Negative Human Rights for a Positive Human Future

Definition of Negative Human Rights - i.e. the very foundation of the freedom part of the anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948.

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".

Klevius to Mueller (who opposed investigation of Saudi 9/11): Check Saudi connections/influence!

Is the islamofascist Saudi dictator "prince" Mohammad bin Salman the world's most dangerous man?

Is the islamofascist Saudi dictator "prince" Mohammad bin Salman the world's most dangerous man?
Is the islamofascist Saudi dictator "prince" Mohammad bin Salman the world's most dangerous man?

Is Mrs Theresa May digging a miserable "British" sharia "empire" under the Brexit cliff?

Mrs May plays sharia with the islamofascist Saudi dictator family - skipping Human Rights. Right?

Saudi islamofascism attacks Buddhists - again and again - backed by Mrs May.

When will the world finally turn on the hateful Saudi dictator family - rather than on its victims?

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses while FEEding Lnd

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses while FEEding Lnd
The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses over you

How an organization of islamic crimes (OIC) violates Human Rights

The Viking phenomenon started with bilingual Finns raiding/trading sex slaves to Abbasid (ca 750)

Human Rights is diversity - sharia is the opposite

The evil of Sharia islam is what makes it incompatible with Negative Human Rights (i.e. why islamic OIC violates Human Rights by replacing them with Sharia, hence excluding women and non-muslims from equality). The evil of islam and its origin may be easier to grasp with historical examples, e.g. the Origin of Vikings.

It's racism and sexism even if proposed by a "god"! Klevius altruistic virtual volunteering for the world community in defense of Universal Human Rights . Yes, I know, it's unfair. Klevius vs islam, i.e. Universal Human Rights vs Sharia (OIC) racism/sexism! Of course Klevius will win. The question is just how long we should allow the dying beast to make people suffer. (Negative) Human Rights is not a ”Western” invention! It’s where you end up when you abandon racism and sexism, idiot! After you have abandoned islam! Your confused islamophilia and ignorance about Human Rights make YOU an accomplice to islam's crimes! Whereas Human Rights work as egalitarian and universal traffic rules (no matter who you are or what you drive you have the same rights as everyone else) islam/Sharia differs between muslim men and the rest (women and "infidels")!

Ask yourself, why can't racist islam (OIC) accept Human Rights? The answer reveals the difference between totalitarianism and freedom. And even if everyone converted to islam we'd still have Sharia sexism.
Have you noticed that when the history of slavery is (PC) debated islam is always excluded/excused? Atlantic slave trade and Roman slaves are eagerly mentioned while the world's by far worst, longest and most extensive one is blinked, as is the fact that islam not only sanctions slavery but is itself built on slavery and sex slavery (rapetivism)! The core idea of islam is the most thoroughly elaborated parasitism ever, i.e. what in 1400 yrs has made it the by far worst crime ever. But thanks to islamic teachings muslims are kept extremely ignorant about the evil origin of islam (institutionalized parasitism based on slave finance, rapetivism and pillage). Ohlig: The first two "islamic" centuries lie in the shadows of history. Klevius: There was no islam or islamic Mohammad (that's why the Saudis have levelled Mohammad's "grave" etc), only the evil murdering, pillaging and raping Aramaic-Arabic Jewish("Christian") led illiterate Arab thugs chasing for booty and sex. The "success" of this formula became later institutionalized and codified as a one way (Koran/Sharia) moral excuse (Allah) for further racist/sexist genocides. The bedrock and currency of this system was racist slavery. However, with Enlightenment the new idea of individual (negative) Human Rights emerged (incl. abolishing of slavery) and were, much later (1948), written down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights according to which everyone is equal no matter of sex, beliefs etc. Just like in traffic! But unlike traffic rules no one really seems to care about guarding our most precious asset as human beings. Instead racist sexist islamofascism (OIC and the Cairo Sharia declaration) is protected by Human Rights while they strive to undermine and eventually destroy these Human Rights! And most people don't seem to get it. Always remember, there is no islam without Human Rights violating racist/sexist Sharia. So a "vote" for Sharia-islam is AGAINST democracy and the freedom part of Human Rights!

Sayeeda Warsi (UK's non-elected OIC/Sharia politician) in essence doesn't differ from those muslim Saudi women who approve of sex slavery etc, other than that she is either ignorant or a traitor (against democracy and Human Rights) of the worst kind.

We're all born unequal - that's why we need Human Rights, not islam!

Audi then built by Jewish slaves - today dangerous quality problems

Myth vs Truth

Japan's Hayabusa landed and returned to Earth many years before Europe's Rosetta failed to do so.

Tuesday, February 05, 2013

Why are you lying, Svante Pääbo?!


Svante Paabo: "In the West there were Neanderthals, in the East there were Denisovans, maybe other forms of humans too that we've not yet described. The modern humans emerged somewhere in Africa, came out of Africa presumably in the Middle East. They meet Neanderthals, mix with them, continue to spread over the world. And somewhere in south-east Asia they meet Denisovans, mix with them, and continue on out through the Pacific."

Peter Klevius: What?!  Why do you lie to media - or at the least forget to tell them that what you call "modern humans" didn't look or behave modern at all?! Moreover, and even more importantly, you forgot to tell media that you know absolutely nothing about the genetics of these "modern" Africans you talk about! There doesn't simply exist the slightest scientific reason to connect certain extremely primitive looking remains in Africa to the Eurasian moderns (with far more sophisticated culture) that then came to populate the whole world. Why do you abuse the deep ignorance among most non-specialists? As a scientist you shouldn't mix political correctness (or whatever) with the presentation of scientific facts. Why does Klevius have to correct  you?

1) "Modern humans" couldn't have come out from Africa because they had first to arrive in Africa (see below)!

2)  If the only Denisovan (40,000-80,000 BP) we know about, so far, was found in Siberia/Altai, how then can you say that "somewhere in south-east Asia they meet Denisovans"?! Wouldn't it have been much more likely that they first encountered Denisovans more opposite to south-east Asia?!

 Again, based on what we know so far, isn't it much more likely that Denisovans spread from south-east Asia all the way to Siberia and later were extinguished by the flood of successful moderns spreading southwards, leaving most genetic traces of Denisovans around the area where they came from. As we all know south-east Asia harbored already one species of a non-modern creature (Homo floresiensis) that possessed a brain that was superior when it comes to the relation size/performance of known species at the timehttp://kleviusanthropology.blogspot.co.uk/. And all of this fit much better in Klevius' theoretical framework presented a decade ago on the web!



These portraits may all have been made in Eurasia before and/or around the ti me when modern humans reached Africa*


* No one knows for sure as yet about the time for the so called "back migration" (estim. from 21,000 to more than 30,000 BP) and as long as we don't find high level Aurignacian etc art in Africa (especially in sub-Sahara) there is no reason to believe truly modern humans were there before (more on this below).

.

.










So what is 100% clear is that nothing even close to these works and time have been found in Africa so far. So why do some people continue neglecting this important fact that has long reaching implications for our understanding of how we all evolved?! What's the problem with Africa? We haven't found these things in the Americas, West/South/SE-Asia or Australia either!





Klevius reminder: First of all! Forget all you've heard about the Afrocentric invention "Mitocondrial Eve" some 200,000 years ago. It's all proven either completely wrong or at least unreliable. Moreover, "Mitochondrial Eve" had many "sisters" who contributed similarly although their particular mt lineages ended somewhere although their genetics was passed on to us. Secondly, we can't be sure were she lived anymore because the genetic history of Africa has turned out to be a mess of migrations and back migrations. Thirdly, we don't have any clue whatsoever about how she looked like. 200,000 years ago (and probably more) even the most human like creatures we have found remains of were nothing like us in appearance or behavior. However, there is absolutely no reason to believe that "Mitochondrial Eve" had anything to do with them. She could, and more likely so, have been a small Homo floresiensis like half ape.

Long ago when I followed Leakey's etc diggings in the Rift Valley I used to combine it with the horror I felt in reading and watching films about slavery in the US (but not in Central and South America, and not muslim slave raiding/trading in Africa, Arab countries and Eurasia). And in doing this plus knowing about harsh and primitive conditions with many people starving in Africa, a pro-African bias sneaked into my understanding of the world. A bias that only disappeared with the writing of my book Demand for Resources 1992.

Today I see this kind of bias again all around me but now politically used to boast and monetize agendas of racism and sexism.




An other voice on the evolution of the modern human


According to Anatole A. Klyosov, Igor L. Rozhanskii, seven thousand five hundred fifty-six (7556) haplotypes of 46 subclades in 17 major haplogroups were considered in terms of their base (ancestral) haplotypes and timespans to their common ancestors, for the purposes of designing of time-balanced haplogroup tree. It was found that African haplogroup A (originated 132,000 ± 12,000 years before present) is very remote time-wise from all other haplogroups, which have a separate common ancestor, named β-haplogroup, and originated 64,000 ± 6000 ybp. It includes a family of Europeoid (Caucasoid) haplogroups from F through T that originated 58,000 ± 5000 ybp. A downstream common ancestor for haplogroup A and β-haplogroup, coined the α-haplogroup emerged 160,000 ± 12,000 ybp. A territorial origin of haplogroups α- and β-remains unknown; however, the most likely origin for each of them is a vast triangle stretched from Central Europe in the west through the Russian Plain to the east and to Levant to the south. Haplogroup B is descended from β-haplogroup (and not from haplogroup A, from which it is very distant, and separated by as much as 123,000 years of “lateral” mutational evolution) likely migrated to Africa after 46,000 ybp.





.





 .

No comments: