment, boys monopolize the physical space (Hargreaves 1994:151) may lack the additional notion that certain boys dominate and certain boys do not. Sports feminists have 'politicized' these kinds of experience by drawing connections between ideas and practice (Hargreaves 1994:3) but because of a separatist approach may exclude similar experience among parts of the boys. Moreover, a separatist approach is never waterproof and may hence leak Tomboy girls without a notion.


Femininity and feminism


Feminism and psychoanalysis as oppressors

According to Collier and Yanagisako (1987), Henrietta Moore (1994) and other feminist anthropologists, patriarchal dominance is an inseparable socially inherited part of the conventional family system. This implicit suggestion of radical surgery does not, however, count on unwanted secondary effects neither on the problem with segregated or non-segregated sex-worlds. If, in other words, oppression is related to gender segregation rather than patriarchy, or perhaps that patriarchy is a product of sex segregation, then there seems to be a serious problem of intellectual survival facing feminists themselves (Klevius in Angels of Antichrist 1996). If feminism1 is to be understood as an approach and/or analytical tool for separatism2, those feminists and others who propose not only analytical segregation but also practical segregation, face the problem of possible oppression inherent in this very segregation (Klevius 1994, 1996). In this sense oppression is related to sex segregation in two ways:

1. As a means for naming it (feminism) for an analytical purpose.
2. As a social consequence or political strategy (e.g. negative bias against, for example, female football or a separatist strategy for female football).

It is notable that the psychoanalytic movement has not only been contemporary with feminism, but it has also followed (or led) the same pattern of concern and proposed warnings and corrections that has marked the history of ‘feminism’ in the 20th century. According to S. Freud, the essence of the analytic profession is feminine and the psychoanalyst ‘a woman in love’ (L. Appignanesi & J. Forrester 1992:189). But psychoanalytically speaking, formalized sex and sex segregation also seem to have been troublesome components in the lives of female psychoanalysts struggling under a variety of assumed, but irreconcilable femininities and professional expectations.

In studying the history of feminism one inevitable encounters what is called ‘the women’s movement’. While there is a variety of different feminisms, and because the borders between them, as well as to what is interpreted as the women’s rights movement, some historians, incl. Klevius, question the distinction and/or methods in use for this distinction.

However, it could also be argued that whereas the women’s rights movement may be distinguished by its lack of active separatism within the proposed objectives of the movement, feminism ought to be distinguished as a multifaceted separatist movement based on what is considered feminine values, i.e. what is implied by the very word ‘feminism’3. From this perspective the use of the term ‘feminism’ before the last decades of the 19th century has to be re-evaluated, as has every such usage that does not take into account the separatist nature underpinning all feminisms worth carrying the name. Here it is understood that the concept ‘feminism’, and its derivatives, in every usage implies a distinction based on separating the sexes - e.g. addressing inequality or inequity - between male and female (see discussion above). So although ’feminism’ and ‘feminisms’ would be meaningless without such a separation, the ‘women’s rights movement’, seen as based on a distinct aim for equality with men in certain legal respects, e.g. the right to vote, could be described as the opposite, i.e. de-sex segregation, ‘gender blindness’ etc.

As a consequence the use of the word feminism in a context where it seems inappropriate is here excepted when the authors referred to have decided to do so. The feminist movement went back to Mary Wollstonecraft and to some French revolutionaries of the end of the eighteenth century, but it had developed slowly. In the period 1880 to 1900, however, the struggle was taken up again with renewed vigour, even though most contemporaries viewed it as idealistic and hopeless. Nevertheless, it resulted in ideological discussions about the natural equality or non-equality of the sexes, and the psychology of women. (Ellenberger 1970: 291-292).

Not only feminist gynocentrists, but also anti-feminist misogynists contributed with their own pronouncements on the woman issue. In 1901, for example, the German psychiatrist Moebius published a treatise, On the Physiological Imbecility of Woman, according to which, woman is physically and mentally intermediate between the child and man (see Ellenberger 1970:292). However, according to the underlying presumption of this thesis, i.e. that the borders between gynocentrism and misogyny are not well understood, these two approaches are seen as more or less synonymous. Such a view also confirms with a multitude of points in common between psychoanalysis and feminism. As was argued earlier, the main quality of separatism and ‘complementarism’ is an insurmountable border, sometimes contained under the titles: love, desire etc.







Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Human evolution went in to Africa - not out from!


New data forces Klevius to distance himself even more from Africa



Background

In northern Spain a 400,000 year old Neanderthal like skeleton (Sima de los Huesos) has revealed mtDNA that links it to Denisovan in Siberia (see below). This finding has confused anthropologists - except for Klevius whose basic theory just gets stronger.

This is a reconstruction of Homo floresiensis. However, do correct for bigger eyes and remember we don't have a clue about how the nose looked like.

Unfortunately we missed the opportunity to get DNA because of islam and its backwardness. Floresiensis was found on Flores which belongs to muslim Indonesia. Their then "anthropologist" in chief, Teuku Jakob, made sure Western scientists weren't allowed to take DNA before he destroyed the very possibility.

Many species in the primate evolution have developed nocturnal capabilities. Were Homo floresiensis big eyes part of this?




Here's what Klevius wrote some time ago about one of the most prominent out of Africa babblers, i.e. someone whose bias hinders and obscures true scientific discoveries. This new finding is truly a hard slap in Springer's face. But that won't stop BBC and others too listen to his gallimatias.

And yes, Africa is extremely interesting, not the least the Congo river delta that we know almost nothing about so far. It will certainly reveal astonishing evolutionary findings in the future. However, today there's absolutely nothing else than bias that points to Africa as the birthplace of modern humans!

Thursday, March 14, 2013


Oxford "scientists" opinion about non-existing brain areas


Ants are some of the most social creatures on the planet. And they do have big eyes. Is Oxford evolving towards a huge ant-heap (steered by the ultimate racist/sexist totalitarian social tool Sharia)?!


There's a childish proposal, eagerly consumed by stupid media, that Neanderthals died out because they used too much of their brains for vision. And Klevius is eagerly waiting for John Hawks' comment on it.

Moreover, to understand why the whole concept of "vision areas in the brain" is complete nonsense please do read EMAH (The Even More Astonishing Hypothesis). The "vision area" could be used to whatever. Moreover, vision isn't "vision" in any particular sense but just part of information which together with all saved information results in an awareness tied to the immediate now that we tend to call "vision".




One eye of the Tarsier above is the size of its entire brain. So what about the one to the right?


Professor Chris Stringer: 'Our study provides a more direct approach by estimating how much of their brain was allocated to cognitive functions, including the regulation of social group size; a smaller size for the latter would have had implications for their level of social complexity and their ability to create, conserve and build on innovations.'

Professor Robin Dunbar: ‘Having less brain available to manage the social world has profound implications for the Neanderthals’ ability to maintain extended trading networks, and are likely also to have resulted in less well developed material culture – which, between them, may have left them more exposed than modern humans when facing the ecological challenges of the Ice Ages.’


Klevius tired and yawning comment: Floresiensis!



Btw, if "friendship" had been a factor in the hunting gathering groups based on kinship before civilization then they would have instead gathered armies. And that's precisely what we have seen, namely a striking lack of organized hunter-gather armies. Who would have been a "friend" in the sparsely populated community where everyone was already related? Rapes and other attacks on lonely individuals or small groups certainly occured but organized warfare is a very late invention. Actually much later than the peak of human intelligence.

Alternatively, we need to re-conceptualize 'hunter-gather' or 'friendship'.





Higher ape/hominid evolution in continental Africa vs. island SE Asia

Already before the discovery of Homo floresiensis Klevius thought a good "pygmy" brain slowly traveled to the protein rich but cold north while increasing in size and capabilities. After the discovery (2004) of the apelike and extremely small brained but smart Homo floresiensis in southern Indonesia nothing except M130 connected anything to Africa anymore. And when the Denisovan was discovered in Siberia at the same place as the hitherto most sophisticated early artifact ever found (Denisova bracelet - see below) the picture seemed quite clear. There are only two possible places for equatorial evolution of hominids, either Africa or SE Asia. And because SE Asian archipelago offers the by far best combination of jungle isolation and changing barriers it seems that floresiensis (and similar populations) should have been equally expected as the dwarfed elephants they hunted.



So when a floresiensis like population managed to escape to mainland Asia they started mixing with local Homo erectus all the way up ontil they met with the northern Neanderthals and there created what became the truly modern humans.


M130

Sima de los Huesos, Floresiensis and Denisovan

may have all originated in SE Asia


Do note the lack of chin in these as well as in the 26,000 bp Venus of Brassempouy. Also note that we don't know the shape of Floresiensis' nose. That's why Klevius removed it from the Sima de los Huesos skull above as well.




The Sima sample exhibits a number of features that are shared with Neanderthals but not African fossil humans, and are rare in recent humans.

Later Neanderthals do not have the same diversity as earlier Neanderthals in western Europe, while central Asian Neanderthals have more diversity than those from Europe. This may indicate that Neanderthals were more numerous in western or central Asia.

The Denisovan nuclear DNA is also closer to Neanderthals than the Denisovan mtDNA.

Sima de los Huesos is closely related to the lineage leading to mitochondrial genomes of Denisovans.

The Denisovan-heidelbergensis clade split about 800kya-900 kya (around the time of the oldest stone tools on the island of Flores where floresiensis was found) is older than the modern human-Neanderthal split. Non-African Homo has an Erectus connection, a Denisovan-heidelbergensis connection, as well as a Neanderthal connection.





See here what Klevius wrote about political bias on the subject:

Saturday, April 21, 2012


How political correctness blurs science


Michigan University feeds their students with this misleading map which is at odds with everything we now know about the traces of truly modern intelligent humans.Nothing on the map shows the cultural explosion from Altai to Western Europe that constituted the birth of humans as we now understand it. Homo floresiensis was capable of using fire and making stone tools etc with a chimp-sized+ brain. As did Homo erectus and others with much bigger brains. And despite some local varieties all Homos until M173 were incapable of making any significant breakthrough in the archeological records. Only when a more sophisticated (better packed) brain was poured into the biggest ever human skull (the northern Neanderthal) did truly intelligent humans emerge.Relative to its time the most impressive ever cultural explosion took place between Altai and the Pyrenees during 40,000-18,000 years along the M173 path until genetic "dilution" lowered intelligence to what we have today. 























Klevius comment: In fact, the map would fit quite well, not to describe human evolution but rather (except for Australia and the north eastern line) islamic slavery atrocities during 1400 years. What it shows is Koranic slave trade routes. Political correctness hence involuntary reveals its own source namely that islam is so bad so it has to be defended from open scrutiny for whatever price.

Compare that to the stunning agreement of genes (Denisova/Neanderthal) and culture (art) in the northern part of this map



We have no clue whatsoever how M168 and M130 looked like. And even if we did we still would need cultural artifacts etc. to assess their level of intelligence. Nor do we know if the new tighter CPU came from Africa or Southeast Asia (Floresiensis type? - remember that the main objection was that its brain was "too small" for achieving what it did). And M89 and M9 may be just traces of back and forth gene flow as described by Klevius. M130 may well have been a bipedal but dumb "ape-man" who hybridized with clever apes in Southeast Asia.

Or is M130, in fact, nothing more than the rest product of those who never met with northern Neanderthals on their way out of Southeast Asia?



We have no clue whatsoever how M168 and M130 looked like. Nor do we know if the new brain came from Africa or Southeast Asia, i.e. was the Floresiensis type really able to walk the M130 line? And if the ape brain came from Africa, why didn't it affect the culture of relatively big skulled (compare Hofmeyr) African Homos? And M89 and M9 may be just traces of back and forth gene flow as described by Klevius. M130 may well have been a bipedal but dumb "ape-man" who hybridized with clever apes in Southeast Asia.

Or is M130, in fact, nothing more than the rest product of those who never met with northern Neanderthals on their way out of Southeast Asia?

The above also explains the distribution of mongoloid traits. Cold adapted Denisova/Red Deer Cave type laid the basis for mongoloid features and after meeting northern Neanderthals and due creation of modern humans the back migration/hybridization left (mainly) Caucasoids (what Klevius call the grey "bastard belt" on the map below) to the West and Mongoloids to the East.



















This sophisticated bracelet from Altai/Siberia represents the hereto most advanced early artifact ever found.  It was located nearby the non-human "Denisovan".

















.