posted                         

quote:

---

BLUE BLOOD IS BLACK BLOOD (1500-1789)(1)

And I was duly contacted and read the article and reactions. Much obliged.

The book mentioned was my first stab at this subject, namely black European nobility and black European royalty. My latest book is titled

Blue blood is black blood (1500-1789).

Nobody was more surprised with the findings and it took three years before I could believe my own theories and say Blue blood is black blood (1500-1789). Watch the date! My theory is all mine, coming from a anti-racist and anti-colonialist viewpoint, but based on extensive literature and sources. Some had to be read in a certain way, as the writers are mainly ideological racists. The images, though attractive are a bit of a headache as they should be ‘read’ and not be taken at face value. We are not being shown all there is.

This theory is based on personal descriptions in biographies and on the internet which describe persons of the highest nobility as ‘black, brown, more brown then white, not the white hands, The Black Boy, The Swarthy Stuart, Black Tom, chimney sweeper, black as chimney, The Black Prince, bad complexion, ugly.

Next comes the marked disparity between these descriptions and the portraits which often show these same people as whites, some with dark hair but also as blonds with blue eyes. This disparity is problematic and should be explained.

Another major problem is a definition of ‘black.’ What is black and what is white? Who is then black and who is white. In the US they used the one drop rule. But we could also regard a person who is 1/8 black as a white person.

These terms are more politically motivated and change from region to region and from one age to another age. It is/was not used objectively, but in order to divide and rule, to conquer, to oppress. More objectively is black as an identity, to bypass actual looks. For Obama to have chosen a black wife and attending black churches shows him to be black identified.

The black Europeans I have identified had black looks and even classical African looks, meaning hair, lips, noses and colour. But the symbol of their ethnicity was the Moor, a pitch black, prognostic African. They identified as black.

And we today look at their dresses, palaces, hairstyles, stories, culture, philosophy and recognize these as white, but we are mistaken. Like viewing the drinking of tea as the acme of British-ness does not make it white. It started out with blacks or people of colour. People of colour can have many looks. Descendents of classical African may resemble white Europeans, but are black and black identified. Africa harbours many phenotypes, some individuals looking quite non-classical African, yet they are African. Diop showed that Africa was one civilisation, one culture, language, religion. And even the non-classical looking types are part of Africa, not immigrants. All phenotypes are inside the African man.

[b]These days I like to stress that the albino is the ancestor of the people we call white. Both whites and albino share the trait of the inability to produce melanin. In all of nature the white life forms; the white flowers, the white reptiles, birds, mammals, white primates like Snowflake the Gorilla; are albinos. Yet when it comes to humans, the whites vehemently reject this notion. They do not want to be called albino's. Why? Because it does not sit well with their idea of white supremacy?

White supremacy is based on fake, whitened portraits of a elite which was described as black and coloured and identified as black, with images of the Moor. There are European cameo images that show a black, male profile eclipsing a white, female profile, meaning black supremacy.

The blacks were the first humans inhabiting Europe. The Grimaldi Man entered Europe 43.000 years ago. The whites came only 6000 years ago, and were farmers from Central Asia. Written sources tell us of Caesar importing Africans, Garamante warriors, who had their hair in a crest – dreadlocks- around 50BC. Snowden writes about blacks in Antiquity (1971) from 800BC to 300 AD, the Early Christian Era. Medieval reports talk about Blue Men (500-1500) meaning black Europeans, even among the Vikings. Often depicted as blue people too. So there cannot be any doubt that there were blacks in Europe from the earliest times. Then its not strange to regard black looking historical Europeans as blacks or coloureds. The mother of The Black Prince, Phillipa of Hainault even had Asian ancestry.

What happened to these people?

According to Kaplan(1996) the image of the Moor started in 1120 with a statue of St Maurice. Followed by the Black Magi of King in the Adoration scenes. By 1500 this theme was common in all of Europe and even in the colonies. What does it mean, a youthful, luxuriously dressed black man at the beginning of Christianity? Then they came to worship Black Madonna’s, black images of god and Jesus in their great churches.

So for a little recap: those nobles emerging at the end of the medieval period claimed blue blood, which reminds us of blue men and they identified with images of Moors: the root ‘moor’ in geographic names, family names, heraldry, jewellery, art objects, Moors in portraits, stories with a Moor in attendance.

The acrimonious nature of racism against blacks made me look for a recent confrontation between blacks and whites. The invention of the colour line in the US pinpoints the date of US racism to 1691. So we should be able to date racism in general to 1770 when according to Appiah (1985), nations were divided by colour, and not geography or language and culture.

The only confrontation around this date is The French revolution of 1789-1795, when nobles, the blue bloods, were slaughtered or fled France. This revolution provoked more revolutions in the whole of Europe where in many states the nobility was abolished. To free white Europe from black oppression racism was invented, to show that blacks were inferior and ugly and beastlike.

Racism can now be deconstructed as an overwrought liberation ideology to free Europe from black oppression. They made Europe to what it is but were despotic and cruel. The idea of a united Europe began with the black noble elite. When they first appeared they might have been a blessing, bringing civilisation to Europe, but the system became corrupted and was violently brought down with the beheading of the French king and his wife, erstwhile divine beings.

Egmond Codfried

October 23, 2009 8:54 AM

---

Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Egmond Codfried:



J. Philippe Rushton

http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&source=hp&q=J.+Philippe+Rushton++&btnG=Google+zoeken&meta=&aq=f&oq=

PROBABLY NO PORTRAIT AVAILABLE ON THE WEB

Those white professors who trouble them selves with comparing white vs black intelligence, in order to proof, surprise, surprise!, that blacks are inferior to whites rather remind me of men who worry about their penis size. It’s off course all in their own sick mind and thus will never be settled.

---

Funny you should zay this because J. Rushton
the writer was obsessed with penis size
especially as regards his own and the negro.
Below is C. L. Brace (1996) who reviewed one of
Rushton's books and discusses the issue. However
this does not mean such concern is the basis of
his excellent writings. You are cautioned not to
make such baseless speculations in the future.


"One running concern is how these folk
categories compare on such matters as
intelligence and reproductive behavior. Sex
rears its head again and again in the discus-
sion, with much of the information on
comparative sexual performance based on "self-
assessment." Rushton is obviously much taken
with the "salience of... buttocks and breasts"
(pp. 167, 231) as measures of sexuality,
although there is a dearth of objectively
collected data. More telling is his evident
fascination with the "Negroid" penis as an index
of "potency" and libido. In his earlier
publications on these matters, his information
came from 'self-assessment'.."

From: CL Brace. (1996) Review: Racialism and Racist Agendas. reviewed Word:
Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective by J. Philippe Rushton.

Posts: 90 | From: Paramaribo | Registered: Jan 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oberkommandant Heinrich:
[QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Egmond Codfried:
[qb] [IMG]Funny you should zay this because J. Rushton
the writer was obsessed with penis size
especially as regards his own and the negro.
Below is C. L. Brace (1996) who reviewed one of
Rushton's books and discusses the issue. However
this does not mean such concern is the basis of
his excellent writings. You are cautioned not to
make such baseless speculations in the future.

---

Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Egmond Codfried:
Is somebody impersonating J. Philippe Rushton?

---

Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009  |  IP: Logged |