The world's main problem is US militarism - which is ultimately directed against China (US "enemy" because China challenges US stolen $), which constitutes the rest of the world's best asset. So why add insult to injury by agitating for more threat and less peace?!

The US led dumb warmongers in UK Tories thought it was a good idea to secure more militarism via compulsory conscription. And even if Labor wins, it will put more militaristic pressure on them as well, was the thinking.

So Peter Klevius asks how democratic this suugestion is considering that people who don't like it has no real choice in the election. Moreover, how wise is it for UK to be more militaristic when there's no other chance that England should be attacked - except when other countries feel England is threatening them? A self-fulfilling prophecy!

In a world divided into an aggressive, destructive and now desperate (and therefore extremely dangerous) US led camp, and an other peaceful trade and infrastructure buildup camp led by China that has no reason whatsoever to disturb peace, the choice seems easy - except for dumb (or worse) militaristic Tories.

Western "democracy" - because of US dollar theft 1971 - is heading towards an authoritarian anti-meritocratic dictatorship cliff edge.

In the heart of EU compulsory voting (for something you may dislike) is already proposed, and if you don't vote you're fined and if you repeat to not vote you're removed from your "democratic rights". Moreover, if your preferred party doesn't fit the US controlled ruling political coterie elite, then it will face enormous headwind - and even might be hindered altogether to participate in the "democratic process".

This direction inevitably ends up in open political dictatorship that is only "democratic" in name only.

Why you can trust your rock solid unbiased intellectual servant Peter Klevius against academic charlatans - just one example from the top of the iceberg:

Afropologist John Hawks trying to explain away how the most important fossil ever found (Homo floresiensis) managed to come from Africa over the Wallace line to Flores in SE Asia: "Is it hard to imagine that a medium-sized mammal species, which relies on foraging across 100 square kilometers or more for high-energy foods, would be aware of islands that are in sight? When you look at these places in island Southeast Asia with early hominin activity, ancient sea levels were much lower and all these islands are one or two small hops across narrow straits. Palawan is an island between Borneo and the Philippines, and today these water crossings are hundreds of kilometers, but in the past they may have been as narrow as ten kilometers. That’s not very far to imagine hominin individuals making crossings, if they were already playing with very basic ways of crossing rivers and using near-beach water resources. When it comes to colonizing a new island, it is the exceptional that matters. In fact, if crossings were regular, island populations could never evolve to be very different from nearby mainland populations. It is the very fact that crossing is rare that allows island adaptations to emerge after the population is established."

Anthropologist Peter Klevius question to Afropologist John Hawks: So how could humans ever have evolved in Africa?!

On the "extremely normal" and unbiased Peter Klevius thousands of blog posts and other writings you can never find such stupid reasoning as John Hawks above! And John Hawks isn't a nobody in the academic world of anthropology. Although he hasn't made any discoveries on his own, he (both 'John' and 'Hawks' are very common names) pops up first on the web even without any additional search word(s) - see below.

Peter Klevius wrote:

Friday, April 17, 2020

Peter Klevius anthropological quiz to Afropologists: Anything peculiar with this map?

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.

Apparent stupidity lecture by a Harvard professor

However, Peter Klevius thinks this stupidity is derived from his ignorance about human evolution. However, the fact that he uses the map below is unforgivable.

Professor Christopher A. Walsh lectures on Genes, Cognition, and Human Brain Evolution, Oct 10, 2018.

Peter Klevius hint: It's a long way to Australia from Africa - and over the Wallace line. But a short walking path to e.g. Europe.

Peter Klevius wrote:

Friday, March 27, 2020

No human, antelope or gelada/baboon evolution in Africa - only hybridization and phenotyping.

Svante Pääbo (Max Planck Institute) thinks something happened with human intelligence some 50,000 bp. Peter Klevius has since 2010-2012 stated that this was due to 1) a new brain setup from the cradle of evolution, i.e. SE Asian volatile archipelago (see postings below) which 2) then entered the mainland and filled big skulled northern Homos (compare art and dna from the Denisova cave).

Peter Klevius reminder to other anthropologists (and especially to afropologists): Earth isn't flat anymore!

The insane idea that a moving target like Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo sapiens etc. could have been hiding on the Eurasian peninsula called Africa for some million years to reach speciation, will become the laughing stock of future anthropologists.

Everyone agrees that antelopes came out of Eurasia into Africa. However, because baboons have become sort of a love child of afropologists as a model for the senseless "human evolution in Africa", it's stubbornly and without any real foundation argued that baboons evolved there. But the very fact that all baboons are so similar and frequently hybridize, should have been a crispy clear warning signal - especially considering geladas in
Spain and India, and the much more plausible evolutionary connection to SE Asia.

Peter Klevius: Do realize that India and the rest of South Asia constitute a black hole for fossils - while East Africa is the very opposite where e.g. the continuous cracking up of the Rift Valley places fossils on a smorgosboard with the oldest in the northern parts of Africa. However, quantity of fossils doesn't prove origin, nor does DNA from (Mongoloid looking) modern people prove where their genetic ancestors lived hundreds of thousand years ago.

Peter Klevius wrote:

Sunday, March 22, 2020

Big Afropological words from a big (on the web) "Piltdown man" - with a PC dwarfed brain?

Afropologist John Hawks: "Humans and fossil hominins, we know today, are closer to chimpanzees and gorillas than any of them are to orangutans." Anthropologist Peter Klevius: ?!

To spread unfounded guesswork outside ones "expertice" is usually called charlatanism. John Hawks lacks expertice on most of his fanciful conclusions. And it seems that he lacks brain power enough for a multidisciplinary connecting of evolutionary dots. Btw, do realize that Homo floresiensis LB1 on the pic is an adult female.

Anthropologist Peter Klevius: Why orangutans?! Is it because he sees orangutans as a problem in the great ape family? It would have been so much easier if orangutans didn't exist in SE Asia. However, John Hawks is much more related to Homo floresiensis than to chimps. But his "explanation" to how Homo floresiensis "travelled from Africa to Flores" wouldn't impress a 3-year old. Moreover, John Hawks "explanation" in fact completely counteracts his own out-of-Africa sermon.

Afropologist John Hawks: "Is it hard to imagine that a medium-sized mammal species, which relies on foraging across 100 square kilometers or more for high-energy foods, would be aware of islands that are in sight? When you look at these places in island Southeast Asia with early hominin activity, ancient sea levels were much lower and all these islands are one or two small hops across narrow straits. Palawan is an island between Borneo and the Philippines, and today these water crossings are hundreds of kilometers, but in the past they may have been as narrow as ten kilometers. That’s not very far to imagine hominin individuals making crossings, if they were already playing with very basic ways of crossing rivers and using near-beach water resources. When it comes to colonizing a new island, it is the exceptional that matters. In fact, if crossings were regular, island populations could never evolve to be very different from nearby mainland populations. It is the very fact that crossing is rare that allows island adaptations to emerge after the population is established."

Anthropologist Peter Klevius question to Afropologist John Hawks: So how could humans ever have evolved in Africa?!

The hoax Piltdown man moved to Africa - while the real Flores lady is called "a Hobbit".

Peter Klevius thanks two ladies, Jinniushan (1992) and Floresiensis (2004), for leading him out of his out-of-Africa delusion.

The use of tools, fire etc. is of no importance for the overall picture. It's the modern features of the skull and the ape like, yet fully bipedal, postcranial features, found on an island on the wrong side of the Wallace line that makes any evolutionary theory based on out-of-Africa simply laughable. It took Piltdown man many decades to be accepted as a hoax among "mainstream anthropologists". How long will it take before "mainstream anthropologists" accept that the out-of-Africa castle is buit on sand?

Homo floresiensis fits perfectly as an outlier in Peter Klevius SE Asian volatile island/mainland scheme where primates evolved over monkeys to apes and homos. SE Asia has produced a variety of evolutionary forms of which most have spread over the Afro-Eurasian continent, mixing/hybridizing with previous ones.

Islam is again hampering science - but when you prove it then you aren't considered believable (sic) anymore.

Peter Klevius wrote on Science Blogs 2005 and was immediately attacked by islam defenders:

A stunning photo that really makes one think abt M130 and brain qualities (regardless of size)!
OK that put aside this is all about protecting Islam and yes, Teuku Jacob is a crypto-creationist in line with the usual balancing between fundamentalism and an Islam that pretends being modern (By the way, Australia has already a law making it impossible to critisize Islam!).
Take a look at Out of Africa as Pygmies and back as global "Mongoloids". Maybe the Hobbit represents the first OOA-delivey of a more wrinkled brain that later replaced all the other?

"OK that put aside this is all about protecting Islam and yes, Teuku Jacob is a crypto-creationist in line with the usual balancing between fundamentalism and an Islam that pretends being modern"
At least try to have an ounce of real evidence beyond someone's ethnicity if you are going to make wild accusations like this. If he was a Creationist he would've arranged for Duane Gish or William Dembski to analyze the bones, not Alan Thorne and Maciej Henneberg*.
*http://www.corante.com/loom/archives/2005/02/24/return_of_the_prodigal_…

By Jason Malloy (not verified) on 25 Jun 2005 #permalink
However, today the situation remains. DNA extraction from Homo floresiensis is forbidden by Indonesia - and the only reason is the same as with Teuku Jakob, i.e. that the very mix of ape and human like fatures doesn't fit islam's crypto-creationism. Sad, isn't it?

Anthropologist Peter Klevius wrote:

Sunday, May 19, 2019

The "out of Africa" hoax is worse than the Piltdown hoax - and much bigger and more worrisome.

Peter Klevius asks whether there has ever been a more laughable "theory" than the silly "out of Africa" one? Flat Earth (supported by the Vatican) and NASA hiding our second Sun, come close though. And if any African takes offence for this Western pseudoscience, then it just proves that no one is safe against fake science. When does Klevius get accused of "out of Africa-phobia"?

Homo naledi was thought to have had shut up for some millions of years but sadly turned out to be a very recent fellow. The fact is that Africa (like Europe) lies in the wrong end of the Afro-Euroasiatic continent, and African "diversity" is similar to what you expect to find in a dump - not in a factory.

Why is our real* ancestor "mother" from SE Asia called a sick hobbit while an African ape fossil was named Lucy (actually a quite appropriate name for this LSD fog) and the "mother" of humankind?

* As Klevius has always argued since he knew about it (2004), Homo floresiensis on Flores was stuck behind the Wallace line and therefore not directly connected as such. However, Klevius point is that she represents an evolutionary stage that was widespread on both sides of the Wallace line but where those to the north developed further thanks to repeated contact and hybridization with mainland Asia. A scenario where Lucy swims to Flores over the Wallace line and there develops to a fire using, tool making skilled hunter with a globular brain and modern teeth is completely out of question for any sensible mind - except apparently for "out of Africa" sectarians. But for Homo floresiensis-like creatures to the north of the Wallace line there has been many possibilities to reach Africa without crossing water. The whole of primate evolution is centered in SE Asia from the very scratch. And as the volatile SE Asian archipelago seems to have been the perfect evolutionary laboratory for primates - you don't really need Klevius intelligence to connect the most obvious dots, do you. Try to imagine an evolutionary volatile island world, repeatedly connected and disconnected with each other and with the mainland. Spice it with climate changes that keep it tropical but also offers a range of different elevations due to existing mountain slopes etc. Then add repeated island dwarfing, extended bipedalism and hybridization. And if you still didn't get the picture, at least you may realize the complexities and evolutionary niches and opportunities it offers - quite the opposite to the African (or other) continent. Whereas true evolution needs protected niches, hybridization dilutes through gene flow. So Homo floresiensis got a better organized brain due to island evolution - but needed to come out from it so to be able to spread the brain gene(s) to its previous kins who had already become better bipedals precisely because of previous land connections. In fact, Klevius thinks this evolutionary pattern has been going on throughout most (maybe all) primate evolution to monkeys/apes/hominines. The pattern in Africa fits perfectly in Klevius out of Eurasia theory. Klevius admits being embarrassingly stupid because of how long he tried to cling to the African savannah and bipedal apes scenario. He should have skipped it already 2004 when he first heard about Homo floresiensis. There you see how even intelligent and free scientists can be trapped in an overwhelming bias fog - only excuse being Klevius scientific method of bias hunting sometimes causes severe allergic reactions. So in summary, whereas the oldest (and "puzzling") out of "Africa "evidence" is based on fossils on the corner closest to Asia and DNA from now living mongoloid African natives, SE Asia offers a non-puzzling relief.

A multi-regional Wallacea-Sundaland may explain a lot.

The Orangutan is earlier on the ape tree than any African ape, and possesses many dental etc. traits pointing towards more flexible relatives when it comes to environment.

The Makassar Straits opened sometimes during mid Eocene. Phylogenetic analysis suggests that Afrasia and Afrotarsius are sister taxa within a basal anthropoid clade designated as the infraorder Eosimiiformes. Current knowledge of eosimiiform relationships and their distribution through space and time suggests that members of this clade dispersed from Asia to Africa sometime during the middle Eocene, shortly before their first appearance in the African fossil record. Crown anthropoids and their nearest fossil relatives do not appear to be specially related to Afrotarsius, suggesting one or more additional episodes of dispersal from Asia to Africa. Hystricognathous rodents, anthracotheres, and possibly other Asian mammal groups seem to have colonized Africa at roughly the same time or shortly after anthropoids gained their first toehold there. Also compare India colliding with Asia.

The oldest hominids in Africa were all near the Bab el Mandeb land bridge to Asia - except for the oldest (Toumai) which died in what is now mid-Sahara but back then a rich valley connected to Europe over a then dry Mediterranean.

Toumai was actually a later copy of similar European fossils.

And why is it that Peter Klevius has had the best adapted and published analyses about human evolution since 1992 (see below), and that his views always have been contrary to the field although they have later always been confirmed? Although Peter Klevius* would love to lick it up as due only to his intelligence, the fact is that this intelligence would have meant nothing was it not for Peter Klevius* lucky position of not being bound by bias to the same extent as others in the field.

Although Peter Klevius* would love to lick it up as due only to his intelligence, the fact is that this intelligence would have meant nothing was it not for Peter Klevius* lucky position of not being bound by bias to the same extent as others in the field.

* Peter Klevius writes 'Peter Klevius' precisely so to remind all citation fantasts about the fact that they can cite Peter Klevius and therefore contribute to enlighten some dark corners of the field who would otherwise have no idea about the existence of better analyses. And always remember, Peter Klevius is a defender of your Human Rights and against those who try to protect islamofascism from scrutiny and criticism. So don't let a fascist "islamophobia" smear campaign against Human Rights divert you.

However, the very fact that the Piltdown hoax was created by a specialist in the field and that it corresponded to wishful thinking among "scholars", should be taken very seriously as a warning. Out of Africa is a similar hoax although it's even more "patched" by stretching concepts over their limits, using quantity and lack of quantity as proof, using modern DNA as proof of evolution in Africa hundreds of thousands and millions of years ago, political correctness, muslim oil money etc. - plus a bit of what could be described as essentially racist pity for a backward Africa that was devastated by 1,400 years of islamic slave raiding and trading.

The area of exposed land in Sundaland has fluctuated considerably during the past recent 2 million years.

Greater portions of Sundaland were most recently exposed during the last glacial period from approximately 110,000 to 12,000 years ago. When sea level was decreased by 30–40 meters or more, land bridges connected the islands of Borneo, Java, and Sumatra to the Malay Peninsula and mainland Asia. Because sea level has been 30 meters or more lower throughout much of the last 800,000 years, the current state of Borneo, Java, and Sumatra as islands has been a relatively rare occurrence throughout the Pleistocene. In contrast, sea level was higher during the late Pliocene, and the exposed area of Sundaland was smaller than what is observed at present. During the Last Glacial Maximum sea level fell by approximately 120 meters, and the entire Sunda Shelf was exposed.

The skulls found in Europe (Iberia/Sima de los Huesos) are more than 100,000 years older than the Moroccan fossils - which moreover are on the "wrong side of Africa".

In the face of "out of Africa" sectarians: The so called "oldest anatomically modern human" (Irhoud, Morocco) was actually quite primitive.

In contrast to their partially modern facial morphology, the Irhoud crania
retain a primitive overall shape of the brain-case and endocast, that
is, unlike those of recent modern humans.

There exists no genetic evidence whatsoever that supports "out pf Africa" - simply because we lack old enough DNA from sub-Saharan Africa. Oldest African DNA came from Eurasia.

It's all circumstantial and centered around its initial out of Africa presumption, i.e. not scientific at all.

Moreover, Africans with the oldest DNA, the Khoisan (e.g. San people), are light-skinned and cold adapted, i.e. mongoloid, and the oldest sub-Saharan skull is unrelated and younger than Eurasian globular skulls. Also compare the remarkable Liujiang skull (see below).

However, cold adaptation makes much more sense in Eurasia.

Afro-centrism is all over the place. So for example, is it said that monkeys swam or rafted some 1,800 km to South America rather than taking the natural way between South and North America. We don't know when or how this could have happened exactly, but we do know for sure that it would have been much easier. And the lineage to monkeys was certainly already there.

And no one knows anything about the evolution of African apes - yet they are constantly used as "evidence". So out of Africa random cherry picking ought to be contrasted with Klevius smaller quantity but much more crucial findings (Jinniushan, Liujiang, Homo floresiensis, Denisovan etc.) perfectly located in an overarching theory.

Good scientific theories ought to be able to predict future finds. Klevius "mongoloid" line of theory since 1992 seems to have fulfilled this criterion quite well, and probably even more so in the future. As Klevius stated some ten years ago

What puzzles Klevius right now is how to place Pygmies and Negritos relative to Khoisan, Shompen and South American natives. However, Klevius will be back when he gets just a little more info from the secretive rooms of anthropology.

However, what puzzles Peter Klevius even more is the silence from the field. Have they found more stuff in line with Klevius analysis and don't know how to present it?!

Btw, here's Demand for Resources (Resursbegär 1992, ISBN 9173288411), recommended reading for Greta Thunberg and all her supporters. It's originally written in Swedish and published in Sweden. If you can't find it anywhere else, then ask the Royal Library in Stockholm.

Why trust Peter Klevius?

No financial ties. No academic ties. No religious ties. Super intelligent. Best analysis on "consciousness", sex segregation, human evolution, and Human Rights - not to mention that Peter Klevius was the first to correctly analyze the origin of Vikings as a bilingual "Finland-Swedish" phenomenon triggered by the establishment of the Abbasid slave caliphate and its hunger for white sex slave girls - so to keep their lineages lighter than the non-Arab "infidel" Africans. The only one on the planet that can show an uninterrupted line of the, in retrospective, best possible published analyses after new discoveries - and much less "surprises" than the "mainstream academic field" seems to be filled with. Never heard about Peter Klevius? No wonder because he's rarely cited. And that should worry you. University research and news media are biased in line with their political and/or religious sponsors. So when Wikipedia demands "citations", and adds that they should be from "news media" or "scholars", then you're practically excluded from really good unbiased information. Moreover, serious scientific analysis outside these channels then often gets deliberately pushed to a domain filled with alien hunters and creationist nut heads - making it even harder for you to find relevant info.

Klevius could continue elaborate on his theory for you but he's lazy and not paid, so why not ask in comments. The way this posting is shaped has all to do with targeting deep bias in the field while simultaneously spread some relevant facts to people with less understanding of the problems - and therefore an easy target for PC fake academic "science" - not to mention alien conspiracy "alchemists" etc.

This pic has since 2012 always come up top on a 'klevius' search on Google. Back then Peter Klevius still cowardly hesitated to skip the African savanna from the formula.

Search This Blog

In a future when less than ever "boots on the ground" are needed, conscription is just a means to brainwash and militarize young minds to "defend" US criminal (since 1971) "world order" $-hegemony "values" in the name of "national cohesion amd security".