Blue Blood is Black Blood – By – Egmond Codfried
During the Middle Ages Black peoples in Europe were called Blue men. There seem to be images of this period which show Bleu people. I know of a Renaissance crucifixion scene with a light blue Jesus. In the Renaissance we start seeing many, many images of blacks, called The Moor.
Mike Nassau writes about Nubians and Iranians which were brought to Europe in 50 BC by Caesar to fight the Germanic nations. They stayed on and had their own communities along the Rhine and the Danube. Nassau states that in the 17th century Europeans arrived in America who were called Black Dutch. They were not treated like the Africans who were held in slavery. Many Whites were also kept as slaves or slave like conditions. Later on Black and coloured families claimed descend from these Black Dutch to prevent re-enslavement or being treated as niggers. The point is that somehow Black and coloured people were present in Europe and managed to keep their Black looks through intermarriage till at least the 17 century.
I suggest we look at the Moor in European Art and take it from there. In European Art the Moor is always a Classical African: pitch black, frizzled hair, a flat and wide face, flat nosed, thick lips, and subnasal prognasty.
When you study the symbol of the Moor from The Renaissance (1500) you will find that it did not start out like a Black Servant or a Black Page. The Drake Jewel (1575) shows the profile of a Black King dominating the profile of a White woman. This symbolises Africa dominating Europe and Black superiority in Europe.
The symbol of the Moor shows a Blue man which is a Black man and means Blue Blood. We see many portraits of the nobility in which they pose very intimate with a little Black boy or girl which gives the sitter riches, mostly pearls which seem to symbolise Europe.The nobility was coloured, and some showed more African or Asian or White treats. These portraits are kept hidden or are destroyed around the French Revolution (1789).
Inside The Drake Jewel is a miniature of Queen Elizabeth I. Her father’s sister Mary Tudor was the grandmother of Mary of Scots. Mary of Scots son was James I who married Anne of Denmark. They were the grandparents of Charles II Stuart who was named “The Black Boy.”
He was described on a wanted poster issued by parliament as a tall Black man and I do not think they were fooling around.
Anne of Denmark had ordered a play “The Masque of Blackness” (1605) in praise of Black beauty which did not fade. The play was performed by members of the court and it explained how Blacks, The Sun People, came to Europe to look for a milder sun. In the play was a personage of The Niger River. The costume design shows a tall Black woman. Strange as this might sound; it took me after all three years to believe my own findings: Anne of Denmark which we know as a blindingly blond woman was almost certainly Black. As the whole Stuart dynasty was Black of skin.
When one looks for portraits of Charles II Stuart “The Black Boy” one finds many which show a White man, with long black hair and mustachio. But if one persists there are portraits which show black skin. Especially the National Portrait Gallery site shows many portraits of a Black skinned boy and later a Black adult. Still there is a lot of variations, but I have one pitch black portrait which show his classical African treats under a huge afro-like wig.
So there were Black Kings in Europe, who somehow traced their origins in Africa and symbolised their Blue blood with the image of a Moor. The portraits which show Blacks as White’s I would explain as propaganda to make them look as the White people they so despotically oppressed. Other white portraits are over painted authentic Black portraits, or whitened copies of these or outright fakes. All European museums show portraits of the European elite, with fake white skin colour. We know that all the European royal families were blood relatives.
The Black Boy’s mother, for instance, Henrietta Maria, was the daughter of Maria de Medici, Queen of France and the aunt of Louis XIV, The Sun King. The sister of The Black boy was Maria Henrietta Stuart who married the Dutch Stadholder William II. Their son was King Stadholder William III, who ruled Britain as William and Mary.
(All this can be verified in google)
Oh my! How fascinating,enlightening!
What do you think, was it jealousy or fear of the black skin?
The Masque of Blackness seems pretty racist to me, as it was followed up by The Masque of Beauty where the Africans had been “cured” for their blackness. Atleast thats what Wikipedia says, but thats not really a good source.
This is still a work in progress and I believe to have found the source of racism today. Europe was dominated and despotically oppressed by a Black and Coloured race which claimed Blue Blood (1500-1789). The fear of this happening again made Europeans revise history and go and oppress Blacks and Coloureds worldwide. A Barack Obama, presidential candidate, could not be possible in Europe today. Some European museum curators seem to know of this past, as they knowingly hide Black portraits and show white fakes or over paintings. Most White’s are just indoctrinated and victims in a way. But the personal descriptions are clear: they were not White looking and they sat on thrones all over Europe. White supremacy is based on fake portraits of Black and Coloured European Kings.
Egmond Codfried
Mr. Egmond the facts of Alhambra and the very decree that was forced on the then ruling class, seem at least to demonstrate that the remnant of the Moors and their continent were forced into extreme conditions, conditions that may have started by the so-called Blue Blood as you mention. The beginning of hash assault on Africans, the trouble with slave trade a few centuries latter, all started with the rise of Europe in terms of identity which was the result that came from all manner of treatment towards the former Black royalty of Spain, and from Spain the racial issue took on an added weight in terms of exploitation and in terms of legalised commercial wholesale of Human lives. Part taking advantage, part vengers. Don’t forget, the Moors also bought and sold slaves including their fellow Africans…and of course others.
Very strange, but after seeing the recent rendition of Tut by forensic specialists in the recent 2008 tour in the U.S. I believe many such things as painting over earlier darker renderings of European royalty to be very possible in many cases. Too bad.
The black European nobility and royalty left many leads about their black identity called Blue blood. There are so many Moors in western art, jewellery, art works, paintings, statues, heraldry and family names. My research is based on personal descriptions which mention black looks. Eurocentrism talks about these people as Black caucasians, white people with black skin. How is this possible? Even while many show real classical african looks. Blacks should start writing their own history and not rely anymore on white supremacy nonsense.
egmond u r so right but then again the plight of white americas pride in being white will spell and is spelling their downfall like the bible says pride comes before the fall and white people dont even see it happenning the world is fading back to black and the world for all arguments sake is black u cant escape just accept it as fact balck is superior over white and this fact eats away at white `people to no end.
the universe is black for when the sun goes down its pitch black the food we eat grows in the rich fertile blak soil when a child in conceived its with in the blackness of a woman s womb and lastly for life to exist on this planet we must have carbon carbon is black and lastly a white woman having my baby the child will be dark complected.
Im convinced that white people suffer from a condition i will call ignorance plain and simple and the belief that they have done it all which on its face is utterly ridiculous and doesnt deserve any space here for me to recite or debate for debating stupidity ignorance and lies only drives that indidual down the road to no where the road to self destruction for all lies and liars shall be proven just that and suffer the ridicule of th world of which they deserve and this will be the plight of white america which has stolen the history of black people and have lied about thier role in history and their great accomplishment only to embellish their own while denigrating another.
this cant happen for long for right wins always in the end and those who seek to do wrong shall be the price for their insolence and destructive behavior and made to correct the lies in the end and for the true doer of that history shall be lifted upon high to take their rightful place in history.
certainly the wanna be jews is included in this since i am also a jew and black white people cant be jews this is a joke and a farce and shall be made clear as the world becomes more and more clear as to who the real jews are and who really gave the world civilization.
the black man and woman did
iisrael@prodigy.net 1 829 990 8267
shalom one and all to stay black always
I agree, they do suffer from Ignorance, but more than that I believe they suffer from a disease. The indigenous people called them Weitko when they first encountered them.
Wetiko= Psychopath.
See, Your Deeds Will Resound, http://domoregooddeeds.wordpress.com/2012/10/07/your-deeds-will-resound/
Dear friends, I’m happy to see that more people are putting up my theory blue blood is black blood (1500-1789) on their website.
Sadly enough I have noticed that whites, any white person, will respond with blind panic, irrationality and ridicule if I try to explain these matters to them. Perhaps they are even in fear off each other and do not want to be labelled ‘nigger lover.’ Who knows?
Yet I believe they deserve some consideration as they were dominated by blacks, so they were taught to fear blacks. This fear is instilled through education, media, movies, anything. The indoctrination is so strong and pervasive that other coloureds and even blacks are affected.
To change this we have to combat the religious believe called white supremacy. The idea is that whites because of their colour are better, have better intelligence, better moral values, less likely to make a mess of some undertaking, more honest, more considered, less violent, better in looks etc.
This fallacy can easily be deconstructed by realizing that whites came out of blacks. Whites are descendents of albino’s as both lack the ability to produce melanin and some are still very white and immediately burn in the sun, while others are mixed with darker phenotypes and are able to tan. Human albinism is more then the classical albino with red eyes. There are albino variations which in description sound like what we consider normal whites with darker hair, darker eyes and the ability to tan. Albinism is hereditary.
There seems to be a need to medicalise albinism while they are normal, functioning people who just need to take some precautions before they venture out in the sun. Believe it or not, blacks were described in the 19th century as riddled with diseases and their extinction was eminent. Whites do this today against albino’s and recent this obvious comparison. They respond with some strange Wikipedia science saying that blacks slowly turned white in a mysterious process, about 6000 years ago. That’s actually when the whites left central Asia and settled in Europe, where they met the first Europeans, who were black and coloured.
While in the whole of nature every white life form comes from albinism. We have white roses and dark roses, white mice and grey mice, white cat and black cat and white gorilla and black gorilla. Yet we do not consider a white cat as defect or sick or put a higher or lower value on white cats, white dogs, white roses or white squirrels. White and black in regard to humans are political terms to divide and to oppress.
I feel that the first step needed is to eradicate white supremacy by showing every black person images of albinism among flowers, animals, primates and humans. Whites came out of blacks and are in no way superior. If they appear superior there must be other machinations in play. Like white supremacy is based on whitened, fake over painted portraits of a European elite which was described as black and coloured.
Moors are classical Africans found in Western art. I would like to advice blacks to come away from discussions about the Spanish Mores because this confuses the matter. The Arab Moors encountered black, coloured and white Europeans. The cultured black, noble and royal Europeans made Europe what it is today, but became cruel and despotic. This resulted in the French Revolution. Blacks abducted and held other blacks in slavery, and there are still blacks today who collaborate to keep other blacks down.
Mr Codfried, the Egytian literature ‘Instructions of Menekhare’ speak of affection that make us do things, the Greeks, just like Marcus Arielus in his ‘Meditation’, William Shakespeare ‘Romeo & Juliet’ also believe that ‘affection makes him (us) false’. For that, it is seriously necessary to spun aside the dividing theme of color in the world of Ancient History and sciences. There is no such thing as White in Biology, no such thing as balck in Biology and if there is ever such group called the Blacks, they are the Humans.
The teaching that insist on Whites as Europeans is entirely wrong, for this much in history that much of the current vestigies of History theme directly from Africa. Europe until the 18th century was entirely uncivilised. The Moors provide us the last connecting point but from seems like a connection ‘comes the Main’ /Wordsworth.
As such no useful argument can possibly exist about the Europe as Ante-Dem/os to Africa, no useful biological need exist for studying Africa through Europe. All the genes of all men on earth and beyond converge in Africa and in the last 25thousand years, the spread of the humans from Tangyanika/ and lower Africa through Iberian Peninsula/Spain to Europe, from the parts of North Africa into the Jordan into the reaches of the Ural mountain and Catal Hayak, and down and up of the Sumer which is known as South of Babylon, to the rise of the chromatised pottery/ Halaf culture, to the Uruk Jemdat and the rove into the first cataract of Egyptian, the collision in Egyptian and the rove on and off, all conclude from Africa
What we call SPECIATION is a new field of Biology that attempts to demonstrate the lingering and persistent problem of the differentiation within the races. The subject of this nature is well treated by Darwin but he was intent on demonstrating the history of the human being from a chronology standpoint without indicating the very presenc eof world history to which England as at 1859 played very lucrative hand. But the changes that take place among the humans are due to changes that place within the chromatase. This is the enzyme that binds that the walls of the Chromosome that contain the genes that carry the allelles about six of them in number.
The changes that take place on the surface of the skin and of the body is due to changes that place in the side the body, where the position of the genes that code for the range of activity in human body assumes significance. So from inside the body codes for the outside, promoting a certain exchange that from inner to outer that made Claude and homostasis very popular, as it did Mendel and gene distribution. The changes that you see on the surface of the body like Blond head and blue eyes are not hereditary at all, they are not genetic at all, for blond head, blue eyes are part of decaying metas of the human body. More like the recividist breakdown of alleles within the genes, shifting from the highest density which 6 of 6 reprsenting high density blacks and African and only Africans to 5 of 6, 4 of 6, 3 of 6, 2 of 6, 1 of 6 alleles all coding the range of colors and species within the human race or anyother race.
Needless to say that White skin, especially Blond is 1 out of 6 alleles for skin color and sometimes 0 out of 6 for color, hence prone to cnacerous edifices. This formulae applies to all parts of the body, all responding to the position to the position of the geentic information, alleles, DNA, MtDNA, etc. The blue eyes, the blond head, the child born well and the child ‘impaired’ and so on are due to selective exposure of the genes within the body. This changes can be effected by the ‘reproductive isolation’ where one group of Africas in the last 25thousand years departing the continent got isolated from the major genetic pool and then begin to exchange the genes within their small group till a point that a reverse order is achieved and then the degree of the reservals determine the range of speciation. This is the case with many races of the peoples of the world whose ancient and modern history converge in Africa for no particular reason, but no only that, the genes speak as well, louder and clearer than the soil and movement and genetic template which is the currency in todays evolution biology.
In such circumstance, the binding enzymes like Chromatase weaking the hold on the slippery alleles within the gene within the chromosome and then the breakdown from 6 alleles to 1 begins to occur hence Speciation. I think personally that I have
the right to say that I know what happens and how, and personally, I can testify that understanding chromotase is subjected to heat, leading to the break of the enzymes and
that the this act of breakdown among other things is the reason why HIV has eluded us
and why we can kick the ass of the Virus and its AIDS.
The bi product of the body’s fatty acid which is the melanin, that pulsate to the surface of the body, demurly on contact with the sun and then the color and the terseness of body is due to the rich residue of leftovers from the body, as whites emaniate from thier darker hue and the race hoping to survive.
Personally, there is need to encourage better research and programs of education in Nigeria, especially in my Abia State where am positing on the PDP platform as the Governor to be and I know, I will encourage serious business of education and hope that Nigerians keen on research and experts of African history and Igbo can be allowed to change the curriculla.
im not one who is able to explain alot of things in its scientific termolegy but what i can tell u for fact is black people did rule the nations.i’ve found a lot of info. i’d like to share .starting with (ancient man and his first civilization the real history of white people) on internet.and just for fun,look@ 2kings 5:27 and numbers12:9-11both will tell u where white ppl. or how they generated.on the same site look for the true negro,there u will find so much info. it is stagering ,how can appl. be so hood winked in stillbis to this day.i have another script.for us to the reason we have fallen from our stance of prestige. deut.28.we r those ppl. we came on slave ships here. thats all i have thanx 4 lettig me interject.
all so look up negroland u wont believe ur eyes. remember roots and the so called “african” tribe mandingo. check it out.
WHITES ARE ALBINO’S
I’m all for simplicity. There should be no mystery to science otherwise you are being tricked. So there can be no mystery about where white people came from. I consider whites albinos and descendents of albino’s. This is important because we are dealing today with white supremacy. Even modern, or especially modern and educated whites believe they are biologically and morally superior to blacks. That’s why I want each and every black to know that whites came out of blacks and can never, ever be superior to blacks. I believe that there are no races, just phenotypes which are just an adaptation to environment. If you believe in the Evolution you know that human DNA had a long way coming. Travelling first through the primordial pool, and picking up some useful tools to survive by adaptation. The albinism mutation was useful if there was suddenly less sun. Humans could already adapt within one generation to a new sunless environment. Just like they adapt to famine by producing off spring that can better synthesis and store nutrients, food in the body. A genetic function which lay dormant just kicks in. Human DNA is very old, older then humans. I suddenly think off images of babies who swim under water, knowing by their DNA not to hold their breath. According to an internet source 25% of the off spring of two albinos’ might be albino too. So this makes albinism also hereditary. And two off this type of off spring should have an even higher rate of albino off spring. Those are the whites, cold adapted in shape. All white life forms in nature; flowers, birds, mammals, horses, apes, whales, are a result from albinism. Yet when it comes to humans these whites will have nothing of that. Why? Just look at them, all of them. I have been looking at them for the past thirty years and I see albinos. Darker white types are whites mixed with darker ancestors. Albino’s are not less capable then non-albino’s, they only should take precautions before they go in the sun. They are not sick or retarded. Their organs are normal, just there skin lacks the possibility to produce melanin. Just like normal whites do. And we do not put a higher value on a white cat or a white flower over a black or a red one. So why should whites think off themselves as better? Or why should we be brainwashed to think that they have better abilities? As they are albinos, coming out of blacks there will always be whites. Coming from Central Asia, 6000 years ago, they probably overwhelmed the first European Blacks in numbers, who became a minority, because whites are better adapted to the European climate. I think that whites flocked to milder climates like how migratory birds find places to over winter. It’s just in their DNA. As we see with Australian Aboriginals with blond hair and black skin, blondness is also part of the black DNA, but seems to favour the albino’s.
@Codfried. Albino is a shortfall in protein transmutation from a parent gene, which happens when proteins that code for color in body that did not open. Albino is a condition that is transferable and as such not genetic. There is nothing in the history of the world that suggest that Albinos are the ancestors of Whites. They aren’t. White is mechanical breakdown of human genes, a condition that is neither natural or genetic. There is no gene in the human body that code for ‘white’, non. But the mechanism through which natural selection takes place in human beings occur in the genes and can mix and flow either way. Why are humans that different? humans are different from each other because of the history of the world and anthropology, because humans began to migrate out of Africa along time along and ever since, live in isolation. From that isolation, reproductive isolation occur and from reproductive isolation, genetic breakdown happen. Communities and tribes have also managed to hang on to each and that’s why little connection is evident in today’s world. Once more…, Albinos are not the ancestors of WHITES. In fact, the Whiter the outer skin and bluer the eyes, the lesser the chances of Albinos. Albino rate occur highest in blacks with A blood antigen.
Albino…a condition that is ‘not’ transferable
Do you come from a biological evolution perspective?
Then please explain white flowers, white mammals and white birds to me.
We don’t think of a white rose as diseased or less then a red rose. Or a white cat or a white horse? Why should we think of human albino’s as less, or as sick?
The albino’s I saw in my native Surinam are normal and able. No skin lesions or thick eyeglasses because today precations are taken. They are educated along with the normal black kids. They are blacks with a white skin. We just need more black oriented, black based research, because these eurcentrist lie about anything which shows them as less favored or less superior or domiant over blacks. So they invented antropology and human races towards declaring whites superior and blacks inferior.
Are you aware of a white gorilla, now deceased, named Snowflake? Read in google about how they wanted to breed with him, to make more albino gorilla’s for zoo’s.
The great apes are our nearest ancestors, and they all have albino members, which are normal animals.
I have heard of an entire village in Nigeria peopled by albino’s.
Whites, in many cases look like albino’s, especially if they get older. Never mind the painted, made up, sun tanned white beaties in movies and the media: that’s not how the lot of them looks like.
There are some albino’s in the media, show bizz, who show that they are 100% capable people, they only need to take precautons before they go in the sun.
The idea that albinism is a sickness is wrong. Allison Blakely has searched nineteen century handbooks which racistically explain blackness as a disease: like failures of evolution, riddled with diseases, misshapen, about to be extinct.
Women were described as permanently ill and biological inferior, racked by hormones.
Lefthandedness was once considered a disease.
Masturbation was thought to cause weaknesses and grave illnesses.
So if you get my drift…its just a matter of time we will overcome the notion that albinism is a sickness. We will understand hat whites came from blacks and are never, ever superior to blacks.
I have come to think of eurocentrist as liars, every thing they have made up was to hide black dominance over them. We have to liberate our black minds and reject all eurocentric lies.
Codfried
I would like to see these books that Allison Blakey lifted the saying that Black is a disease and their skin color. I would like to know what medical school these people go to and how they arrived at the conclusion. This issue should not detain us and I have reasons to believe that a gap exist in our knowledge of medicine. When we say Albinism is a sickness, it does not mean that it is necessarily a disease, nor does it mean that Albinos need treatment. A sickness is brief and a disease has pattern and tend to repeat, but both has casaulty. But Albino is not sick neither is Albinism a disease. They are ‘sick’ due to the natural outcome of genetic translation of their protein arrangement and world.
Albinism is a just any genetically ‘effected’ disease, and it is due to the fact that the body itself works like an system, what we find outside the body, like the skull, the legs, the eyes and its color can only tell us an end point of a protein circle. Our color of the hair, our blue eyes (I have dark blue eyes) are nothing else than final product (not the raw material) of our genetic materials. So birth defect are just a disease ofr sickness, the good doctors can it a medical condition. Albino is a condition that can not be treated. It does not mean that it cannot be found in large number within a gentic pool, but there is no gene in the body or in a pool of humans that code essentially for Albinism
write in at sunsetstudios@hotmail.com
The great apes are not our ancestors but our nearest relatives. I wrote erronously : ancestors instead of relatives
the colours that are in people are not the same as the ones in animals that are called white ,,for example ,,,,a white bird is really the color white like this backround not colour of law white ,same with white gorilla,,humans arent really white or black so if the bird had a blue red or black wing it would not be called a white bird but people who come from us call them self the color white not knowing there is only colour of law white .skin color that black as these type letters or as white as this back round does not exist , black has no shades nor does white as the people do that call themself white or black.ive neve hearcanother animal like bird dog or cat call them self a color that’s an illusion we create a reality with put asking just like peol call us what the want without asking ,negro afro centric colored .this would make it along the abnormal behavoir pattern of them to replace to true with their color blue that you see when they stand in the the sun cause they so bleac,,so clear you can see blue in their veins an you cant see that in ours cause it blends in with the ebony hue that we have but light skin sisters an brothers can see blue veins when they stand in the sun cause all blood is blue before it hits air
I like to offer this quote from an interesting site which I stumbled upon while researching Blacks in Nazi Germany. Some here have objected to my view on whites as albinos, but they do not seem to understand what Blacks are up against. In my experience, though nobody says these horrible things about blacks anymore aloud, where blacks and their friends can hear it; these ideas are ingrained in educated whites. Many blacks are under the spell of white supremacy too because that’s all they hear and see, day and night in the media, TV and cinemas. That’s why I urge for new insights in how the whites came to exist and have offered my own humble view. Noteworthy is that my detractors here do not use this opportunity to offer their supposedly superior view on why there are whites, how whites came to be and why we find them in northern regions.
QUOTE:
“A portion of Christian Pross’ exhibition, “The Value of the Human Being, “Medicine in Germany 1918 1945, depicts Germany’s lethal science and anthropological practices in Africa. Pross is also a physician and medical historian in Berlin.
“The scientists and anthropologists who did the research on
the skulls and their so called racial characteristics in the
South West African colonies became leading anthropologists and
geneticists during the Third Reich,” said Pross. “Their ideology
of racism was based on the work they had done on blacks during
the imperial period.”
Pross’ exhibition on medicine in Nazi Germany was on
display in 1992 at the National Museum of Health and Medicine
and is currently back in Germany. It will return to Washington
this year through a joint effort of the museum and the
Goethe Institute. After a brief stay in Washington, organizers
hope the exhibit will tour the United States.
Pejorative attitudes toward unwanted blacks in Germany were
in place and ingrained in the population long before the Nazi
era. The worth of blacks had been unquestionably defined through
years of scientific research. If it meant the advancement of the
superior German race, any harm that befell the Negro in the name
of science and the state was justified.
In Robert N. Proctor’s book “Racial Hygiene,” he writes that
Fritz Lenz, foremost in the field of racial hygiene concluded
that “the Negro is not particularly intelligent in the proper
sense of the term, and above all he is devoid of the power of
mental creation, is poor in imagination, so that he has not
developed any original art and has no elaborate folk myths. He
is, however, clever with his hands and is endowed with
considerable technical adroitness, so that he can easily be
trained in the manual crafts.”
Lenz also concluded that the intelligence of the Negro is
appreciably enhanced when he is mixed with white blood. He said
that blacks, much like women, are at an intellectual low during
childhood because they suffer from developmental retardation.
The childlike behavior of the Negro accounts for his lack of
sexual restraint and should not be attributed to an exceptional
impulse.
In 1923, Lenz was named Germany’s first professor of racial
hygiene at the University of Munich.
Medical journals not only took note of the physiological
differences between the Negro and the European, but they also
talked about the offensive smell of the Negro, “even when he is
clean,” according to Proctor. “
source: writer@lencooper.eu
http://www.greatlinx.com/articles.htm
skin color is polygenic no?
Erupeans are just wannabe’s and copycats.Ask why they want sun tanned?Because we have what they can only dream of.They suffer from skin cancer and night blindness because of their degenerative make up.We Have Melanin Period,there is nothing they can do about it.They kill black to extract the MELATONIN from.
Check out Sister Maat’s video on Melatonin.There is no need to argue with white TRASH,
in fact there is no white race.
It is just a mind game,they are running scared because their time of BRUTALITY is coming to an end.
Moors in Europe were very brutal people. The syrian who gave birth to Britain’s Englesiare (East Angles) and Engla (Anglo) were not exactly light people not Arabic. These were community of Nestorians and their Judeo-Christian forwards, forced out of what is now middle east of their about sometime in the 5th or 6th century, but where met with invading brutality of their African Berbers and Muslims who sailed by the wind. Known as the Farad/Harad I vikein. As much human brutality is something endemic and systemic – not necessariyl white. Even the so-called Saxons – mainly from Syria and Sassonids, were put to sword by their fellow Africans and middle easternians in the name of Religion. They called the people lived there wweala, natives which they forced into slavery and captivity. The wealas of land owners are the Wales/Welsch of nowadays. Cross check ‘Absent Voice’ by Altman for better insight and consult the ‘Fight for English’ by David Altman
Absent voices….Rochelle Altman
Fight for English…By David Altman
Fight for English by David Crystal
There is a site that has been used awesomely to open my eyes to information. I came across it a while back. I do not know if you are aware of it. I admit, there are some things that I do not agree with on that site but, there is an awful lot that I do agree with. It is very informative and insightful. Maybe, you can take a look at it and make up your mind about it. The site is http://suzar.com/BOTW/BOTW-ch5a-pages53-54.html#anchor2625974
iroabuchi onwuka says Absent voices….Rochelle Altman
I have been pouring over thiswonderful book, but what I really want to know is how things changed with the Renaissance. How does the Renaissance changed these matters?
WAS JANE AUSTEN BLACK?
“In person she was very attractive; her figure was rather tall and slender, her step light and firm, and her whole appearance expressive of health and animation. In complexion she was a clear brunette with a rich colour; she had full round cheeks, with mouth and nose small and wellformed bright hazel eyes, and brown hair forming natural curls close round her face.”
James-Edward Austen,
Jane’s nephew
~
“… certainly pretty-bright & a good deal of colour in her face – like a doll – no that would not give at all the idea for she had so much expression – she was like a child – quite a child very lively and full of humour.”
Mr Fowle,
family friend
~
“… her’s was the first face I can remember thinking pretty … Her hair, a darkish brown, curled naturally – it was in short curls round her face…Her face was rather round than long – she had a bright but not a pink colour – a clear brown complexion and very good hazel eyes. Her hair, a darkish brown, curled naturally, it was in short curls around her face. She always wore a cap … before she left Steventon she was established as a very pretty girl, in the opinion of most of her neighbours.”
Caroline Austen,
Jane’s niece
~
“Her hair was dark brown and curled naturally, her large dark eyes were widely opened and expressive. She had clear brown skin and blushed so brightly and so readily.”
An early description of young Jane at Steventon by Sir Egerton Brydges
~
“She was tall and slender; her face was rounded with a clear brunette complexion and bright hazel eyes. Her curly brown hair
escaped all round her forehead, but from the time of her coming to live at Chawton she always wore a cap, except when her nieces had her in London and forbade it.”
Edward Austen Leigh of Jane’s appearence in the years just after the family left Southampton
~
” Her stature rather exceeded the middle height; her carriage and deportment were quiet but graceful; her complexion of the finest texture, it might with truth be said that her eloquent blood spoke through her modest
cheek.”
” Her pure and eloquent blood spake in her cheeks and so distinctly wrought that you had almost said her body thought.”
Henry Austen said of his sister
~
http://www.jasa.net.au/images/austen.htm
WAS JANE AUSTEN (1775-1817) BLACK?
By Egmond Codfried
SOURCES: Quotes from her books
and “Gowland’s Lotion.’
[quote] ‘[Henry Crawford], was not handsome; no, when they first saw him, he was absolutely plain, black and plain; but still he was the gentleman, -Northanger Abbey[/quote]
[quote] Oh! They give themselves such airs. They are the most conceited creatures in the world, and think themselves of so much importance! By the by, though I have thought of it a hundred times, I have always forgot to ask you what is your favourite complexion in a man. Do you like them best dark or fair?”
“I hardly know. I never much thought about it. Something between both, I think. Brown–not fair, and–and not very dark.”
“Very well, Catherine. That is exactly he. I have not forgot your description of Mr. Tilney–’a brown skin, with dark eyes, and rather dark hair.’ Well, my taste is different. I prefer light eyes, and as to complexion–do you know–I like a sallow better than any other. You must not betray me, if you should ever meet with one of your acquaintance answering that description.” -Northanger Abbey[/quote]
[quote] Emma Watson was not more than of the middle height, well made and plump, with an air of healthy vigour. Her skin was very brown, but clear, smooth, and glowing, which, with a lively eye, a sweet smile, and an open countenance, gave beauty to attract, and expression to make that beauty improve on acquaintance. […]The next morning brought a great many visitors. It was the way of the place always to call on Mrs. Edwards the morning after a ball, and this neighbourly inclination was increased in the present instance by a general spirit of curiosity on Emma`s account, as everybody wanted to look again at the girl who had been admired the night before by Lord Osborne. Many were the eyes, and various the degrees of approbation with which she was examined. Some saw no fault, and some no beauty. With some her brown skin was the annihilation of every grace, and others could never be persuaded that she was half so handsome as Elizabeth Watson had been ten years ago. -The Watsons[/quote]
[quote] Miss Dashwood had a delicate complexion, regular features, and a remarkably pretty figure. Marianne was still handsomer. Her form, though not so correct as her sister’s, in having the advantage of height, was more striking; and her face was so lovely, that when, in the common cant of praise, she was called a beautiful girl, truth was less violently outraged than usually happens. Her skin was very brown, but, from its transparency, her complexion was uncommonly brilliant; her features were all good; her smile was sweet and attractive; and in her eyes, which were very dark, there was a life, a spirit, an eagerness, which could hardily be seen without delight. From Willoughby their expression was at first held back, by the embarrassment which the remembrance of his assistance created. But when this passed away, when her spirits became collected, when she saw that to the perfect good breeding of the gentleman, he united frankness and vivacity, and above all, when she heard him declare, that of music and dancing he was passionately fond, she gave him such a look of approbation, as secured the largest share of his discourse to herself for the rest of his stay.-Sense and sensibility[/quote]
[quote] “Did you ever see such a skin? — such smoothness! such delicacy! — and yet without being actually fair. –One cannot call her fair. It is a most uncommon complexion, with her dark eye-lashes and hair — a most distinguishing complexion! So peculiarly the lady in it. –Just colour enough for beauty.”
“I have always admired her complexion,” replied Emma, archly; “but do not I remember the time when you found fault with her for being so pale? –When we first began to talk of her. –Have you quite forgotten?”-Emma[/quote]
[quote] “How very ill Eliza Bennet looks this morning, Mr Darcy,” [Caroline Bingley] cried; “I never in my life saw any one so much altered as she is since the winter. She is grown so brown and coarse! Louisa and I were agreeing that we should not have known her again.”
However little Mr Darcy might have liked such an address, he contented himself with coolly replying that he perceived no other alteration than her being rather tanned — no miraculous consequence of traveling in the summer.
“For my own part,” she rejoined, “I must confess that I never could see any beauty in her. Her face is too thin; her complexion has no brilliancy; and her features are not at all handsome. Her nose wants character; there is nothing marked in its lines. Her teeth are tolerable, but not out of the common way; and as for her eyes, which have sometimes been called so fine, I never could perceive any thing extraordinary in them.”-Pride and Prejudice[/quote]
Quote;
“Gowland’s Lotion
During the Regency the Gowland’s Lotion may have been the most famous of them all. Prepared by Macdonald, Humbert, & co. in Longacre, it was priced at 9d. 3d. per Half Pints, 2s. 3d. for a Pint and 6s. the Quart. e Said to cure everything from pimples to scrophula, this lotion was a must have for the fashionable lady of the era. It was not for everyday use but to combat sudden eruptions of the skin, sunburn etc. In Modern domestic medicine f Thomas John Graham commented “These red, stationary pimples in the face, form a complaint called by professional men gutta rosea, and are often a source of much disgust to the female part of society. Gowland’s lotion is a favourite remedy for their removal; but, as it is a solution of corrosive sublimate, it is by no means safe.”
The Medical lexicon g gives the following information on the recipe: “Lotion, Gowland’s. An empirical preparation (Bitter almond, sugar, distilled water. Grind together, strain and add corrosive sublimate, previously ground with spiritus vini rectified.) Used on obstinate eruptions.” and The Modern Practice of Physic h further explains the formula as “A remedy much employed by women who are troubled with eruptions in the face is Gowland’s lotion, the basis of which is the oxymuriate of mercury or superacetate of lead; but it is a hazardous application when continued for any length of time.” It was obviously best suited to oily skin, although the addition of mercury and/or lead would indeed make it unsafe!
© 1999-2010 Yvonne Forsling
PS: Dear Rasta Livewire, Why don’t you start a new Jane Austen thread?
[Dear Rasta Livewire, this is the introductory article for a new thread we have discussed. The two postings in this present thread should be added as sources to this new thread. I will be adding other sources and answer questions]
WAS JANE AUSTEN (1775-1817) BLACK?
The chief glory of nations is derived from their writers wrote Dr. Samuel Johnson (1708-1784). And many around the world deeply enjoy Jane Austen’s books and letters, of which the interpretation is constantly fine-tuned and made into movies and TV series. They study human behaviour and are satirical of human failings. Her style was based on Dr. Samuel Johnson’s: ‘cool, well-ordered, witty and incisive observations of life.’ But because Austen’s live straddled the decisive period around the French Revolution (1789-1795), her life, her books and surviving letters can also be mined for her ideas about the radical changing times. Although she wrote novels in the Romantic fashion: ‘The passion of Romantism did not inspire her.’ So I, because of my research interests, look for Austen’s ideas about the changing views on the emergence and the controversial role of Race. In this light, the fact that there is no credible portrait of Britain’s finest nineteen-century female writer should be considered as highly problematic. Jane Austen, properly read, might grow into our greatest activist in proclaiming the glory of Blacks.
Austen is very insistent about the brown and very brown complexion and the special beauty of her heroines. There can be no doubt that she is writing about brown, very brown and black skinned persons belonging to the gentry and aristocracy. Henry Crawford in Mansfield Park is ‘absolutely plain, black and plain.’ His description can be compared to the Moor, always a Classical African, in many eighteen-century scenes by painter Hogart, which show a Moor in the middle of a noble assembly. The Moor, often disguised as a servant, is one symbol of blue blood, and informs us about the true looks and high birth of the rest. In Northanger Abbey two women talk about there favourite complexion in a man: ‘dark or fair.’ This is answered as: ‘I hardly know. I never much thought about it. Something between both, I think. Brown—not fair, and not very dark.’ The other woman prefers light eyes and likes ‘a sallow better then any other.’ Marianna Dashwood from Sense and Sensibility is Austen’s ‘so lovely,’ ‘uncommonly brilliant’ and a delightful beauty: ‘in the common cant of praise, she was called a beautiful girl, truth was less violently outraged then usually happens.’ But only after all this staggering praise we are told that: ‘Her skin was very brown.’ The most famous of Austen’s heroines, Eliza Bennet from Pride and Prejudice is described deprecatingly by her rival in love, Miss Caroline Bingley, as: ‘grown brown and coarse.’ However, Mr. Darcy, their love interest; does not find any fault in that but perceives her as ‘tanned’ because of ‘travelling in summer.’ From The Watsons, we learn about its heroine Emma Watson: ‘Her skin was very brown, but clear, smooth, and glowing.’
Austen is clearly not talking about whites who happen to be more or less tanned. In a letter to her sister Cassandra Austen she mentions a Mrs. Blount with: ‘Her Pink husband & Fat neck.’ White skin is referred to as ‘Pink.’ She rather discusses the many shades we see among Blacks, in a way that Blacks today have abandoned. We consider this talk today as colorism, the dangerous antagonism between ‘good’ and ‘bad complexion.’ Emma Watson’s beauty does not ‘improve on acquaintance’ with everybody. Austen states: ‘Some saw no fault, and some no beauty.’ And: ‘With some her brown skin was the annihilation of every grace.’ But Miss Austen is clearly not fooling around when she discusses complexion. In Persuasion (1818) she never mentions brown or black complexion, but subtle yet with devastating force mentions ‘Gowland’ twice. She refers to real life Gowland’s Lotion, a skin-bleaching potion introduced in 1760. So it had grown into quite an institution in her lifetime. Although advertised as a panacea for many beauty problems, the real purpose was to bleach a black or brown skin by peeling with lead white, a corrosive ingredient. Lead white was also used during the Renaissance by Elizabeth I and Catherine de Medici, Queen of France, as a whitening make-up and bleaching agent named Venetian Cruse. By the addition of mercury derivates, another corrosive substance and called Spirit of Saturn, to Gowland’s, it also functions as our botox today, as it paralyses the facial muscles and causes a youthful radiance, but an immobile facial expression. Both substances are poisonous and their constant and excessive use attracted censure by scientists. Austen ascribes the use of Gowland to Sir Walter Elliot, the father of the heroine Anne Elliot, a personage with ‘an elegance of mind and sweetness of character.’ She had taken after her mother who was: ‘ an excellent woman, sensible and aimable.’ Austen introduced Sir Elliot, ‘Handsome with the blessing of beauty,’ through Anne’s eyes as a ‘failing’ and ‘conceited, silly father.’ So Austen decidedly rejects the skin-bleaching practises by the black and brown Europeans in her books.
The brown beauty of Emma and Eliza and the very brown beauty of Marianne and Emma Watson are reflected in the six detailed descriptions of Jane Austen by family and friends. Even to the controversial nature of the views of black and brown looks that we derive from her books. Austen is described as ‘in complexion she was a clear brunette with a rich colour’ (1864) and ‘- she had a bright but not a pink colour – a clear brown complexion’ and ‘she had clear brown skin.’ But the language also becomes cryptic: ‘Her pure and eloquent blood spoke in her cheeks,’ and needs deciphering. Her niece Eliza de Feuillide married a French aristocrat, who was guillotined during the French revolution (1789-1795), describes her looks as: ‘add to all this a very share of Tan with which I have contrived to heighten the native brown of my Complexion, during a two years residence in the country.’ One takes notice of the self-deprecating tone of voice, which is also encountered in the works by contemporary Isabelle de Charrière (1740-1805). She described herself as: ‘She does not have the white hands, she knows this and even jokes about it, but its not a laughing matter.’(1764) And in Lettres écrites de Lausanne (1785) her heroine Cécile is described by her doting mother as: ‘she would have been beautiful if her throat was whither.’(1 8) Jane Austen died young from a still unidentified disease and she wrote in a final letter: ‘I’m recovering my Looks a little, which have been bad enough, black and white & every wrong colour.’
The prevailing emphasise on brown and very brown skin in both her works and the way she herself was described, forces us to consider Jane Austen’s personal identity as Black. And there we are double crossed by the absence of a authenticated portrait which shows her own rich brown complexion and prettiness. In my ongoing research, my Blue Blood is Black Blood (1500-1789) Theory, I have already encountered so-called ‘missing’ portraits, or existing portraits which are not put on display in a museum, or those portraits which show the same person who is described as ‘basané’ (dark brown) and ‘chimney sweeper’ as a blue eyed, white man. This scandalous falsehood we also encounter in the present day depictions of Austen’s personages by white actors and actresses. Marianne Dashwood, who was ‘very brown,’ is played by the lovely Kate Winslet, who is blond and white. Jennifer Ehle is white but has ethnic looks, derived from her Rumanian grandmother, but does not look ‘brown’ nor ‘tanned’ as Austen describes Eliza Bennet.
Apparently, I’m not the only one who has discovered Jane Austen’s blackness. Yet where I welcome this as a valuable addition to my research after Blacks and coloured Europeans who were a dominating elite, others seek to deny, hide and submerge; denying Blacks the glory that derives from Black achievement and Black writers. The one un-authenticated portrait, which was acquired in 2002 by The Jane Austen Trust is supposed to show Cassandra Austen, but can be considered to be Jane’s, as it perfectly conforms to all her descriptions. Yet she will not be identified as Black because eurocentrism claims ‘There were no Blacks!’ Or what one might perceive as a Black is most likely a ‘Black Caucasian’ and not a ‘True Negro.’ As some might know that according to eurocentrism Africans should be divided in African Caucasians, who might be pitch black but display no prognatism, and True Negroes who are prognastic. Apparently an unforgivable offence. And eurocentrism will insist that there is no proof because we cannot employ biometric pliers to measure her skull to proof her a Negress. Or some easily disproved nonsense about Blacks who cannot be rendered in paintings. And their final obstacle is demanding a named Black ancestor, a ‘True Negro’ who is a ‘South of Sahara,’ person. Someone like Alexander Pushkin’s great-grandfather, Alexander Hannibal. Or Alexander Dumas’ father, General Dumas whose mother was an enslaved woman from Martinique. Yet Africa is just across the very narrow Straights of Gibraltar and Africans arrived 43.000 years ago. Whites, descendents of Albino’s who are in my experience just normal and healthy people who need a sunblock, are only 6000 years in Europe, coming from Central Asia. But mostly whites claim, unconvincingly, not to be the least interested in whether Jane Austen was white or Black, but rather focus on her work and personality. As if personality is not also informed by an ethnic identity. As if a writer can be studied without any reference to the personal context. Jane Austen also wrote about persons whose fortune was derived from slavery, as Isabelle de Charrière did about her own wealth. Fanny Price’s outburst against slavery is met with silence, in Mansfield Park, by the slaveholding Bertram family. Reverend George Austen, Jane’s father, acted as a trustee for a plantation on Antigua owned by Mr. Nibbs. Jane Austen was perfectly in the know about emerging views of Blacks. Does she refer to this when she cries out in a letter to her sister: ‘If I’m a wild Beast I cannot help it’ and ‘It is not my own fault.’ The Classical African who symbolised blue blood and black superiority was demoted to the base of the evolutionary ladder, a creature between the superior white Human and Apes. This also highlights the role of European Blacks in exploiting Africans in slavery. Yet eurocentrism blocks any dialogue or argument as if these views are dangerous and extremely pernicious and would threaten the very fundaments of the whole western civilisation. Any solicitation is met with rudeness and next dead silence. And even sabotage by library workers, as I have found out. Interesting is that on the Internet this portrait is shown out of focus which renders her prognastic lips fuzzy. And therein I find the reason for suppressing her portrait: Jane Austen displays clear Classical African features that make her Blackness undeniable.
The suppression of Jane Austens true portrait had already started during her lifetime and apparently no public portrait was issued by her in 1811 when she debuted with Sense and Sensibility. She knew that her ‘peculiar charm,’ which pointed to ‘the purity and eloquence of her blood’, put her straight in the line of fire of revolutionaries who violently brought down the Ancien Regime. This regime I have defined as Reversed Apartheid. Sadly, I sometimes have to point out to some that South African Apartheid was an unjust and a wholly evil system. Likewise Reversed Apartheid, but this Black and Coloured nation shaped Europe in the way we know it today. My research shows a great and universal scramble to amend ancestral portraits to hide Blackness, even to the point of defacement. Now I can safely place this panic around 1811. I have concluded that there most certainly were many portraits of Jane Austen adorning the walls of the stately homes of family and friends were she was received as a favourite relative and guest. Yet they displayed her Classical African features, a mark of ‘her pure blood,’ and thus became a liability. Black Europeans who considered their blackness as proof of their superiority over whites, who they derisively called ‘pink’ or ‘t Graauw’ (the Grey’s), were bullied into abstaining the propagation of Black Supremacy. As total revisionism was aimed at, I seriously doubt any documents toward this directive will be found. They would have defeated the revisionist purpose.
I consider the horrible practice of using white human skin for bookbinding’s by the Black nobility as further proof how some viewed their white subjects. But they still alluded to their superiority in jewellery and imagery with a Moor and what I perceive as cryptic phrases: ‘blue blood’ or ‘purity and eloquence of her blood.’ Austen’s heroines could have only been Blacks as she was Black and her pride was based on her blackness. She considered herself through her accomplishments as a writer combined with her blackness as a true aristocrat. The titled aristocrats are often portrayed in her books as: ‘ill-bred’, ‘sickly and crossed,’ ‘cold,’ ‘insignificant’ and ‘plain and awkward.’ And even the final blow by sweet Anne Elliot: ‘they are nothing.’ Jane Austen who was Black did not renounce Black Superiority if it was enforced by personal brilliance by applying ones talents to become accomplished. Mr. Darcy, the hero who ravaged Eliza Bennet’s heart, was extremely rich, but not a titled noble. His fortune was achieved by trade, thus by accomplishment. Austen’s family and publishers would have been perceived as promoters of Ancien Regime values and would have placed themselves in great danger if they would have promoted her portrait. Even Austen herself might have experienced ridicule, hatred, violence and harsh rejection based on her Black appearance. Yet through restorations the nobility slashed its way back into power but was finally subdued in 1848. And only then whites came into power, whitewashed European history, and claimed the glory like any conqueror would usurp the spoils of war.
The absence of a portrait of Jane Austen and the portrayal of her personages by white actresses should be viewed as the ongoing revisionism of history. Any European museum should be regarded as a church of revisionism because they show whitened copies, over painted authentic portraits and outright fake images of the black kings and nobles. A practice facilitated by these persons themselves by issuing whitened portraits. A look they achieved in real life with white face paint and bleaching crèmes. It seems that views from whites about Blacks were frozen in 1760, when nationhood was hence identified by colour. Queen Alexandra (1844-1925)(1902-1910) was famous for her beauty in advanced age, achieved by a practice called enamelling. She preferred an application of paint which made her pink all over. This technique also prescribed the careful application of blue pigments to the temple veins to heighten the illusion of a translucent, super white skin. Her rather lifeless and ethereal look suggests paralysed facial muscles by mercury derivates, as well. This miraculous vision of beauty was further enhanced with veils that blurred the view. Yet there are photographs which show her and her mother, Queen Louise of Denmark, as brown and frizzy haired. Her husband, Edward VII was a son of Queen Victoria, who was a granddaughter of Queen Charlotte-Sophie who’s ‘true mulatto’ and ‘brown’ looks were deemed ‘propagandistic’ and gave rise to many comments. Some over painted portraits of the elite show a solid pink face, and excessive and gruesome blue veins in the face and on the hands. This undoubtedly gave rise to the nonsense about the nobility to be very white and that blue blood meant blue veins showing. It could only be that frightened and indoctrinated coloured Europeans took to protecting themselves from the sun with umbrellas, veils and gloves, as Blacks tan easily.
This article should be understood in connection with my Blue Blood is Black Blood (1500-1789) thread elsewhere on this site and in Google. Any writer writes less then he knows; for sake of brevity, yet all my conclusions are based in facts. Voltaire was accused by his detractors of ‘inventing his own facts.’ What are facts? I reject eurocentrism which is supposedly based in ‘fact’ and ‘empirism’ yet its a fake and evil science to hide the traumatic fact that Europe was a Black Civilisation, with Blacks despotically oppressing whites. Nobody observed Evolution, no one reproduced Evolution, and there are many ‘Missing Links,’ yet to Evolutionist, the Evolution Theory is a fact, as it better explains nature and human descent then Genesis’s Believers can. No one should believe anything; they should research everything by google. The more sources to confirm a fact, the better. I will post more sources and welcome serious questions from readers. Whites seem to perceive Blacks as biased and therefore not capable to research these matters. But whites do not seem to suffer the same bias when researching the same matter. How come?
Egmond Codfried
The Hague
June 2010
Now we are cooking with gas.This is how you erase this lie,with HUEMAN truth. CAGOTS have taken over Afrikans lives all over the world and ran it into the ground we were fine without an albino race,and will be o.k again. They know it’s over for them doing what they did to the superior melanin enriched inhabitants they came across in their barbaric raids across the world.Trust me the albinos in charge know exactly whats about to happen,they can no longer support their lies.All good things must come to an end,and have.Ahhh truth and non can hide from it.These cursed people became the leper royalty who they trace their Hueman existence, the popes were the cursed and helped pave the way for the lie.In short Afrikans are responsible for the cursed race known as whites,and lets not forget they are in every tribe, if you are not, i repeat NOT COLORED you too are a CAGOT.A non- melaninated mind is the cause of these delusions in mutated albinos.Any and all so-called royality got their title from someone that was full fledged Afrikan in origin.Cagots were not to rule over the animals let alone the creator. No more peace Revolution.
What is your opinion on Indian/Pakistani people? I am interested in this theory how highly implausible it may be.
I went to the south of Morocco and saw people who looked like Pakistani’s to me. I asked them about this, they laughed and confirmed they were Moroccans. Perhaps Saharawi, from the Sahara nation. They are Africans. We all are African’s. And I would not consider them whites.
Indians are Black people! Have you ever mistaken an Ethiopian person for an Indian? Have you ever wondered why Ethiopians & Indians look so similar? It’s because Indians are Ethiopians. India was a part of Ethiopia in ancient times, & their language is of Ethiopian origin. Hinduism & the Gods of Ethiopian Origin, & the people look very similar.
The Indian Ocean was once called the Ethiopian Sea.
I have only one question…..there are amongst us many black African races…Nigerian, Somalian and Sudanise….and as a wishy-washy white who considers that ebony skin colour really beautiful I stare in admiration and what do I notice ALWAYS! Pure white skin between the web of fingers, behind ears, palms of hands, under the soles of feet…..why ?? My logical mind says demographics plays the bigger part in colour.
you can use this for your investigation: there is a word in spanish that proves, blue blood, was related to red-deep dark skin colour, the word used in spanish to describe “black berries” is “moras” whose translation would be “moorish”(bearing the color of a moor) wich meas it was the same color used to describe the moors, and now these days, still the word “morado”(bearing the color of berries) is used to describe, ranges of deep blue to deep violet, so clearly the spanish people didnc called dark skinned people “black” but they called them “moros” (moors) because of they related them the color of the berries and viceversa, and that to the blue color of the berries
I am a blue blood and you got it wrong.. BLACK used in all english to ireland to france scandinavia germany all of it is the inter racism within white people between the two whites… caucasians, who have white skin and black hair, and teutons, who are the blondes, the source of germany, they came from the entry area of scandinavia from russia, they are albinoized mongoians so the germanic look is actually close to chinese or mongolian simply change norwegian blondes, on a computer, to black hair and eyes.. and you have a chinese person… a caucasian, that’s different, they are of the first waves out of africa, they did not, go around the mongolia across the top of europe and then descend as vikings route.. vikings, do not have a lot of body hair, no, they have straiht hair, round follicles, caucasians, celts, have oblong follicles thus curly hair, bushy hair, take mel gibson, he is a mix, of both, as am i, i am a bluebood, i have genetic disease porphyria that is connected with the royal ancient inbreeding, i suffer it lifelong, i’m 52… there are many uses of black heads and faces on iconography but they were WHITE people, it’s just that CELTS have a DIRECT LINK to AFRICA that most dont GET.. SCOTYA, the princess of egypt married a Spanish Celt the son of king malis of melis spain.. 3000 years ago.. and they sailed up and celtified ireland, and scotland, named it after gramma, scotyaland, that’s why kings there are still crowned standing on a rock from egypt that has it’s symbols on it, ratherlike, the celts see themselves, know themselves, to be persian, indian, meditteranean, africa, but NOT mongolian, NOT germanic, specifically…
thus is north ireland the two still fight, the celts were simply NICER to others whereas the teutons are SUPERIORS always have been feeling that way, ALWAYS… with their big bodies and axes they took all of europe, see king clovis etc.. then england, then ireland, america… the CELTS were diminished to powder in the process left only the shores western of ireland and scotland i’m one of them, mixed with bavarian
i descend from the second king of ireland, son of the first, niall, then aoidh, Mach Ae is our name, the first and largest greatest clanna in history of gaeldom
a real mach oi i am
we like afriancs, ireland, lets in EVERYBODY regardless.. Come be with us the Taoseich says.. yes, we have a spiritual leader of ireland, like persia has a supreme leader, ireland has the taoseich, not the prime minister, not the president, the Taoseich (Teesha) he’s the leader of IRELANDS CULTURE…. Gerry Adams, looks like a PERSIAN dead on… so do i ..
they’re related.. it’s a trip, so sort out euro history, but for sure, there were black kings and slaves and peoples all as you say but NOT that CHARLES STUART was black that’s utterly impossible my friend
no way, our stuarts, the scottish clann, they’re all black hair white skin just like the real paintins, the fake paintins by british haters paint him black to say: HE”S A FRIGGIN CELT…
celts, were LOWER ever since saxons took over england
black irish, they are not BLACK, nor DARK, they have BLACK HAIR ONLY but they are called black simply because of this because SO FEW teutons have BLACK HAIR… it’s utterly impossible… they HAVE to have something else in them, to get it, no way, do teutons EVER have curly black hair, no way, those kids with curly black hair and white white skin, are CELTIC WHITES CAUCASIANS WHO ARE CALLED BLACK IN EURO HISTORY SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THEIR HAIR MONIKER ONLY…. A SLUR TERM BY THE “WHITES” who have Yellowish Skin like BRAD PITT and straight hair that is blonde or white or sandy blonde, but STRAIGHT and their bodies are NOT LIKE ours… they are lean and straight, we are more like the rest of the world, woman have butts… germanics sometimes dont… woman have tits, many germanics dont.. they are lean, like cheatas, they are deadly.. fierce, the superior war whites, are the teutons, they now rule the world as the leaders of NATO, but that wont last… the link of the saxon and the jew banker is the current world control holder..
celts hold nothing.. they are a people people.. they do music, hang out, work to survive, don’t ever conquer… have a history, have a culture, you’ll find the germanics never have a culture or history.. in modern times.. nope…
even long ago, they were called the people with no history, for it is bloody, so it’s not remembered, they are about conquest.. capture, control..
celts dance, and like all others and use black proudly as an icon so … hello and hi.
“for you are where you are in the struggle”
celtic looks, and peoples, do mix with, and derive from africa.. whereas tartian looks, turned to scandinavia, is another thing, when abe lincoln is painted, if you color his skin, he’ll look like a black man, like the picture above, yes, blacks are a part of euro history and blood but by the times you speak of i dont think there was black skin at the tops of a celtic kingdom in scotland etc.. i mean, i’m from them, i’m one of them, i’m a real ulster scots…. yes, we have more link to the arab hairy man and africa man.. for sure.. than the blondes, who have been “away longer”.. kcuf racism, anyways… THE PEOPLE ! and GOD !
Dr.Suzar-pt.5: http://play.kendincos.com/160182/Wfjdhtxdhptrvjnfj-dr-suzar-pt-5.html
My latest efforts are opening a Suriname Blue Blood Is Black Blood museum dedicated to the true looks of European historical persons. I have finally been reading McRitchie’s Ancient and Modern Britons, and I find conformation of all I have been saying for the past years. He did not know about the black and brown skinned nobles living way into the 20th century. He stops at Charles II Stuart, quoting someone who described him as ‘sable hued.’ Now I have started a campaign to let Blacks all over the world know that all portraits in museums are fake, whitened over paints. This was done from 1848 tot 1960. But it might be still going on. The book by Alison McQueen about the 19th century cult of Rembrandt explains how the revolutionaries in 1848 decided that Rembrandt was the painter of the third estate, the white serfs. That were finally emancipated in that year. But, so they claimed, the paint had darkened, and the varnish yellowed. Next they retouched the faces and hands with white, beige and pink paint and whitened all the faces, claiming this is what the painters true intension was. I was so lucky to find a series of photos of Dutch Old Master portraits by Van Mierevelt, Ravesteyn and so on, from 1934 which show the un-retouched portraits. You may find them in google searching for Van Aerssen-Beyeren portraits.
So can I just clarify that you’re saying the enslavement of Blacks was revenge for how we treated them?
Revenge and envy perhaps? (I pressed ‘post comment’ too soon!)
Dear Brother Farrah,
The history of Blacks, the first people, did not start with the enslavement of Blacks in 1441 by their own Black European brethren, who were the noble and bourgeois elite of Europe. They were two equally brown and black complexioned European tribes fighting for power. All of history is about brown and black complexioned people. Whites never, ever found any civilization. Blacks civilized and Christianized the pagan hell out of whites in Europe. Among the nobles and bourgeois those with classical African facial traits were considered pure of blood. The nobility self-identified as Black by means of little heraldic Moors. The heraldic Moors in western art are symbols of blue blood and Black Superiority. They are usually not real persons, nor god forbid slaves: they are imaginary figures created by the painter as a symbol. The clever painters even did not need to have a Black person in front of them to whip up a magnificently dressed little or big Moor. The painted portraits are no instamatic snapshots, they are artificial and loaded with symbolism. Though some real life nobles, kings and emperors like Charles V Hapsburg or Leopold I Hapsburg, fully resembled these imaginary Moors in looks. So even if they were depicted white in concept, and loved the folly of painting up themselves white and bleaching their skins in real life: they identified as Black, as coming from Africa.
And they saw themselves as superior over whites and the bourgeois castes. But we do not know this, and some find it almost impossible to believe because we have been deceived since 1848 with fake, whitened over paints of people who were described as black, brown, the black boy, more brown then white, swarthy, bad complexion, not the white hands, chimney sweeper, black as chimney, the black prince, black tom, ugly, etc. When you enter a museum the people who speak to you lie through their teeth. The paintings are over paints, often completely vandalized master pieces. And they write thick important ‘scientific’ books about this falsified data, that hides the true complexion of the ancient regime. The whites were considered shoe leather, until the invention of human races to elevate these whites to human level. The historical Declaration of Human Rights was on their behalf; the white serfs were asking to be regarded as humans by their brown and black skinned nobles. In this way the bourgeois philosophers of the Enlightenment forged a coalition between whites who were the majority and the bourgeois, who in defiance of the nobility identified themselves as Caucasians, or black Caucasians; to defeat the hated nobility. When they finally succeeded, the newly emancipated whites set out to rewrite history, extirpate their oppressors from history, and retouched all the faces of the hated ancient regime. Now, even as we speak, the whites keep this secret from us. But no more, I’m onto their little game, that I, with your help en blessing, will stop right now. Go to your museum and ask for a tour with magnifying goggles and demand to be shown the facial retouches, and next write to your city council about this scandalous falsehood perpetrated on Blacks.
I have discovered a source of miscommunication between Americans and others as the State of American still believes in the unscientific concept of human races, assigning a race to every citizen. And in the US the North Africans, no matter of what complexion, are considered whites. We have all seen the Libyans and Egyptians marching on TV and we should decide for ourselves if they are white. Do they have a white identity? As the bourgeois and republican inspired, revolutionary leadership identified as white, though brown and black of complexion, Americans do not realize that the American Founding Fathers were far from lily-white of complexion. The fact that they were slave-owners does not make them white. The fact that Blacks introduced African slavery does not mean communities should not receive back pay from 350 years of slavery. But Blacks should not use back pay as a condition for taking back their freedom. It’s up to Blacks to do like me to flood the internet, the means of our deliverance from white supremacy and racism, with images and studies that show Europe was a Black Civilization. I do not understand why some Black scholars manage to find Black Kings in Mesoamerica, The Olmec’s, and Blacks sitting on the Imperial ancient Chinese thrones; but do not manage to find the Black Emperor Charles V Hapsburg. As if they do not want Blacks to be free.
Greetings to you all and Best Wishes for 2013, the year of our deliverance.
Egmond Codfried
Suriname Blue Blood Is Black Blood Museum
At The Hague.
Firstly Brother Farrah is Sister Farrah
Secondly, thank you for your in depth reply Egmond – your site has been enlightening and has provided what may be missing links to my own thoughts around slavery and why it happened, to include the theft of Black invention.
My point really was around the motives of white people in terms of WHY they enslaved black people. To me it sounds as if there was deep seated resentment, envy/jealousy at a) being treated in a certain way (leather for example) and b) the apparent achievements of Black people across Europe/Africa etc.
I’m not saying that Blacks are in the wrong or right about being slave owners etc, my question is: is it your opinion that the reason White people have done what they have done is for revenge and envious reasons? And in addition to that, that their pursuit at world domination now really is an imitation of what we originally achieved?
Also if you could share some sources I’d much appreciate it.
Also I’ve shared with you a blog post I wrote a few months ago so you can “see” where I’m coming from.
http://life-love-and-my-universe.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/happy-anniversaryrace-and-prejudice.html
Thanks
.
The reply function seems disabled
All congratulations Bro Egmond for this interesting research.I see know why all this paintings that the Mindele accepted to show looked somehow weird! Reason is as they have been whitened the features didn’t match anymore with the color of the face.
Dear Sir,
I have embarked on a campaign to make the public aware that all old master portraits in museums are overpaints. After 1848 when the third estate came to power they had all Ancien Regime portraits altered. This is clearly visible, the beige and pink over paint on top of brown faces and hands. The question is of whites should cary on this charade after 160 years. White supremacy is based on fake, whitened portraits of the noble and bourgeois elite which was described as brown and black of complexion. acism against Blacks is a liberation ideology to free Europe from noble domination. The nobility self-identified as Black with little heraldic Moors. I call for the end of Revisionism and the end of Racism.
Still busy downloading my proof, but you may look in at my thread in minglecity.com about Jane Austen who was Black.
egmond codfried
Suriname Blue Blood is Black Blood Museum
at The Hague, The Netherlands
Bluebloodisblackblood.blogspot.com
Thank you, My posts are blocked at rastalivewire by a hater.
I have first provided you with my own sayings, and my books are the only books in the world that claim and show brown and black european nobles and kings. I make use of sources that talk about ‘the cult of Rembrandt’ but do not mention this cult included the whitening of portraits. Or books about the rise of the magi, the black king Balthazar, but which fail to connect him with the rise of the Black, Christian nobility and King. In fact any book or historical movie can be a source if one substitutes the persons and actors with Black persons. JARogers Sex and Race introduced the idea of modern Black royalty. He leads where Ancient and Modern Britons by David McRitchie left off. Paul Kaplan The rise of the magi traces the Black King at the birth of Jesus in imagery, but fails to link this to actual history with Blacks dominating.
Slavery is not pay back, as we today did not oppress any serfs or used their skins for shoe leather. Racism was invented by bourgeois ‘scientists’ who also invented human races to elevate white serfs into humanhood. In order to forge an alliance to free Europe from noble rule. The bourgeois stole the French Revolution and whites were finally emancipated in 1848. They had all the paintings altered, this you can deduce from Alison McQueens book about the Cult of Rembrandt. In spite of all her sources she failed to write about the retouching of Rembrandts paintings.
I’m quite clear that the whites who were kept as shoeleather cattle by the nobility had the right to free themselves, but I refuse to accept any notion of pay back. I rather ask if whites should not move on, as Blacks have moved on. So to me racism is a rational ideology, not to promote your former oppressor back into power, but this threat has lapsed, their are no black nobles and kings to oppress whites anymore. The problem is, if you accept that Europe was a Black Civilisation, where the artefacts are. Well they are in museums staring at us, but altered to resemble white people. We need to challenge these fake images and the people who are in the know.
All would be clear if you reach for your copy of a Jane Austen novel to confirm she wrote solely about brown and black complexioned gentry and nobles. Emma would be the best or next Mansfield Park.
Kindly keep sending me more questions, as you see I will try to answer all.
egmond codfried
bluebloodisblackblood@hotmail.com
I seem to be able to post again.
“” Sadi says All congratulations Bro Egmond for this interesting research.I see know why all this paintings that the Mindele accepted to show looked somehow weird! Reason is as they have been whitened the features didn’t match anymore with the color of the face.”
What does the name ? Mindele mean?
The European noble and bourgeois elite was brown and black of complexion, but some also had classical African facial traits, what some would call Black today. The nobility self-identified as Black with little heraldic Moors. Europe 1100-1848 was a Black, Black Identified civilization. Supremely documented, Yet they have changed the colour not the contours of the faces, so one can still see on some the frizzled hair and the lips and noses that are classical African. I have based my research on personal description that say a certain person was brown or black of complexion. When everybody has seen that the old masters are overpaints , then we will understand that Europe was dominated by Blacks, which is the reason why we have racism. Racism was invented by the brown and black complexioned bourgeoisie to get rid of the noble rule: racism is a liberation ideology. The whites and the bourgeoisie wanted to be free.
How will you join my campaing to free us from racism in this very year?
Egmond Codfried
Dear brother Mindele is the lingala (central africa language)word meaning alien, or “uncomplete person” for those who come out of Black man and think they can dominate him. My contribution to our awakening is to read and spread what i gather from researchs like yours.Yaa Bless!
To the makers of Hidden Colors
The Hague, 22 January 2013.
Mr. Tariq Nasheed,
After carefully watching your DVD of Hidden Colors (2011) my conclusion is that you must be in league with the enemies of Blacks by presenting the unaware public with wrong and unfinished research, and by promoting further division among Blacks by linking Black History to anti- activism, anti-women liberation and anti-gay emancipation efforts. The divide between men and women is the greatest scorch, while all well thinking people understand that women need to be equal to men, that we need to get rid of the patriarchies of old, for Blacks to exist and prosper. By your vulgar gay bashing you have alienated Blacks from at least 20% of their own: parents, children, siblings, and taxpaying, fellow workers.
And showing how the penal system is working against any Black as you did, is really meant to intimidate any Black in trying to overturn the status quo. The Fat Cats and bitter, mean spirited women, and the obviously closeted hateful gay professors, you have presented: utter old fashioned white solutions to the Black Problem and are basically telling Blacks: Do not bother, there is no use, be like us, join the capitalist system, rape women legally (prostitution) and bash your gays (only the men as women sexuality does not count) and all will be well in the world. The problems are shown as so great and so overwhelming, that the whites come off as these immensely powerful creatures who are always ahead, who have always conquered and vanquished Blacks from time immemorial, Blacks should not even THINK of trying to change anything.
The truth and the lies are presented as a mix, so the debunking of your story is made hard, because there is truth is some parts although presented in a terribly wrong context. And you show the dreaded fakes, whitened images that were created to keep us in the dark. You fail to identify whites as albino derived, because this is what whites especially hate to hear, as it shows they did not come first and that they came out of Blacks, and thus could never, ever be superior to Blacks.
I have recognized a few images which I have generally introduced on the web, and they are presented by you without the context of my Blue Blood Is Black Blood (1100-1848 ) Theory, scientific research, which basically says that Europe during this time should be regarded as a Black Civilisation, with brown and black complexioned native Europeans dominating, ruling, civilizing and christianising whites who are Asian, and a foolproof albino derived nation, but late comers. Part of the brown and black complexioned Europeans declared themselves in 1100-1200 a blue blood nobility and self-identified with heraldic Moors as Blacks. They created the Black King Balthasar, the Black Madonna’s and the numerous Black Saints as propaganda for Black Superiority. Together with the bourgeoisie they were the second estate, and both of these Black European ‘tribes’ oppressed the whites who were reduced to lowly serfs, and outcasts of the cast society. The elite even used their skins for shoe leather. The French Revolution brought the nobility down, but they re-emerged with restorations like the one by Napoleon. Your type of research after all these decades remains patchy, spotty and anecdotic when it comes to the presence of Blacks in Europe, for not naming names or showing Black portraits. Just like the enemies of Blacks like to keep it.
The end was in 1848 with the final Revolutions when the third estate, the white serfs, were emancipated and got general suffrage for men. Next, in reverse they set out to ‘restore’ the portraits of the ancient regime to what they claimed was the true intention of the painters, and retouched the hell out of the supposedly ‘darkened’ paint back to white. An old photo of The Syndics by Rembrandt introduced by me on the web shows he made his figures all shades of brown and showed classical African facial traits along with colour. My museum has embarked on a international campaign to make the public aware of the fact that all Old Master portraits in museums are fake, whitened over paint, while the brown faces and brown hands underneath remain highly visible.
In spite of this you showed a whitened, fake image of James I Stuart, the grandfather of Charles II Stuart who you did present as a Black person, somehow suggesting that the Nobility and Kingship was instigated by whites who intermarried with some Blacks, resulting in a few Black or ethnically mixed Kings. This is totally wrong, and this points to your intentionally unfinished and highly misleading research. The image of the Spanish Queen Isabelle shows her with long blond hair, which is totally ridiculous, with the Habsburgs famous for massive prognathism. The rule by Blacks is the cause of racism against Blacks today, as the bourgeois philosophers had invented Racism against the Black-identified nobility as a liberation ideology. Blacks are thus one step above apes, which were presented to the white masses as people who had degenerated because of their immoralness.
There are many genealogies available which show intermarriage between and among nobles and royals, so with finding one or two Black person with those ranks, and comparing images with personal descriptions that say brown or black of complexioned, one can understand the whole elite to have been brown or black and self-identifying as Black. Images of Moors are symbolic and seldom represent real persons. A painter did not need to have a person in front of him to create an image of a Moor. There is no proof of Moorish persons directly from Africa teaching or having any powerful positions at universities or courts. The European Blacks are native, they regarded themselves as from the soil, and claimed senior rights over whites. The Islamic Moors that ruled Spain do not show up beyond the South of France, and there is no sign of any Islam among the ruling, brown and black complexioned European Christian elite, after they were driven from Spain. This misinformation all leads to a dead end, and serves the enemy of Blacks well.
Because your message is no threat to white supremacy teachings of history which omits Blacks as an elite, and because you present so-called scholars who manage to find Black Emperors sitting on China’s thrones, and Black Kings in Mesoamerica, but cannot find extremely well documented and depicted European Emperors like Leopold I Habsburg, or Charles V Habsburg that represent a Black Civilisation: it seems to me they are working AGAINST Blacks Liberation. That’s also why your false prophets of hatred can be so successful, they are part of the oppressing system. They represent how the enemy of Blacks who never sleeps has co-opted Black History and has tried to turn it in an instrument of hatred, derision, division and oppression. Like how slavery was perpetrated with the help of some Blacks to enslave and keep Blacks in slavery. You are not part of the solution, but part of the problem. You are all Fat Cat sell-outs, well ensconced, with a well-feathered nest, but out and out TRAITORS to the Blacks. You bold facedly introduce more and new division between Blacks. Really not better then the Africans who from 1441 sold Africans to the Black Europeans who kept their brethren in slavery.
The only merit from your DVD is that Blacks can come face to face with their direct enemies.
Egmond Codfried
Curator Suriname Blue Blood Is Black Blood Museum
Bluebloodisblackblood.blogspot.com
bluebloodisblackblood@hotmail.com
“Sadi says : Dear brother Mindele is the lingala (central africa language)word meaning alien, or “uncomplete person” for those who come out of Black man and think they can dominate him. My contribution to our awakening is to read and spread what i gather from researchs like yours.Yaa Bless!”
I would say, it’s the whites who still carry a grudge, who still have a victim mentality by keeping a fight, a fear going on that should have passed already. they should just move on. In France I was taken aback in Marseille where they showed you bulletholes on a church were people were executed by the German invaders. I was thinking about the people who were murdered by the French themselves in Algeria.So we now have a handle on Racism, a liberation ideology, and the retouched portraits they maintain and show should be scrubbed clean. no more lies, no more secrecy, no more keeping us out of the kitchen, the cat is out of the bag. I have always maintained white supremacy is based on fake, whitened portraits, but only now I can see what I have postulated. That is why they seem to have all these writers and scientist, because they whitened the hell out of these Black portraits, proof that a brown and black skinned elite ruled and civilized whites. This is a new dawn, but we need to go out and point these fakes out. They bring our children to see them and the children should be forewarned that they will be shown fakes. And they should holler, and embarress the people who have been playing us for fools for so long now. Enough is enough.
my posts are blocked again
Nobody blocked your post. Rasta Livewire has never censured you before or now. Stop the paranoid comments.
Why do you speak so rude to me?
We teach others how to treat Blacks.
Kindly remove this comment of yours.
This stuff should be taught to black children. But after for so many years that they are useless subhumans. When you aware that you belong to the most hated group.on the earth and there isn’t a common thread holding your group together, you are left with a sense of hopeless. And it makes you wonder why would one so called race go to such lengths to discredit another so called race. Like my grandmother says, “Donkey, sey de world nuh level.”
After dem dun teef you history, teef you land, teef your humanity, teef you people as slaves, dem a now reteef de people and a sey dem dont belong to you. And not all of Africa belongs to you in first place. The only part that belongs to you are the areas below the desert. This is absolute loonisy. We stand back and watch itall happen because we have been physically and psychologically rendered powerless. Why are whites and the hybrids they have created in Africa telling the indigineous people of the land, “Go back where you came from.”
We are not powerless. I believe I irk Blacks by saying they are not victims, and there is a way out. Look for the International Campaingn against falsefied old master portraits and codfried in google. You cannot take on a whole bastion, but you can hammer away at the weakest point. This is the weakest link in their bastion of lies and hatred: the fake portraits. Take yourself to a museum, look closely at the faces and the hands, and you will see they are an over paint. If we challenge the veracity of the portraits, their pride and joy: Blacks will be free. There in all museums is the proof of the Black European elite I was talking about.
http://forums.philosophyforums.com/download.php?attachid=4545
Anna Karenina by Tolstoy is based on marya Pushkina, a Black woman.
A very interesting theory. I am a fan of Dumas and I am fascinated by European history and European monarchy thanks to him. What I have always found most confusing is his love for the nobility and his Royalist sentiments considering that he was an illegitimate child and a mulatto. You have just answered that question for me. He is in fact writing about the great deeds of his fellow mulattos in his tales.
Your article about Jane Austen was most intriguing. Her preoccupation with complexions was like Dumas a result of her mulatto ancestry. Dumas’ most celebrated hero D’Artagnan was brown. The beautiful Queen Margot was a dark beauty. Her husband Henry IV of France and her lover La Mole were both very dark. His most formidable villainess “Milady” was very pale and had blonde hair and green eyes. Her paleness was conspicuous which is strange considering that Europe was supposed to be a white continent. Her son Mordant’s pale complexion was supposed to be nauseating for the beholder.
About a year ago I came across a documentary called The Arrivals. It was about the New World Order but the reason why I’m writing about it is because they talk about how the Pharaohs’ bloodline is flowing in the European monarchy. If we do some research on Google like you said, you see that this is not a far fetched idea. Cleopatra was the last Pharaoh of Egypt. Her successor Cleopatra Selene II, who was of Greek and Roman ancestry was the ruler of Libya. From here we see how the seat of power shifted from Egypt to Africa to Rome and then to the rest of Europe. We see how the Egyptian culture became part of the European monarchy. Egyptian practices such as face painting, wig wearing, embalming of dead bodies and storing the dead monarchs’ heart in urns became part of the culture of the Europeans monarch. Like Egyptians and Romans, the European monarchs also preserved their pure bloodlines by intermarriages. I recently came across the portrait of a french princess with a pyramid in the background.
If you research on my theories, I’m sure you’ll find that all these things are connected.
Kindly peruse my blog: bluebloodisblackblood.blogspot.com. Was Dumas illegtimate? His grandfather did not marry Dumas, the ex-slave woman, but he named his son after him, giving him a noble title. The grandson, our writer, had this name, and was a noble man, mixing with the nobility, not looking much different from them. According to Jane Austen the noble and bourgeouis elite were 2-5% (or 2-3%) of the population, and they were light brown or sallow, brown, very brown or black of complexion. The ones with classical African facial traits, like Austen herself did have, were ‘peculiar’ in looks, ‘distinguished,’ proof of pure blood and proof of having noble blood in the familyline. Not all looked classical African, but then again in Africa there are many facial types. The brown and the black Europeans were the first Europeans, the whites are Central Asian late comers of 400 AD. Because of seniority issues, the brown and blacks elevated themselves into a nobility (1100-1200). Austen wrote against the lost of power of these Blacks (1100-1848) who civilized and christianized Blacks, ruling the whites who were their serfs, using them as shoe leather. Whites were only emancipated in 1848 and whitened history, having all portraits either destroyed or whitened by over paint.
Edmond Codfried you are a true scholar of the highest order. Your research is impeccable and worthy of praise. I have been studying the Atlantic Slave Trade and here is what I have discovered thus far. The Atlantic Slave Trade is nothing more than a rouge that never happened as we might think. The European settlers (invaders, not settlers) did not have to go to Africa to get one single black person. We were already here and a part of the indigenous and native populace. I have been fact checking the math and it does not add up. Each of the largest ships could only carry approximately 400 individuals per-trip with an average voyage time of approximately 2 to 3 months (1619-1865). If you take all the companies involved and the number of ships and of course factor in people on the periphery. I could not get past approximately 560,000 kidnapped victims. The question has to be asked, “Where did the other 14,000,000 come from?” When I checked other European explorers who visited these shores (North and South America) and they spoke all these black tribes/ethnic groups they encountered along the way, then everything began to make sense. One of the answer can be found in the Louisiana purchase of 1803…land that was not a part of the original purchase agreement, land which belonged to the Pre-Columbians. A great deal black tribes are still in South America today. US history books call them escaped slaves…they enslaved the native population and made it appear as though they brought them from Africa.
I believe you when you say there were already Africans in the America’s before new ones were brought in. I read that the Brazilian ‘Indians’ as they are called had a more complex civilization, bigger cities etc, and numbered a lot more then we believe.
But I kindly point out that slavery does not explain the position of Blacks today. Our history is strongly connected with the European Blacks (1100-1848), but we are not supposed to know about, as all their portraits are over painted. Anyone can go to any museum right now and look at the old masters, portrait and some genre pieces, and see the over paint.
If we challenge this big secret, they do their utmost to keep, we will defeat white supremacy and racism. But you have to show courage and pay and go to a museum, and answer back to me. We can free ouselves without bloodshed, without rioting, burning and having shoot outs. We just quietly challenge the paintings, the one weak spot I have discovered in 2005, and am now promoting. We need chapters in all cities, two to three educated people, who will go to their museum, examine the portraits and start a campaign to discredit them. If Blacks want to be free in 2013, they need to get moving right now, Housenegroes are asked not to help this campaing, they are really the enemies of Blacks, hired and paid by the racist governments.
I am starting to wonder if the underground railway is another white lie being used to account for black presence in Canada. And black historians are repeating the same white lie. I always found it odd that these so called runaway slaves not only made their way this far north but in no time they became prominent land and business owners in a very racist white society. Maybe the black people were always here and thats why they were promiinent members of society. Black Canadian history is not taught in school but around February of each year, you may find a few posters around that tells of black presence in canada. Nova Scotia and ontario we are told had black settlements. There was a black woman who was
Executed in quebec but they act as if she was the only black person living in that province.
INTERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN AGAINS FALSIFIED, OVER PAINT PORTRAITS OF ALL OLD MASTERS IN ALL MUSEUMS
LOOK FOR THIS IN GOOGLE UNDER MY NAME.
http://minglecity.com/profiles/blogs/international-campaign-against-false-whitened-over-paints-of-all
http://api.ning.com/files/vf4DkD4*4JQxS7Ml2QeXDesxTOtf5nMhyXEgBnigLAV3In-b5vLCHi1JYMwwI-mBikaAhecw0*vBvhVLjFUa3ST5g58vuEkA/2DeStaalmeestersfotovanvrderetouchFirmaBraun.jpg
[Syndics by Rembrandt: this is what all old master portraits looked like: Black Europeans who were the masters of the white serfs]
My eight year Blue Blood is Black Blood (1100-1848) research has come to fruition, and I have now started a International Campaign against falsified, over paint portraits by old masters in all museums. You may start your own local chapter to end white supremacy and racism. All you need to do is go the museum near you and look at the old masters and notice they are all ugly, over paints. All of them. The brown and black skin still visible under the fake beige and pink layers. The Black contours, lips and noses, and frizzled hair they did not alter. They have painted around the pearl necklaces, and you see a gap. The facial hair is repainted on top of the fake layers, as you cannot paint beige between hairs. The face layer is higher then the surroundings. The hair is lightened by highlights. Because of my dedicated research Blacks need not holler, loot, burn, have shoot outs and rape to have white supremacy ended. You just start a great rumor about the paintings all over the world. This is the secret they are still keeping from us for the past 160 years.
Our enemy is ourselves. The whites see Blacks hacking each other to dead on TV and do not want to hear about racism. Nor can they believe that Blacks can be agents of civilization. So we will not talk about racism anymore but about scientific fraud, scientific misconduct, hoaxing the public with falsified portraits. This whites will understand fraud. They can see it also once pointed out to them, and once you have seen them, you cannot go back. So the struggle has been moved to another arena. A more civilized, genteel., cultured arena. The enemy are the housen*ggers who have constantly sold us out. The Black History Month was created for them, by the racist state so they can get some money too, while they teach and mentally enslave Blacks that they are slaves, come from slaves, always be slaves. We are not slaves, Blacks were nobles, kings and emperors. But their folly was the infighting between the nobbles and the bourgeoisie, and the oppression of whites. The whites fought until 1848, were given universal suffrage , and had all portraits altered to resemble whites, extirpating brown and blacks from history.
The relevant source, though incomplete is the study: Alison Macqueen, The Rise of The Cult of Rembrandt in 19th Century France, 2003. She shows how History was falsified by deliberately choosing Rembrandt as a revolutionary figure head, claiming he painted whites, the third estate. Which he did not. But they also claimed the paint had darkened and retouched the hell out of the brown faces, making the noble and bourgeoisie elite white. Do not argue with me, even if you are a white person: just go see the museum and look at the faces and hands.
Hope to hear from folks who want to free us from racism right now in 2013. We have a window of opportunity right now. We have the internet, so we can do it right now. We need to point at the fakes and shout FAKE. Start a local Chapter, of three genteel, educated persons, and do what needs to be done, never harming the precious portraits that are our proof that Blacks ruled Europe (1100-1848). Just be beware of the housenegroes, do not include these fat cats in your operation or it will fail. .
Egmond Codfried
Curator Suriname Blue Blood Is Black Blood Museum
The Hague.
How can you fight a race of devils who are using pseudo science, statistics, the media, laws to defame, demonize, and dehumanize black people, and set them up so that the world can hate them. How do we combat the invisible war, a nameless a war when all you know its damaging you psyche but you cannot pinpoint the source because you will be inflicted with further onslaught and be called a racist? Like the late great Robert Nester Marley said, “Babylon release the chain but now dem a use dem brain.” And, “They don’t want to see us unite. ALL They want us to do is keep on killing one another, top rankin,”
Its n longer pinkness of skin that gives one entry into Club Caucasian. Black/Brown people are being reclassified as Caucasians and a few reasons come to mind. One, to increase the dwindling world wide pink population. Two, to further the lie that Africa has never made any significant contribution to the world i.e. neither the Egytians nor the Ethiopians were black. And that great Empire that Zimbabwe once hosted, they had Caucasians behind them. Yes, I have heard white racists claiming the original Zimbabweans were white and that’s the only explanation for their great civilization. The Olmecs look like negro male faces and NOT
Native North Americans and the sphinx looks like a negro female face despite the nose being destroyed. Im not sure which Pharaoh the Sphinx is suppose to be but in my opinion, the features are distinctively negroid and female.
To further explain a lack of representation of pink people in the hot Eastern sun, whites reclassify the black/brown people of that region as Caucasians to further their manifest destiny (the only winners in all this will be the pink squatters of Europe) and Agenda white Supremacy and destruction of the black race. Another reason for this new classification is to create one single human race (Caucasian) and a race of subhumans aka subsaharan Africa, and aka niggers (another class of animals in the animsl kingdom).
Yet another reason for this new classification is to dehumanize, mentally criple, psychologically terrorize the truth authors if civilization. slavery, christianity and islam was used to further the above agenda but the black people came out seemingly unscathed and are now making a come back. “They even have black scholars like James, Bernal, and etc whom we have used intimidation and terrorism on to stop them from telling the truth and that doesn’t seem to work. ” So whites came up with a longer lasting method that they can spread using media now that many have access to it. ” let’s kill them [black people] before they grow [mentally stronger].Despite the varying genotyopes and phenotypes amongst so called Africans (supra and sub saharans) and black people still giving birth to whites, facial features is being used as a classification. LIES are not exact science ( how many times did Bin Laden die) and thats why even east asians with wider noses and fuller lips are being reclassified as Caucasian so to reevent one human race of caucasians.
The one drop of black blood rule no longer applies. The brilliance of great scholars like Dubois (Darkwater), Booker T. Washington (Up From Slavery) and Paul Laurence Dunbar (Sympathy, brilliant poem by a brilliant poet) will be explained away using whiteness whether or not they had immediate white ancestors.
Since, “You can fool some people sometimes but you can’t fool all the people all the time,” not all suprasaharan Africans are falling for this trick. Despite a great majority of suprasaharan Africans accepting entry in Club White, there are many who are refusing entry and are saying,”I am a black African.” I have been fortunate enough to meet a few proud suprasaharan Africans who are not ashamed of being an original hue-man. The proud suprasaharan Africans are being labelled as Afrocentrics, a label that depicts some kind of mental defect for wanting the truth to be told – a demonization and ridicule for seekers who refuse to be clouded by Eurocentism, lies, darkness, unhealthy, diseases state of mind that leaves non pinkoids in a state of darkness and self hatred.
Dear friend Sailor Moon,
I have read most of your replies, and I will tell you something I was not prepared to accept and you might want to reject out of hand: at first look. As I’m travelling the world on a virtual speaking tour, I entered many, many forums. And the whites do not accept any charge of racism, genocide, exploitation, nor oppression. They point to what Blacks are doing right now in front of CNN and BBC camera’s: hacking each other to dead. We cannot deny it. The only answer I can think off, is that Blacks are not unlike others, humans just love killing each other. If the killing in Europe has stopped for now, for the past only 65 years, they make up by killings in Asia and Africa. So, we need to go about this another way. BLACKS ARE NOT VICTIMS. Whites do not owe them a thing. So as I suggested earlier in a post, we are going to look for scientific fraud, falsified history by falsefied portraits. I assume as whites and all people were aghast as the doping biking scandel unfolded, or the mad cow disease scandal of cow farmers feeding dead cows to life ones, or the present horsemeat scandal, a lot of people might object to be shown falsefied art, portraits that have been tampered with. Now if we pour our anger in that, we might see a change. Do not you agree? So no racism and woe is me, but denounce false portraits and scientific misconduct by the museum people, on our tax payer money too.
TO THE EXECUTIVE BOARD OF THE DUTCH ROYAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES IN Amsterdam. CC the DA, MIN OF EDUC. On: THE INTERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN AGAINST MASS SCIENTIFIC FRAUD, MISREPRESENTATION AND INSTITUTIONAL MISCONDUCT BY FALSEFIED, OVER PAINTED OLD MASTER PORTRAITS PRESENTED TO THE UNWARY PUBLIC
The Hague, 14 March 2013.
Dear Sirs, Hans Chang, and Theo Mulder
This is to inform you about my discovery of a massive scientific fraud and institutional scientific misconduct through the alleged scientific management, the so-called scientific description and by misleading the public by exhibition of falsified old master portraits in all museums. Our restorers, our museum directors and our Directors are therefore criminal organizations at the expense of the taxpayers. All old master portraits and some genre scenes were in the period 1848 -1960 whitened.
This followed immediately after the emancipation of the Third Estate in France resulting in universal male suffrage, and our own major constitutional change that took away some privileges of the nobility. To avoid relapse the revolutionary governments decided that all portraits of the Ancien Régime must be painted over with beige and pink paint. They claimed that the paint had darkened, while the painter wanted to depict white people. So all the old master portraits were supposedly restored or whitened.
Rembrandt was deliberately, against all evidence proclaimed to be the revolutionary painter of the third estate, while his figures around 1880, were re-painted, as whites. This is evidenced by a photograph of the original Syndics. This can also be derived from photos from 1934 of un-retouched portraits of Van Aerssen-Beyeren collection, the richest family in the Republic.
This concerns the true brown and black complexions of the noble, bourgeois or regent Masters (1100-1848) who were using the skin of their serfs as shoe leather. The good news is that this is still highly visible by the naked eye on the faces and hands. The facial hair was re-painted on the false beige face layer, the hair lightened by blonde highlights, the skin layer was re-painted around the pearl necklaces, and that the false face layer is higher than the rest. The hands often look like claws, while the classical African and frizzled hair were maintained.
This is even worse than the Professor Diederik Stapel scandal, the Bicycle Sport Doping scandal, the Mad Cow Disease scandal and the present Horse Meat scandal put together and is very damaging to the reputation of the Netherlands, and the majority of the brown and black complexioned world population. Kindly sent your response within two weeks.
Sincerely,
Your obedient servant,
Egmond Codfried,
Curator Suriname Blue Blood Blood Is Black Museum,
Eemstraat 36/2515 VS The Hague.
OPEN LETTER
VIRGINIA WOOLF’S INDIAN ROOTS
http://www.biography.com/imported/images/Biography/Images/Profiles/W/Virginia-Woolf-9536773-1-402.jpg
Virginia Woolf –Stephen must have been half or quarter Indian, her grandma was born in India, and she married an Ashkenazi Jew, Leonard Woolf, who has Dutch and German sounding ancestors. And he worked eight years in Ceylon, before he married Virginia Stephen. Virginia Woolf’s ancestors were named Pattle, clearly an Anglicization of Patel. She was clearly very dark complexioned, with full lips and thick Black hair twisted in a very Indian looking bun. Part of the fierce allure of Indian women is how they raise their arms, frame their bosom, and violently tie their beautiful locks in a bun. Her portraits which show a white skinned woman are whitened fakes, to hide her darkness. I wonder if there is any reference to India in her books, or that part of her personality can be understood as reflecting an Indian Identity. She is always shown wearing the latest flapper fashions so she and Vanessa, her even darker sister must have been a true traffic stopping spectacle to behold.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BMNz_EZIcqY/TpyLNznSCUI/AAAAAAAAOSs/NuPDju0v8fE/s1600/2%2BVanessa_Bell_1910_338080s.jpg
[Vanessa Bell]
http://www.smith.edu/libraries/libs/rarebook/exhibitions/images/stephen/large24a.jpg
[Virginia Pattle Somers-Cocks (1827-1910]
There is reference to incest in her youth, starting at 14 by one or two step-brothers, who were the sons of the widow her father married, after Virginia’s mother died. He is supposed to also have molested her sister Vanessa Bell. But Virginia is also supposed to have had an intimate relation with her sister Vanessa. I need to read more to understand if she was a victim, and if this episode made her more disturbed then she already was. Somehow the fact that she took her life at an age when many people die anyway, makes it less significant to me.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_giq9fYBHrwc/SqD4d9GYw_I/AAAAAAAACJs/y0YmvOukf24/s320/edef.jpg
[Eliza de Feuillide]
I compare her to Eliza Comtesse de Feuillide, the cousin of Jane Austen. She was born in India and I suspect her father Tysoe Hancock to be (part) Indian, as her sole miniature shows her slanted oriental eyes. She also brags about ‘heightening the native brown of her complexion with a tan,’ to her niece James, by staying two years in the country. Which shows that some nobles did tan, as the brown skin stood for high birth, and nobility. Yet others also bleached their complexion, or used white make up, called ‘rouging.’ She talks with admiration of how white Marie Antoinette’s hands and arms are, while it’s clear that this was achieved by ‘art.’ She spent some time at Versailles and moved in the highest circles.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vesftDPLNmg/ThxwUotMxkI/AAAAAAAAABY/T_c0OV_YD8s/s1600/book+cover+A5.jpg
De Feuillide also mentions that a the sister of a sister-in- law of The Austen’s married an Indian, with a British sounding name. My ‘Was Jane Austen (1775-1817) Black?’ publication already deals with the brown and black complexions of the Austens, as being part of the 2-3% brown and black Europeans who ruled the white Europeans, or the third estate. It’s highly improbable that all these rich persons managed to live with only one portrait made, so when we are told there is only one known portrait, we can be sure the others are too black to be shown.
Elizabeth Barrett Browning befriended an Anglo- Indian poet, who was a lesbian, writing how two women can make each other very happy, during a time we think such a thing could not be discussed. Virginia had lesbian relations with Vita Sackville, a noble women. She was very dark skinned and had a moustache. Woolf based Orlando on her, as it talks of how a young noble man suddenly turned into a woman.
http://image1.findagrave.com/photos250/photos/2009/326/1574_125899715147.jpg
[Merle Oberon]
Actress Merle Oberon was half Indian, and looks quite dark skinned in later photographs; so during her former film career was considerably whitened in some way. She is supposed to have been a lover of Prince Philip, who visited her in Mexico, where she had n estate. I also think about Johanna van Gogh- Bonger, who was the painter Vincent van Gogh’s sister in law. We have her to thank for his fame, as she managed and prudently exhibited his collection, inherited by her’s and Theo van Gogh’s son: Vincent van Gogh. She was a very dark skinned Indonesian or part Indonesian (?) women, described as ‘a distinguished, great lady.’
http://www.aloj.us.es/galba/monograficos/VAN%20GOGH/Fotografias/Familiares/Theo/JohannaBonger.jpg
[Johanna Van Gogh-Bonger]
http://api.ning.com/files/PmCHYsj-yF-7WH1YTvagTnTAif9NCsHUrLs92GFr1cXOADa78UdlKM2IMeZwzQ96eQm8KtT19Q-ivu*CtvxpD-JwwlsPDDwD/002.jpg
[Maria Jacoba van Goor]
It troubles me that these persons are whitened, even today, and no mention is of their roots. Bonger’s brother collected art as well, and helped her to manage the Van Gogh Collection, and his taste seems to me reflecting the love for a magical reality of Indonesians. As these persons mingled with the brown and black complexion European elite, I also wonder how strong the non-European influence really was. This we can only find out if today persons from these same back grounds start sifting through the sources. In this way even many known quotes become different and more significant to a person’s life, identity and work. When Isabelle de Charrière says ‘she does not have the white hands,’ she does not say her hands were ugly, but she confirms she was a brown skinned noble woman. As her rich, regent class grandmother Maria Jacoba van Goor (1687-1737) looks classical African on a whitened Herman Serin portrait. It was this change finding that lead me to discover the blue blood is black blood theory (1100-1848), that the nobility was brown and black, and that all old master portraits are whitened since 1848-1960.
Egmond Codfried
Curator Suriname Blue Blood Is Black blood Museum
The Hague
http://www.biography.com/people/virginia-woolf-9536773
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/INDIA/1999-04/0924161053
http://books.google.nl/books?id=ZpQ4GG-Ng2gC&pg=PA198&lpg=PA198&dq=virginia+woolf+india&source=bl&ots=DUFaxuchiu&sig=nuvzmBjyZ6_qV8Blw3FYcqAh1gA&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=4DVIUYjiLYaV0QXt0YG4Dw&ved=0CFEQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=virginia%20woolf%20india&f=false
http://www.smith.edu/libraries/libs/rarebook/exhibitions/stephen/24a.htm