Some clues* to why you should take Klevius more seriously and many biased and quite dumb academic "peers" less seriously.* other clues being: no particular academic, religious, financial or emotional bias.
Top left: Olof Kinnmark, down left: Kirsti Armasdotter Kotilainen, right Klevius.
mtDNA HV0 HVSI C16298T V7a1? C16298T mutation detected in ancient DNA obtained from one of nineteen human remains excavated on the island of Gotland, Sweden, dated to 2.800 -2.000 BC?
In Demand for Resources (1992:28 ISBN 9173288411) Klevius suggested that Northern Eurasia might have been crucial to the evolution of modern humans - possibly even its "cradle". This theory came about after Klevius had learned a lot more about the Khoi-San people of southern Africa. Klevius called his theory Out of Africa as Pygmies and back as global Mongoloids.
However, it was only after the publication of the discovery of Homo floresiensis (2004) and the Denisova bracelet and Denisovan genome (2010) that the picture got really coherent.
Personally Klevius had always wondered about having too big teeth for his mouth while his mother had even bigger teeth yet managed to harbour them. Back then, long before any genetics was available, Klevius assumed that his mother had some Sami/Mongoloid traces. This was confirmed after a DNA test 2015.
yDNA (Fatherline) I-M253 - I-S438 (lineage S438 marker, but no subtypes of S438, is very rare)
mtDNA mtDNA (Motherline) HV0 HVSI C16298T
It's quite common to laugh at presumably biased anthropologists from the past - especially if they were "white" or "European" or "Westerners". However, a much more interesting and useful task is to search for today's bias. Klevius scientific methodology rests entirely on a relentless pursuit of self-criticism (the only truly scientific approach) which makes Klevius an utterly humble not to say laughable person but his revelations at least honest and hence well suited for targeting bias from moderately intelligent but highly subjective (or bribed) academics. Klevius intellectual heritage (father was Sweden's best chess player, both uncle's were Finland's top CEOs and sister scored highest in IBM's IQ test - also consider EMAH) doesn't hurt either. Moreover, although Bourdieu wasn't especially intelligent (his Masculine Domination is extremely shy, lame and shallow compared to Klevius take on sex segregation) his notes on the scholastic fallacy, Homo academicus and the theory of the theoretical point of view may have some bearing here for those who think it's more fancy to read Bourdieu than Klevius.
Klevius is a rarity, namely a truly humble (i.e. self-critical) scientist - not a simple researcher. Klevius masters all main scientific methodologies and methods and has added several by himself. Klevius only "mentor" was Georg Henrik von Wright whose mentor was Ludvig Wittgenstein.
Klevius also happens to have a twofold biological advantage: More IQ than 99,99% of the world's researchers/scientists (father was Sweden's best chess player and mother produced - with a less intelligent father - Klevius half-sister and IBM's European IQ test winner at IQ 167), and a perfectly balanced biochemistry. The latter meaning he is emotionally reliable, never has experienced depression, migraine, hallucinations, uncontrolled behavior etc. nor has he ever needed drugs to "fly" emotionally or sexually. No one, incl. himself, has seen him depressed or hysteric or "burnt down", nor has anyone, incl, himself. seen him "failing" sexually or otherwise. So unless these kind of human weaknesses are considered important for dealing with science, Klevius seems quite well prepared to be read seriously, or what do you think, dear reader. And of course these kind of statements are extremely embarrassing, but what can you possibly do when low IQ PhDs/professors contaminate the web with preposterous defense about utterly bad science by dismissing proper criticism as "not peer reviewed" or "not cited" etc. thereby hiding bad science behind academic formalism which, as we all know, more often than not is steered by funds and personal bias (there's always an appointed "top" professor behind the citation cartel in use). For more on this important topic read Klevius Demand for Resources (1992:36-44, ISBN9173288411) - especially the chapter Science and References. Sadly, today we have also "PhD's" and professors in evil occultism performed by brainwashed religious fanatics posing as "science" and "scientists".
Finally, when it comes to moral and social issues, Klevius relies on the axiomatic logic of (negative) basic and universal Human Rights as seen in the 1948 Human Rights Declaration. In other words, Klevius is against sexism and racism - and therefore against islam.
BBC today fulfilled every fascist's dream. Was it because of deliberate bias (to protect Human Rights violating sharia islam) or just bottomless stupidity?!
BBC: Are Human Rights (1948) really universal?
Klevius: This very question tries to blink the universal morality of negative basic Human Rights, i.e. the right to be freed from impositions. whereas "positive" rights (the so called Stalin rights) can be more or less impositional, the negative rights are like the general traffic rule that no matter who you are or whatever you drive or not driving at all, you are considered to have equal rights with everyone else. Whereas sharia traffic rules would mean that women and other non-muslims would have to follow different rules, the basis for normal traffic rules is the negative right when, where and what you like as long as you do it following rules that apply to all similarly.
And contrary to BBC's view negative Human Rights are equal to an other laws or rules when it comes to enforcement. So even if you can't possibly stop all accidents through enforcement, the main point is to signal either equality before the law or something else.
When sharia friendly BBC 4 with their muslim sharia presenter Mishal Husain (who also eagerly wants to get EU citizens more easily deported) report about sexual violence and sexual bullying they "forgot" to mention that it was almost entirely girls who were the victims.A YouGov poll of 16-18 year olds taken in 2010 found 29% of girls had experienced unwanted sexual touching at school and 71% said they frequently heard sexual name-calling towards girls at school.
Director of the End Violence Against Women Coalition, Sarah Green, welcomed the first parliamentary inquiry into the problem.
"This behaviour is endemic and it stops girls feeling safe and achieving their best at school.
"When teachers and school leaders do not challenge sexual harassment, boys and girls observe and learn that sexual harassment is acceptable. Girls learn that they are supposed to put up with it in school and beyond, while boys are given a message that they can get away with it. It is likely to create a context where more serious assaults are both more likely to happen and less likely to be reported,"
Complaints of sexual offences in UK schools over a three year period, including 600 alleged rapes.
Klevius has reported for decades in articles, interviews, scientific papers etc. for several decades and on the web for more than a decade about this problem in Swedish schools and elsewhere. And he has early on realized to connect the increase to the influences of sexist islam.
Klevius question: Does it really need Klevius amount of IQ to address these kind of problems?! For Klevius himself it feels like using a Samurai sword to slice a cucumber...