quote:

---

Originally posted by Egmond Codfried:
After all these years I have to conclude that whites do not want a rational conduct of research and discussion. Any discourse is war to them, and they need to descredit any Black argument.

... and never answer a rational argument or look into the evidence or rationally discuss a reasoning offered by a Black identified research.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Egmond Codfried:
After all these years I have to conclude that whites do not want a rational conduct of research and discussion. Any discourse is war to them, and they need to descredit any Black argument. So I think that in order to be white, to feel white; they are taught to hate Blacks, and never answer a rational argument or look into the evidence or rationally discuss a reasoning offered by a Black identified research.

Then I also feel that there is some bullying here towards people who know one another; not to cross the race-line. This is not what I would expect from a free people like the Americans. There is no freedom of research on this web, when people are not free to explore different viewpoints or give support to alternative views.

---

partially true, but as a 100% blanket statement
covering 100% ofall whites- not so much. There are
a number of white scholars who have had the courage
to present a more balanced picture of African
diversity. Much of what you say is true though.
Diop's early challenge from past years has
forced a reassessment in many areas- not 100% but
there has been some progress compared to say the
1960s or 1970s.

Continuing in the footsteps of Diop, places like
ES, Takur @Reloaded and other similar blogs like
Explorer's, sites like Myra Wysinger's and other
efforts by veteran posters over the years have
created and put enough data on the table so that
African history is being recovered in more
balanced perspective. The academic work of Keita,
Kittles, and even white scholars like Armelagos,
Zakrewski et al, provide a strong scientific
basis for those outside academe to work with.

The "Stormfront" and "biodiversity" types and the
Wikipedia moles with bogus "stealth" edits may
all be active, but they can't do a thing about the
data on the table and its dissemination. All the
disinformation and propaganda they put out can be
forcefully refuted with current, accurate information.
If they want war, as one Maroon leader in Guyana
said a long time ago when confronting the Dutch:
"But if you want war, [we] likewise are ready."

Yes I would agree that discourse is sometimes a war.
It is a protracted struggle. One thing you
will notice is that the opposing forces often quietly
concede much of what the people's forces argue
but in a veiled way, to save face. That tells you
right there that progress is being made relatively
speaking. There is some way still to go and it will
be protracted struggle. The key point today
is to protect and expand "the base." Think of it
like the bases of the VietCong and PAVN during the
Vietnam War. An American intrusion could be bled
for maximum pain after which the liberation forces
temporarily withdrew. Inevitably the intruders
had to move on, and the people's forces returned to build.
There is a big need to get accurate, up to date,
easy to digest info into the hands of the people.

As for free speech, I am sure there are many who
would love it if ES disappeared, taking all its
information with it. No doubt that will happen one
day, but "the base" should not rely on any one website.
More multiple blogs and sites are needed to preserve
and expand the info- like the multiple networks
of PAVN bases. "The base" need have no one central
directorate or ideology, or leader. There will be
varying approaches by varying people, but united
by certain basic principles such as the reality
of the diversity of African peoples and their
accomplishments.



Defenders of "the base"..


But what do you mean bullying not to cross the
race line?
 

---

Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gigantic:
Whites have held to a white-superiority, -supremacy view before engaging Blacks in any social arena. So obviously, to "feel white," it is not necessary to discredit Blacks. White arrogance is a result of the Western Renaissance and the Age of Science and Enlightenment. Whites primarily look to their historical achivements as a source of racial pride.

---

^^You always were the ignorant sort
of pink-thrash...

Did you say rennaisance?
The Muurs invented rennaissance:

Do you know the great Medici family?

Do you know Lodovico Sforza?

We start with Lodvico Sforz:



Lodovico Sforza, called Lodovico il Moro (the Moor): The Black Duke who invented the European Renaissance

Ludovico Sforza Duke of Milan ( aka Ludovico il Moro, “The Moor”; 27 July 1452 – 27 May 1508).

He was a member of the Sforza dynasty of Milan, Duchy of Milan, was the fourth son of Francesco Sforza. Francesco I had married Bianca Maria, sole daughter and heir of Filippo Maria Visconti, and thus had become duke of Milan.

The Muurish Duke Ludovico presided over, and personally funded the final and most productive stage of the Milanese Renaissance. He was famed as the patron and financier of Leonardo da Vinci, Bramante and other artists. He is probably best known as the man who commissioned the Last Supper.

As the regent of Milan, Ludovico invested in agriculture, horse and cattle breeding, and the metal industry. Some 20,000 workers were employed in the silk industry.

More @ http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/lodovico-sforza-the-muurish-duke-of-milan-who-invented-the-european-renaissance-oguejiofo-annu/
 

---

Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
 
Alessandro de Medici "il Moro"



Alessandro de' Medici (July 22, 1510 – January 6, 1537) called "il Moro" ("the Moor"), Duke of Penne and also Duke of Florence (from 1532), ruler of Florence from 1530 until 1537. He was the last member of the "senior" branch of the Medici to rule Florence and the first to be a hereditary duke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alessandro_de'_Medici,_Duke_of_Florence
 

---

Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
 
2000 years of Muurish European History

Ancient Italy Robe



Modern Africa Robe

 

---

Posted by Siptah (Member # 17601) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gigantic:
^Whites gainsay Blacks because of the relative ease by which they were able to enslave them - it is borne of contempt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gigantic:
^Whites gainsay Blacks because of the relative ease by which they were able to enslave them - it is borne of contempt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
This "relative ease" was due to some Africans offering
other Africans for sale more so than any direct raiding.

Whereas other peoples quit the abject enslaving of
their co-continentals some Africans paid it no mind
that only their fellows were still being outright marketed
up to a century ago and are to this day "clandestinely"
passing hands from one enslaver to the next.

Look at the examples of Mauritania and Niger who have
just passed laws within the last six years making slavery
(African on African) illegal this late in history, i.e., the 21st
century.

See entries on slavery in the ESR Politics&News forum
and Pictures&Videos forum.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gigantic:
^Relative ease was due to the gun.

---

quote:

---

THE AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE
The First Slav[ing] Expeditions to [West] Africa
by Anthony A. Lee


Kidnapping [people] from the African coast was part of European
practice even before Portuguese ships had explored the coast of
the continent or discovered a new route to India. One of the
first expeditions to the Senegal River, led by the Portuguese
in 1444, brutally seized the black residents of several off-shore
islands near the river and carried them off to be sold as slaves.
Other expeditions from Europe about this time did more or less
the same.

But it was not long before African armies became aware of the
new dangers, and Portuguese ships began to meet their match.

For example, in 1446, two years later, a ship commanded by Nuno
Tristão attempted to land in the Senegal region. It was attacked
by African fighters in canoes, and the crew of the ship was
wiped out. And in 1447, a Danish raider commanding a Portuguese
ship was killed, along with most of his crew, when local African
boats attacked.

Although African vessels -- mostly canoes -- were not designed
for high-seas navigation, they were fully capable of protecting
the coast, even in the 15th century. As a result, in 1456, the
king of Portugal dispatched his ambassador, Diogo Gomes, to
negotiate treaties of peace and trade with the African rulers
along the coast. From that point on, and for 400 years, the
African slave trade was conducted as a matter of international
commerce among equals. The notion of European sailors roaming
through [West] Africa at will, kidnapping as many [people] as they
wanted and shipping them off to America, is completely false
-- and an insult to Africans, who kept European armies off
their soil until the beginning of the 20th century.

Of course, this fact of history makes the Atlantic slave trade
a bit more problematic, from a moral perspective. It is not
simply a question of black and white. Slavery was well known
in [many] African societies, as much as it was a fact of life
everywhere else in the world during those times.

As soon as Diogo Gomes' diplomatic expedition to West Africa
had succeeded, the export of slaves began to number in the
thousands. During the bloody course, perhaps 10 or 15 million
Africans had been delivered as slaves to the New World, and
perhaps just as many more had died in the process. These [people]
were captured in Africa by Africans, shipped to the African coast
by Africans, and only then sold to European traders in trade ships
to begin the dreaded Middle Passage to America. African kings and
rulers were active and willing participants in the slave trade,
which made them rich[er], and which could not have existed
without their full cooperation and support.

Indeed, when African kingdoms decided to stop trading in slaves
-- for their own reasons -- there was no way for European nations
to force them to continue. The earliest example of this is the
Kingdom of Benin on the West African coast (in what is now Nigeria)
In the 1520's this state began to restrict the sale of slaves,
finally cutting it off entirely by about 1550. This was probably
not done for moral reasons, however. Records from this period show
that the kingdom was becoming wealthi[er] from the export of cloth
and pepper. Although it is only a guess, we can imagine that slaves
were needed within Benin itself to produce these valuable products
which could bring more wealth to the king than the sale of human
beings.

As uncomfortable as this aspect of black history may be, it
at least explodes the myth of a "dark," helpless and ignorant
African continent that was always at the mercy of European
greed. Nothing could be further from the truth. The more we
learn about African history, going back even to the middle
ages, the more we learn that Africans were full and active
participants in the world -- on both sides of the Atlantic.

---

Depots, like El Mina, were leased
from the ruling African power.

Often enough it was rented simultaneously
to opposing European interests who then
had no choice but to fight each other for
actual possession and use as the African
power broker refused to designate either
claimant as the sole beneficiary.

Do you know what happened between the time
a slaving vessel sought docking permission and
disembarked for American shores? Have you
any idea how long it took?

Slave trading was
big profitable business for both the Euro
buyers and the African sellers. The apologies
issued by two of the biggest African profit
reapers give lie to any assertion that Euros
overpowered them to supply slaves or that
lançados or other Afropeans numerically
dominated the African end of the trade.

Even a book as old as Basil Davidson's
Black Mother reveals the facts of the
African power brokers of the slave trade.
There were even some enslaved Africans
who made it out of western hemisphere
slavery only to repatriate back to Africa
and then themselves procure people to
enslave and sell to whites.
 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
Interesting dilemma; In order to disprove White power and superiority, you must prove sub-Saharan Barbarity.
 

---

Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
 
Another decent work on the subject of the slave trade is


The Slave Trade is a massive (900-page) book that attempts to document the entire history of the Atlantic slave trade, a sordid business that somehow prospered for more than four centuries. As the sheer heft of the book might indicate, the story is complicated. Much of the extensive research conducted by Hugh Thomas relates to rivalries both in Europe and Africa. Those who wonder how slavery could have existed in the United States may find revelatory the moral ambiguity of how the business of transporting slaves was conducted.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/178472.The_Slave_Trade

It details the cost and who made what. and for those who think that Africans were simply trading for trinkets think again.

quote:

---

The king Tegbesu of Dahomey,who made # 250,000 a year from selling Africans in about 1750: far more than any English duke's annual income

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:
Interesting dilemma; In order to disprove White power and superiority, you must prove sub-Saharan Barbarity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:

I see white contempt of black Africans as born from
the latter continuing slavery of co-continentals
when other people of other continents had quit
doing that by the time the transAtlantic slave
trade was in full bloom.

This greed was transformed in the last century into
SSA leaders selling natural resource commodities to
whites for the sole benefit of themselves instead of
their nations and not persuing infrastructure and
technology at least commensurate with the rest of the
once so-called 3rd World.

---

quote:

---

Denmark was the first European country to ban slavery. In 1807 Britain declared the slave trade to be illegal. One year later the United States of America followed, Sweden in 1813, The Netherlands in 1814, France in 1815 and Spain in 1820.

However the constant demand for slaves in the Caribbean and in the Southern States of America continued. Huge profits could still be made with the slave trade. In the years that followed, dozens of illegal slave transports took place between Africa and those destinations. Britain on an international level made great efforts to stop this illegal trade. It made agreements with other countries, and British marine ships were authorized to ransack ships leaving Africa. They patrolled along the African coast to stop illegal slave transports. When a slave trader was caught, the ship was confiscated and the captain punished. The punishments England imposed in 1811 was deportation or the death penalty.

But it was not from a humane point of view that England suppressed the slave trade; rather, it was to protect its own sugar colonies against dishonest competition from other countries that could still count on new supplies of cheap slave labor. The British and French ships patrolling along the African coast also had some unintended consequences; It was not unusual for a slave ship to toss her human cargo into the sea when confronted with a British or French slave hunter. There were also rumors about mass slaughters of slaves onshore along the African coast by African slavers, when British or French ships prevented the slave ships from reaching the shore to pick up their human cargo.

---

 

---

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
 
Eh-hem. Rumours not reports of African slavers slaughtering the enslaved, big difference.
There's no documentation for this, just the word of ALEF webmaster George Alefantes.
 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
Interesting the racial power politics of Slavery.

For centuries, Whites insisted (falsely) that they strong-armed their way into the African interior to take slaves. This while admitting to barbarity, was useful to instill the concept of the all-powerful White man.

The Sand Nigger Turks, never ones for original thought. Applied the same reasoning.


Slave Market, Yemen - Thirteenth Century
Submitted by Abel Abdul




THE ACTUAL HISTORICAL HEAD NIGGERS IN CHARGE OF SLAVERY IN YEMEN.


 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Egmond Codfried:
There is no freedom of research on this web, when people are not free to explore different viewpoints or give support to alternative views. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:
Egmond this is crazy you talk about Hitler killing Jews which was done under his concept of racial superiority and race laws and then you say whites today "who know nothing about Black Superiority (1500-1789)".

So you reveal you have similar racial superiority
ideas and expect people who you say used to be inferior who are now in power to commemorate the days when they were "inferior"

The problem is they don't feel like it.

It's an exercise in futility. If you live in a country with a majority of one race in power they are going to act in their self interest.
That's human nature, pack animals

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Egmond Codfried:
[qb]
But what do you mean bullying not to cross the
race line?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lamin:
People live in the present and deal with each other that way. If Africa today had the heft of China, say, whites would be much more respectful of blacks. Better to be feared than be loved--as the old saying goes.

At one time, the West were almost on the point of drugging up the Chinese with opium--following the Opium Wars.

Now the story is very different. Mao too charge then blocked the West from entry. When they had regained self-confidence the Chinese opened up--hence the historic visit of Nixon to China.

If Africa can produce a few states that that could do exactly as the Chinese, Koreans and Japanese are doing in terms of technological output--coupled with some nuclear weapons--the black-white interaction will change. The disrespect will diminish.

But most blacks are too caught up with openly and secretly admiring and genuflecting before whites: European religion, European names, European pigmenatation, European hair(wigs), European women, etc. are the rage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IronLion:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness:
[qb] Dunce

Have you read Jane Austen already?

Lion!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Siptah:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gigantic:
^Whites gainsay Blacks because of the relative ease by which they were able to enslave them - it is borne of contempt.

---

Are you saying white people hate black people because they put black people in bondage? That sounds rather silly and senseless no? If anything whites gainsay blacks because of indoctrinated religion born from the tendency and act of conquest toward black people, not hatred.

---

I say racism is a liberation ideology because whites, called pinks or grays, were ruled and oppressed by Blacks and coloured. They were the Blue blood nobles and kings of Europe. The whites as we know them today is only since 1848. Then they made the whole European history white.
 

---

Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
 
''I say racism is a liberation ideology because whites, called pinks or grays, were ruled and oppressed by Blacks and coloured. They were the Blue blood nobles and kings of Europe. The whites as we know them today is only since 1848. Then they made the whole European history white.''
=====

Only in your fairytale mind.

The truth is blacks have never had a civiiziation, the reason you are stealing white history is because you never made anything of your own.

Go to Sub-Sahara Africa today and your ancestors are living in mud huts...

Afrocentrism is a fantasy and form of denialism. Instead of trying to steal whites history, embrace your own roots (mud huts, rap music...thats about it ).
 

---

Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by cassiterides:
''I say racism is a liberation ideology because whites, called pinks or grays, were ruled and oppressed by Blacks and coloured. They were the Blue blood nobles and kings of Europe. The whites as we know them today is only since 1848. Then they made the whole European history white.''
=====

Only in your fairytale mind.

The truth is blacks have never had a civiiziation, the reason you are stealing white history is because you never made anything of your own.

Go to Sub-Sahara Africa today and your ancestors are living in mud huts...

Afrocentrism is a fantasy and form of denialism. Instead of trying to steal whites history, embrace your own roots (mud huts, rap music...thats about it ).

---

^So why are you obsessed with us, Afrocentrics?

If its fairytale, just laugh and move on...

When you go the crazy lenghts you journey to "debunk" Afrocentricism including opening a failed website, then there must be more to it...

Someone give me a lil bit more of that Afrocentric thinggy ... tastes good

Oh BTW: Your ancestor gothic/slavic were all cannibals who used to feed on Egyptian Mummies...

And today, you are still cannibals using the body parts of dead black people to make melatonin... for your melanin deprieved brain..
 

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
^^You have a point about the cannibalism Lion.
It is well documented.




Based on your analysis above Lion,. do you think
there could be certain deep seated anxieties
Cassiteri may be hiding- re blacks?


 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Egmond Codfried:
Blacks, with a Black identity called Blue Blood did rule whites till 1789, but I wonder if whites still have to be so hatefull and fearfull for Blacks. Racism to me is a liberation ideology, its a construct, not a natural emotion. In Jane Austen I found everything I have been saying about Blacks ruling Europe, while whites are only emancipated since 1848. From then they have whitened the whole of history, even giving us blue eyed white pyramid building pharaos!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
This "relative ease" was due to some Africans offering
other Africans for sale more so than any direct raiding.

---

quote:

---

Whereas other peoples quit the abject enslaving of
their co-continentals some Africans paid it no mind
that only their fellows were still being outright marketed
up to a century ago and are to this day "clandestinely"
passing hands from one enslaver to the next.

Look at the examples of Mauritania and Niger who have
just passed laws within the last six years making slavery
(African on African) illegal this late in history, i.e., the 21st
century.

See entries on slavery in the AER Politics&News forum
and Pictures&Videos forum.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cassiterides:
''I say racism is a liberation ideology because whites, called pinks or grays, were ruled and oppressed by Blacks and coloured. They were the Blue blood nobles and kings of Europe. The whites as we know them today is only since 1848. Then they made the whole European history white.''
=====

Only in your fairytale mind.



Charles II Stuart, King of Britain, named The Black Boy and described as ' A tall black man.'

The truth is blacks have never had a civiiziation, the reason you are stealing white history is because you never made anything of your own.

Go to Sub-Sahara Africa today and your ancestors are living in mud huts...

Afrocentrism is a fantasy and form of denialism. Instead of trying to steal whites history, embrace your own roots (mud huts, rap music...thats about it ).

---

His granny Anna of Denmark, costme design for a play about how africans came to Europe, looking for a milder son: The Masque of Blackness.
If she is wearing black face; how odd for a Britsh queen to do so. And their is no law which says a dark skinned person cannot blacken up further.
 

---

Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
^^You have a point about the cannibalism Lion.
It is well documented.




Based on your analysis above Lion,. do you think
there could be certain deep seated anxieties
Cassiteri may be hiding- re blacks?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
^^You have a point about the cannibalism Lion.
It is well documented.




Based on your analysis above Lion,. do you think
there could be certain deep seated anxieties
Cassiteri may be hiding- re blacks?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gigantic:
Whites have held to a white-superiority, -supremacy view before engaging Blacks in any social arena. So obviously, to "feel white," it is not necessary to discredit Blacks. White arrogance is a result of the Western Renaissance and the Age of Science and Enlightenment. Whites primarily look to their historical achivements as a source of racial pride.

---

Every thing has to start somewhere and the question is: what did blacks do to whites for whites to hate blacks so much?



Book bounded in white human leather?
 

---

Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
 
To be able to see blacks as founders of a civilisation one should understnd what civilisation means, one should first be civilised, educated, cosmopolitan, well read, informed etc
People who use afro centrism to proof that blacks are good and whites are bad will be disappointed. nor does the reverse works out. the study of hystory is not be able to pass blame, but to understand our world. why do whites hate blacks, what did blacks do to whites? they civilised them, but also oppressed them. their view of whites was expressed in the practice of using white peoplesskins as leather.
Cannibalism migh have been another of their tricks.





Gucci white leather shoes



The ermine coat is a symbole of nobility.
It shows the white ground with black accents by the tails. a black minority dominating a white multitude.
 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 
some whites hate blacks other don't
 

---

Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
 


The few who do not hate blacks never speak out.
Amazing, this hatred, people even bringing their children along. wghen you deal with whites they wwill always act as one body, without consulting each other they have decided to condemn, force, torture, contradict you. hell, even here on this site we see the same pack of hounds behaviour.
But yes, i beleive they were used as leather procucing stock, so that the hatred against blacks, even without knowing thhe facts, they know to hate any black. amazing. at last racism is solves as a liberation ideology because these poor whites were indoctrinated to believe that their black kings and nobles were superior beings.
 

---

Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
 
Racism against Blacks is a liberation ideology, since 1760, but really taking of in the second half of the 19th century.

Human races were invented to give whites a human status and declare them as superior to Blacks.

As there are no human races, we need to ask why such a destuctive concept was ever introduced. What did Blacks do to whites for whites to fear and hate Blacks so much?

Well, Blacks ruled and oppressed whites, using their skins as shoe leather, well into the 19th century, till 1848.
 

---

Posted by malibudusul (Member # 19346) on :
 






http://thewalters.org/eventscalendar/eventdetails.aspx?e=1330
 

---

Posted by malibudusul (Member # 19346) on :
 
"1. Annibale Carracci (attributed). Portrait of a Black Servant (Fragment of larger portrait). ca. 1580s. oil on canvas, 24 x 12 in. (60.96 x 30.48cm). Leeds, private collection"

Black Servant

??????????????


 

---

Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
 
You need to get to the next stage of research and ask WHY there are so many portraits and images of Classical Africans in western art.
You will find that they are not always real persons, but symbolize blue blood.
the elite was described as brown and black of complexion,
some had classical African features;
but they were all part of a 'fixed, mulatto race.'
they identified as black
blue blood was a black identity.
the civilization was black identified
there is a severe lack of true intellectuals on this site, people who are not afraid to think for themselves.
 

---

Posted by malibudusul (Member # 19346) on :
 
I understand.
I know there are cave paintings indicate that blacks
are native to Europe.
I've seen thousands of images of blacks of Europe.
I thought black people had lost power in the late Middle Ages.
But you with your theory of blue blood say no.
I believe.
I've seen many pictures of black kings and maurice. I'm just wanting to understand more.
I know that the Eurocentric twist history by putting all the blacks from Africa to Europe and not as natives.
I read that the saint maurice was actually Celtic.
I do not think this woman is a servant and you?
 

---

Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by malibudusul:
I understand.
I know there are cave paintings indicate that blacks
are native to Europe.
I've seen thousands of images of blacks of Europe.
I thought black people had lost power in the late Middle Ages.
But you with your theory of blue blood say no.
I believe.
I've seen many pictures of black kings and maurice. I'm just wanting to understand more.
I know that the Eurocentric twist history by putting all the blacks from Africa to Europe and not as natives.
I read that the saint maurice was actually Celtic.
I do not think this woman is a servant and you?

---

Continue your research my brother. One one cocoa, full a basket..

You let your head teach you. You don't need no one to approve of what you know is true.

Keep your fire, flaming!

Lion!
 

---

Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
 
^ Blacks are not native to europe.

Its no coincidence that the only afrocentric nutbags who claim blacks are indigenous europeans just so happen to be black IMMIGRANTS living in white european countries e.g. egmond codfied living in Holland amongst millions of white dutch so out of insecurity he concocts this fantasy/lie that blacks were there first to justify why he can live among the whites.
 

---

Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by malibudusul:
But you with your theory of blue blood say no.
I believe.....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malibudusul:
I believe
that has a lot to be discovered.
I believe we should go that way
It has been shown several images of black kings
of Europe in the modern era.
I know this is still under study.
I do not believe blindly.
I want proof, of course.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brada-Anansi:
Another decent work on the subject of the slave trade is


The Slave Trade is a massive (900-page) book that attempts to document the entire history of the Atlantic slave trade, a sordid business that somehow prospered for more than four centuries. As the sheer heft of the book might indicate, the story is complicated. Much of the extensive research conducted by Hugh Thomas relates to rivalries both in Europe and Africa. Those who wonder how slavery could have existed in the United States may find revelatory the moral ambiguity of how the business of transporting slaves was conducted.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/178472.The_Slave_Trade

It details the cost and who made what. and for those who think that Africans were simply trading for trinkets think again.

quote:

---

The king Tegbesu of Dahomey,who made # 250,000 a year from selling Africans in about 1750: far more than any English duke's annual income

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malibudusul:
I understand.
I read that the saint maurice was actually Celtic.
I do not think this woman is a servant and you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Siptah:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gigantic:
^Whites gainsay Blacks because of the relative ease by which they were able to enslave them - it is borne of contempt.

---

Are you saying white people hate black people because they put black people in bondage? That sounds rather silly and senseless no? If anything whites gainsay blacks because of indoctrinated religion born from the tendency and act of conquest toward black people, not hatred.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MelaninKing:
I used to believe blacks were so disliked by whites, as well as other cultures such as Chinese, Japanese, Indians, etc. because these cultures were simply afraid of blacks due to various reasons.
Then I took a hard look at black people in an objective way, trying to put myself in the position of a person of another culture and what they might see in looking at blacks, their culture, history, potential, circumstance, etc.

Now, rather than hate, i see something else. I see them viewing a people who basically lead in every aspect of human existence that has significance in measuring human potential, such as; Physical attribute, Sexual potency, Music, art, literature, science, politics, sports, religion, and every other area of life that dictate shaping of mainstream thought.

Other cultures must see all this potential and wonder; Then why the hell are they such underachievers in the one area that all other cultures perform naturally, taking care of their own?
The truth is, In the end, it matters little if you have been gifted and blessed with all this potential if you fail to do the fundamental basics for group survival, and that is to be responsible and control of for your own group.
So, with this new insight, I have to reevaluate if it's really hate that these other groups feel, or just extreme envy mixed with disgust that a group can be so great, yet be self defeating, and destructively weak as a group which ultimately leads to our negative condition.
After all, if this basic element were not missing, no one would be capable of exploiting, enslaving, or containing us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
Maybe you're right. They do gainsay blacks unlike
any other colour groups, ethnicities, or nations in
exactly the manner and matter that you point out.

More than hatred their attitude is one of contempt.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Egmond Codfried:
After all these years I have to conclude that whites do not want a rational conduct of research and discussion. Any discourse is war to them, and they need to descredit any Black argument.

... and never answer a rational argument or look into the evidence or rationally discuss a reasoning offered by a Black identified research.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malibudusul:
I understand.
I know there are cave paintings indicate that blacks
are native to Europe.
I've seen thousands of images of blacks of Europe.
I thought black people had lost power in the late Middle Ages.
But you with your theory of blue blood say no.
I believe.
I've seen many pictures of black kings and maurice. I'm just wanting to understand more.
I know that the Eurocentric twist history by putting all the blacks from Africa to Europe and not as natives.
I read that the saint maurice was actually Celtic.
I do not think this woman is a servant and you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Egmond Codfried:
After all these years I have to conclude that whites do not want a rational conduct of research and discussion. Any discourse is war to them, and they need to descredit any Black argument. So I think that in order to be white, to feel white; they are taught to hate Blacks, and never answer a rational argument or look into the evidence or rationally discuss a reasoning offered by a Black identified research.

Then I also feel that there is some bullying here towards people who know one another; not to cross the race-line. This is not what I would expect from a free people like the Americans. There is no freedom of research on this web, when people are not free to explore different viewpoints or give support to alternative views.

---

I believe this analysis ignores the WHYs, which is the most important part.

If we go back to the root of the problem, it starts around the 700s/800s. This is when the Moors (Black Africans) controlled Europe. I am going to assume that centuries of rule by Africans and enslavement of their countrymen (in the millions) into Africa couldn't have sat well with them (Europeans). Once they were able to throw the yoke of the Moor off, I believe they became hateful toward the black man.

It was a little after they threw the yoke off that they started to study the ancient sciences. However, everywhere they went they see their hated foe the African, giving rise to these civilizations while they played no part. In many instances they also see they were enslaved. For example, the white Asiatic is introduced into Egypt around the 4 dynasty via slavery. Then in the 18th dynasty enslavement of many Semitics really picks up.

This would also explain the utter hatred they displayed toward statuary in Egypt, knocking off noses and defacing monuments. This also explains the absolute vigor they show in their old writings, disparaging black people. I mean, to go to the lengths they have gone, to hide truth and deceiving not only black people but the world shows real effort, and that effort I would assume is driven by either fear, hate or some combination of the two.

This has to be a hard pill to swallow for them. 1. to know you contributed nothing to foundations of civilization. 2. the group of people you hate the most did the most in-terms of science and civilizing the word and enslaving whites. Again, has to be a hard pill to swallow.

So that initial group of Europeans prior to the recapture of Europe from the Moors were most likely racist and angry. They then pass this down to their offspring who perpetuate this hate to this very day. The difference today is, I don't believe most whites (outside of academia) understand WHY they think and act they way they do. It's sort of like religion. Most people view to be some mystical, magical thing, but when you go to the root of it and get passed the symbolism you are dealing with science. My point is, meanings get lost over the centuries. The African (this includes the diaspora) shouldn't worry themselves with why whites are the way they are. Relearn your history, apply to your life and teach your babies. If that keeps up, after a few generations Africans will become strong nation builders again. But to do this, we need a renaissance and I believe we should use Nile valley civilization as the foundation for such a renaissance the same way Europeans use Greece and Rome.
 

---

Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
 
I assume brada anansie in disguise is telling us here his hypothesis, never being clear what research he has done to arrive at these sweeping assesments.
It's funny, I have been studying European Blacks who became a noble elite since 2005, but seem to be so stupid, being a Black?,that any trash from the gutter knows better.
Blacks are not supposed to research whites, or what whites have falsely presented as whites, because whites are superior beings, and must study slavery, and people they have defined as Blacks, 19th century descendents of slaves.
Also living in Holland, being dutch, having the right to vote, I have to accept second class status and not fend my opinions, about how the country is run: I'm slapped with a travel ban.
I believe I have been hitting home with my research about them preparing a holocaust, and that their Kings were brown and black complexioned. The travelban makes sense as i cannot spent time in Surinam where my Blacks take notice of what a Surinam Black says.
Houseniggers are total sell-outs, corrupt and evil.
When as a Black researcher you come out sounding like eurocentric trash, when you are in agreement with their attacks and ways of not acknowledging proof, you might want to check yourself.
I you as a Black notice yourself waging war on a Black researcher, you need to check your dedication to Blacks and their deliverance from white supremacy.

There was this method of lacing people with car tires, I feel this might become necessery again.
 

---

Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
 
Err Egmond what sweeping assesment what are you talking about..

Egmond

quote:

---

I assume brada anansie in disguise is telling us here his hypothesis, never being clear what research he has done to arrive at these sweeping assesments.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by typeZeiss:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Egmond Codfried:
[qb] After all these years I have to conclude that whites do not want a rational conduct of research and discussion. Any discourse is war to them, and they need to descredit any Black argument. So I think that in order to be white, to feel white; they are taught to hate Blacks, and never answer a rational argument or look into the evidence or rationally discuss a reasoning offered by a Black identified research.

Then I also feel that there is some bullying here towards people who know one another; not to cross the race-line. This is not what I would expect from a free people like the Americans. There is no freedom of research on this web, when people are not free to explore different viewpoints or give support to alternative views.

---

I believe this analysis ignores the WHYs, which is the most important part.

If we go back to the root of the problem, it starts around the 700s/800s. This is when the Moors (Black Africans) controlled Europe. I am going to assume that centuries of rule by Africans and enslavement of their countrymen (in the millions) into Africa couldn't have sat well with them (Europeans). Once they were able to throw the yoke of the Moor off, I believe they became hateful toward the black man.


So that initial group of Europeans prior to the recapture of Europe from the Moors were most likely racist and angry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brada-Anansi:
Err Egmond what sweeping assesment what are you talking about..

Egmond

quote:

---

I assume brada anansie in disguise is telling us here his hypothesis, never being clear what research he has done to arrive at these sweeping assesments.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Egmond Codfried:
The Black nobles who became an elite considered themselves the true (edel) = adel (Dutch for nobility) Europeans.
They felt they belonged.
They were civilised.
I'm not a researcher eager to make moral judgements, I try to reconstruct the past.
They brought civilisation put condemned people to live flaying.
I did not flay or oppress anybody, nor do I waer human leather on my feet.
I do not think anybody should be punished for mistakes in the past.
In general your presence in my threads disgust me.

---

some would say skinning people alive is uncivilized
 

---

Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
 
http://dutch.berkeley.edu/?p=1262

Strange people are using my research, making strange connections:
Isabelle de Charriere is supposed to have changed her name from Belle in Isabelle!
Her true name is Isabelle, and outside the Netherlands she is only known as Isabelle de Charriere.
And she might be Black because her family owned property in Surinam. Stupid! Yes she had a relative of her other grandmother in Suriname, but that does not explains her blackness as a member of the old, high nobility.
There is a slight change that De Charriere and I share bloodlines, with her relation finding a child with a former slave, who married Cordua.
If the Cordua/Neumann slaves are children of their Cordua masters, as I suspect, there might be a connection. Which off course has nothing to do with muy truly important finding: blue blood is black blood.
But at least my studies are brought to an wider audience some person at Berkely might want to look for himself, what I'm saying, and discard the stupid distortions by stupid people.

to safe you searching and scrolling:



[Maria Jacoba van Goor, Isabelle de Charriere's regent class granny. Her other granny was a noble lady.]

quote:

---

Hilde Neus (Paramaribo, College of Education)

From Zuylen to Stein, Building Modern Literature

Egmond Codfried saw a portrait of Belle van Zuylen’s grandmother and proposed she was black. He finds his opinion supported in ‘Portrait de Zelide’ a self description of Belle in which she states: ‘Elle n’a pas la main blanche…’. The idea in itself is not totally without grounds, since Van Tuyl van Serooskerken, Belle’s family, used to own property in the Dutch colony of Suriname in South America. After marrying the Swiss count De Charrière, Belle changed her name to Isabelle and moved to Switzerland. Her she doted her time to writing novels, epistolary manuscripts and philosophical treaties. Together with Pierre-Alexandre Du Peyrou she published work by Rousseau and defended his wife against malicious gossip. After the French Revolution she wrote an interesting novel, ‘Trois Femmes’ (1798). The main character is Constance, who lives with two other women of different social class in a little village. It turns out that her fortunes are of dubious background. In a supplement, ‘Histoire de Constance’ (that was never published or translated), the author explains about the origins of Constance, a creole woman originating from Martinique. Her uncle had a disastrous love affair with a black slave girl; their mulatto daughter was raised by Constance for some time. The story is a trope for the relations between (French) Europe and the colonies. Du Peyrou and relatives had played a major role in the eighteenth century politics in Suriname and owned important plantations. We could say that his fortune was one derived from the blood and sweat of the slaves who worked his plantations. It seems almost impossible that Isabelle de Charriere never talked about the (Dutch –not French!) colonies with her dear friend Du Peyrou. In describing the situation on Martinique she might have been writing about the situation in Suriname. According to Vega, ‘Trois Femmes’ would fit perfectly within Said’s theory of Culture and Imperialism, especially since Belle wrote in a literary oppositional fashion against colonialism. Gertrude Stein wrote Three Lives (1909) in Paris, where she had lived as a child, and returned to in 1903. In this modernistic psychological novel she describes in detail the portraits of three very different women (like in ‘Trois Femmes’). One of these women is black; Melanctha is all about her sexual searching and tragic love affair. According to Wilson Stein was one of the first to write with an approach totally free of race consciousness. ‘Behind the clear, mostly monotone simplicity of Gertrude Stein’s syntax we see more and more how she controls the contradictory and undividable organisms that human characters are made of’. In the ‘Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas’ we learn about Steins attitude toward language. There is no undeniable proof that Belle van Zuylen was of influence to Gertrude Stein, but in close reading both ‘Trois Femmes’ and ‘Three Lives’ we see a number of similarities in topic and theme. Both women were trend setters of their times. Stein so much that Picasso painted one of his first cubist painting ‘Trois Femmes’, inspired by her book. In this paper I would like to go into the possibilities of Belle van Zuylen having been of influence and inspiration to Gertrude Stein.

Hilde Neus – van der Putten was born in 1960 in the Netherlands. She taught for six year at a primary International School in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania and is currently living in Suriname, since 1991. Attended Advanced Teacher Training College (IOL) in Paramaribo and majored in Dutch Language and Culture at the University of Amsterdam in 2003. She has been teaching in High School the subjects Dutch language and Arts and culture from 2000 – 2005. Since 2000 she is working as Educational Officer for the Suriname Museum Foundation where she makes children’s programs and builds exhibitions. She is also program coordinator at the College for Education in Paramaribo. She is currently writing a Ph.D. in the Dept. of History at the Erasmus University Rotterdam about the topic “Free Women in Suriname in the 18th century.” Neus writes regular book reviews for the daily newspaper De Ware Tijd and articles on the museum in Museumstof. Since January 2010 she teaches at the Advanced Teacher Training College (IOL) in the subjects Colonial and Modern Literature and is now head of the Dutch language department. She published ‘Susanna du Plessis. Portret van een slavenmeesteres’, a study on a cruel slave mistress. (KIT 2003). In 2007 she edited ‘Diversity is Power’, an Anthology of Poetry, Short Stories, Columns and works of Art to commemorate the 5th International Literature Festival Suriname. Recently she co-authored ‘Gerrit Schouten. Met meesterhand vervaardigd’ (Libri Musei Surinamensis 4, 2008) with Laddy van Putten.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Egmond Codfried:
w even today a coloured South African filmmaker is denounced as a coloured, not fit to critizise whites.
I was ready to consider him white, but they see him as not-white.

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=006354;p=1#000000

The maker of Skoonheid is coloured: who would have guessed? [/QB]

---

Oliver Hermanus
 

---

Posted by typeZeiss (Member # 18859) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:

quote:

---

Originally posted by typeZeiss:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Egmond Codfried:
[qb] After all these years I have to conclude that whites do not want a rational conduct of research and discussion. Any discourse is war to them, and they need to descredit any Black argument. So I think that in order to be white, to feel white; they are taught to hate Blacks, and never answer a rational argument or look into the evidence or rationally discuss a reasoning offered by a Black identified research.

Then I also feel that there is some bullying here towards people who know one another; not to cross the race-line. This is not what I would expect from a free people like the Americans. There is no freedom of research on this web, when people are not free to explore different viewpoints or give support to alternative views.

---

I believe this analysis ignores the WHYs, which is the most important part.

If we go back to the root of the problem, it starts around the 700s/800s. This is when the Moors (Black Africans) controlled Europe. I am going to assume that centuries of rule by Africans and enslavement of their countrymen (in the millions) into Africa couldn't have sat well with them (Europeans). Once they were able to throw the yoke of the Moor off, I believe they became hateful toward the black man.


So that initial group of Europeans prior to the recapture of Europe from the Moors were most likely racist and angry.

---

so you are saying white racism is reverse racism against the original racist Moors who enslaved them?

This similar to Egmond's argument that the original racists were the black nobles who skinned whites to use their hides for leather products.
The ensuing counter racism of whites is merely a reaction to the original racist black slave masters

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Egmond Codfried:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brada-Anansi:
Err Egmond what sweeping assesment what are you talking about..

Egmond

quote:

---

I assume brada anansie in disguise is telling us here his hypothesis, never being clear what research he has done to arrive at these sweeping assesments.

---

---

Are you typezeiss?
You are covering in your hypothesis many centuries: this I regard as a sweeping statement.
You sound like Mike111, who uses an image to represent ages of history. Quite primitive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by typeZeiss:
This enslavement then brought about hatred, I believe.

---

quote:

---

Are you typezeiss? You are covering in your hypothesis many centuries: this I regard as a sweeping statement. You sound like Mike111, who uses an image to represent ages of history. Quite primitive.

---

Off course I am not TypeZeiss I don't do multiple avatars nor I am in the habit of having a conversation with myself as I am not lonely,drunk or crazy!!

Oh I forgot yesterday was 420 in your neck of the woods so you probably had a great smoke out but you shouldn't post when you are high or on the rag

And I still don't know what the heck you are on about.
Btw please kiss N make up with Mike keep the team tight.
 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist:
As i clarified in my original post -
The AE's looked like THIS:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brada-Anansi:
Egmond

quote:

---

Are you typezeiss? You are covering in your hypothesis many centuries: this I regard as a sweeping statement. You sound like Mike111, who uses an image to represent ages of history. Quite primitive.

---

Off course I am not TypeZeiss I don't do multiple avatars nor I am in the habit of having a conversation with myself as I am not lonely,drunk or crazy!!

Oh I forgot yesterday was 420 in your neck of the woods so you probably had a great smoke out but you shouldn't post when you are high or on the rag

And I still don't know what the heck you are on about.
Btw please kiss N make up with Mike keep the team tight.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:

quote:

---

Originally posted by typeZeiss:
This enslavement then brought about hatred, I believe.

---

Is enslaving people a form of hatred against them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist:
As i clarified in my original post -
The AE's looked like THIS:

---

---

1) can look like that...

2) still do, look like that...





 

---

Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
 
http://astro.temple.edu/~jasak/dilan.mahendran-certainty-v1.5.pdf

The wrong approach?
 

---

Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
 
Racism against Blacks by whites is a liberation ideology. They do not want to be ruled by Blacks ever again. Even today some do not know they were ruled by Black Kings and Nobles, but whiteness is somehow conveyed to them, in a way so they will hate and fear any Black. Afterall you will not help your enemy to positions of power and authority. The Sinterklaas festival in Holland is a blatant Racist Initiation. Hatred against Blacks is so powerful, that even blacks suucumb to this idea. Especially the half-blacks who are not sufficiently raised by the Black parents, and grow up thinking they are white. So Racism can be reconstructed, it's not some mysterious evil. Cause and effect. Black Slavery did not start with whites, but with the Black European elite. They saw themselves as christian and civilized and set out to civilize the Blacks. By keeping them as slaves they would learn to be human and christians. All this we know already, put do not understand it within the right context. Cause and effect. We know many half truths. We know the elite painted up white, but do not ask why, if they were whites, would they ugly themselves with white paint and blush, and bleach their skin. The Prince on a white horse, is a Black Prince on a white horse, witch symbolised his elevated position over whites. All this nonsense about the nobility not tanning, points to strange ideas about colour and race, after they defeated Black Superiority. The Blacks kept on sunning themselves, to heighten their colour: till 1848.



A mulatto



Another mulatto



Mulatto types
 

---

Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Narmerthoth (Member # 20259) on :
 
The past is only relevant when it defines the future.

Be a mental farmer.

Plant a psychic seed, fertilize it, and watch it grow.

Brada, a TEAM is only as strong as it's weakest member. Remember that and make your selections accordingly.
 

---

Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
 
I hope somebody kills you, soon.
 

---

Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
 


Falcon movies star Matthew Rush, a mulatto?

I was aware of him, but never saw him in action. a chapter labeled website, proofed to contain a whole scene with him in the lead. Now I understand why he is a star: such enthousiasm is seldom seen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Rush_

Like me he has his own lemma at wikipedia, presented as bi-racial and a 'vocal bottom.'

Lately I became much aware of mulattoes, looking at them at a recent African Festival in The Hague. Some scare me, especially if they are grown up and seem to have a position. What are they, politically speaking?
 

---

Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
 


[This woman cannot possibly be 38 years of age. No way. She must be older. With her income she can shower with Night Repair by Estee Lauder. They might give her it for free. She is not a mulatto, but a mulatto type. Black and coloured husbands, no? Obama is a mulatto, identifies as Black.]

[quote] 5.53 PM Thursday, 12 July 2012

Vanessa Williams reveals racist death threats
By AP
Published Monday, January 31, 2011
Actress Vanessa Williams has revealed she was bombarded with death threats from racists after she became the first black woman to be crowned Miss America.

The actress has been delving into her ancestral past as part of the US version of British genealogy show Who Do You Think You Are?, and has discovered two of her great-great-grandfathers battled to have slavery abolished.

On the show she breaks down as she finds out about her relatives' fight for equality, and remembers how her own father warned her she would have to work harder than anyone else because of her skin colour.

And following the revelation of her forefathers' campaign against racism, she opens up about her own experiences at the hands of bigots when she was crowned the first black Miss America when she was 20-years-old.

"There were race-hate messages and even death threats to me and my family," she says.

"The cruelest things were said. There was a very angry minority who felt that, simply by being black, I had tarnished the Miss America crown. It rocked me to my core."

The show is set to be aired in the US on Friday.

http://www.emirates247.com/entertainment/vanessa-williams-reveals-racist-death-threats-2011-01-31-1.349358

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ThvVrrE6Cwg/TsBg08mrMNI/AAAAAAAAyFg/626ygjD1jUk/s1600/vanessa-williams-nude-pics.jpg

Not porn, nothing to be seen. Where is Oshun?
 

---

Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
 
mulatto debate

http://mulattodebate.websitetoolbox.com/
 

---

Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
 


Good DNA, where it counts...



They might frighten me, but they do not look so bad, no?

http://hilobrow.com/2010/11/29/goudou-goudou-3/


 

---

Posted by Narmerthoth (Member # 20259) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brada-Anansi:
Egmond

quote:

---

Are you typezeiss? You are covering in your hypothesis many centuries: this I regard as a sweeping statement. You sound like Mike111, who uses an image to represent ages of history. Quite primitive.

---

Off course I am not TypeZeiss I don't do multiple avatars nor I am in the habit of having a conversation with myself as I am not lonely,drunk or crazy!!

Oh I forgot yesterday was 420 in your neck of the woods so you probably had a great smoke out but you shouldn't post when you are high or on the rag

And I still don't know what the heck you are on about.
Btw please kiss N make up with Mike keep the team tight.

---

Egmond is quite boring.

He uses the Homo angle to bring the illusion of excitement to his otherwise boring life.

His minor research, How Europe Was Black, is a plea for acceptance to his fellow Albino Europeans.
He wants respect while he is ass raised.
Boring and trivial stuff.
I see absolutely no worth in a sad case like him.
As anyone can see, his knowledge base and agenda are very narrow, self-serving and limited in scope.
Why waste your time with this loser.
 

---

Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
 
I hope somebody bumps you off very soon. What you say is what you are. You are telling us who and what you are. No need to go into my threads, they are clearly marked as by Egmond Codfried: if you do not like my research. You do not control the world, and all the world understands you are a sicko. What is your contribution to the world? You have a little power by the ability to post trash and you abuse this. I see no sign of any merit, or any signs of greatness, or you doing anything worthwhile. You are anonymous trash, a grey little mouse asking to be crushed. You try to be somebody by bringing down a somebody who has a name. You will not succeed because you do not matter. You do not have it to be somebody, just endless repeating things others have created. You do not do research, you have not invented anything, you are pushing the Blacks as victim model. You are pushing mental slavery. I have a museum, it might not be much, but it's a statement. Blacks have progressed to having a blue blood museum, not presenting Blacks as slaves and victims, but as Kings. If I wanted to cosy up to whites, this research, and this museum would be the last thing to do, knowing how they freak out at the very idea of Black Kings ruling whites. You are so stupid and worthless s hit: but hey, this you have figured out already. You cannot stop me, there are important persons who better understand what I'm about because they have succeeded at what they are doing. You are a failure, and you prove this everyday.


 

---

Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
 
http://mulattodebate.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=2008387&trail=45



Hard to tell a mulatto from a light skinned Black, who are mulatto types, but technically not mulattoes. A mulattotype is raised in a black environment; a mulatto can be raised by whites. If they marry a white, I consider them white identified.
 

---

Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
 
http://mulattodebate.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=2008387&trail=45



Hard to tell a mulatto from a light skinned Black, who are mulatto types, but technically not mulattoes. A mulattotype is raised in a black environment; a mulatto can be raised by whites. If they marry a white, I consider them white identified.

http://pics.hollywoodrag.com/gallery3/images/denise_vasi_1.jpg

Denise Vasi: Black and Greek





He could be anything; I once saw green eyed Lebanese’s, looking just like this.


 

---

Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
 
http://spainconcerts.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/lennykravitz.png


 

---

Posted by Narmerthoth (Member # 20259) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Egmond Codfried:
I hope somebody bumps you off very soon. You are pushing mental slavery. I have a museum, it might not be much, but it's a statement. Blacks have progressed to having a blue blood museum, not presenting Blacks as slaves and victims, but as Kings.

---

Be a MAN, fag!
You can bet your torn splinter, If there is any "bumping off" being done, I'm the one that's doing it.
That is, what MEN do, while fags are in the closet trying on scarves and shoes.
People like you are dispensable and easily replaceable. You have very little value in the areas needed for blacks to overcome our enemies.

Mental slavery?
By definition, that is when you are stuck doing abnormal behaviors, and embracing unnatural things by compulsion. Where you have no control and respond to psychic suggestion.
Ring a bell in that twisted head of yours?

Fool, you don't have a museum. No body believes your lies. You are worst than Lionese.
Every Black Baptist church in America tells their zombie black audience that they were King/Queens in Africa. This is BS. Not everyone were Kings/Queens. Like you, they have no real qualifications. It's just "feel-good" BS with no real merit.

Yeah, you want nothing more than to be "cozy" with Albinos. You idolize them, and support them in anyway you can. That's what fags do.

Why did you start this thread? Are you equating white hate with their rejecting you sexually? Likely.
Perhaps you are confusing HATE with DISGUST.

Whites don't HATE black people.
They FEAR us.
Hate is just a side effect to FEAR.
Of course, no one FEARS fags.
They are non-threatening and easily distracted by pretty trinkets, and ruffly clothing.

 

---

Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
 
This is so strange, a perfect stranger taking all this personal interest in me. What do you care what I do? You are pushing the Blacks-as-slaves-line, which have been succesful for some Blacks. But detrimental to all Blacks. They are ex-slaves and need to be compensated: so they sit and wait, wailing. You do not understand scientific research, you do not understand synthesising information: you only understand what the whites tell you to believe, what a Black person should be, what a man should be. Look at the Wodaabe: are they less men because they paint up? o fu cking narrowminded. Hysterical about fashions, while Blacks invented fashion, whites still copy Blacks. I have a museum, very small scale, but it can grow, and a museum is more an idea than just a place. The name of the museum alone will teach people about another way of looking at things. I do not expect to have an impact with whites, they are preparing a holocaust anyway. But there is hope for Blacks and mainly my Surinam. If you care for Blacks why do you foment infighting, why are you bothering me. Do I prevent you from posting your trash? Instead of waiting for others to give me a posuition, I created my own. Why would you preach hostility against me? You seem to have turned lesbians: is this all you are good for?
 

---

Posted by Narmerthoth (Member # 20259) on :
 
^ By sure, my interest in you is anything but personal.
Your type is an epidemic. Like a virus or parasite that needs to be eradicated for the general health of the body.
Here in America, black churches are breeding worthless fags like maggots, and we all see the results. We can't afford your lifestyle, or your infecting other young black men with your disease.
To accept your lifestyle is to play exactly into the hands of the enemy. They know that homos are no threat, so they promote this lifestyle to cripple young black men.
You have fallen for white tricks. I do not.

You want to lead an alternative lifestyle? Fine, try Buddhism.

 

---

Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
 
Why are you trying to tell me what to do? Where does the need comes from to control me? How do you feel you as a perfect stranger, not providing me with anything can even think of controlling my actions. The society which owns the house I rent have given me their consent. They are the only ones who could mess up my plans, they have the means and the power, but they did not. So what is your problem? You have no fucking say in the goddam matter, so you are a sicko to believe you have. Abusing me will never stop me: I have heard all the abuse there is in the world. You can abuse, but there is no purpose, as you have no effect on me. You are like a dogturd at the bottom of my shoe. You are worthless, demented ****. At least I have a growing folowing on the web, my stuff is at The Shomburg, people mention me on the Berkeley University site. Who follows you? Who talks about you on the web?



Clifton Mouson



Matthew Rush
 

---

Posted by Narmerthoth (Member # 20259) on :
 
^ Not telling you what to do. Just informing you that no one takes your twisted ass seriously except maybe other twisted European loving wannabe confused Negroes.

By nature, you are already fully under control, on a leash held in the hands of Albino dog owner. This Albino European likes to dress his dog up in clownishly colored dogie clothes and funny shoes.
The controlled dog's highpoint in life is when the Albino European allows it to lick his shoes or run and fetch.
The lap dog lives and breathes for the Albino European cause, that's what lap dogs do.
 

---

Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
 
Drug taking, deranged people like you will never comprehend a rational argument. They can't, that's why they are mentally ill. Some are released with strict instructions not to go and bother normal people or think they can compete mentally with normal people. The crazies I have seen usually are in denial and out to proof that they are sane, and the rest is kookoo. They were unjustly incarcerated. I have a mind to write to the authorities about you to either make sure you take your pills, or be incarcerated again till you abide by the rules. You are not to bother your betters. And what did your deranged mother whip you for? And no father to help her abuse the children?



You are not taking your pills
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Originally posted by alTakruri:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gigantic:
^Whites gainsay Blacks because of the relative ease by which they were able to enslave them - it is borne of contempt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
This "relative ease" was due to some Africans offering
other Africans for sale more so than any direct raiding.

Whereas other peoples quit the abject enslaving of
their co-continentals some Africans paid it no mind
that only their fellows were still being outright marketed
up to a century ago and are to this day "clandestinely"
passing hands from one enslaver to the next.

Look at the examples of Mauritania and Niger who have
just passed laws within the last six years making slavery
(African on African) illegal this late in history, i.e., the 21st
century.

See entries on slavery in the ESR Politics&News forum
and Pictures&Videos forum.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gigantic:
^Relative ease was due to the gun.

---

quote:

---

THE AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE
The First Slav[ing] Expeditions to [West] Africa
by Anthony A. Lee


Kidnapping [people] from the African coast was part of European
practice even before Portuguese ships had explored the coast of
the continent or discovered a new route to India. One of the
first expeditions to the Senegal River, led by the Portuguese
in 1444, brutally seized the black residents of several off-shore
islands near the river and carried them off to be sold as slaves.
Other expeditions from Europe about this time did more or less
the same.

But it was not long before African armies became aware of the
new dangers, and Portuguese ships began to meet their match.

For example, in 1446, two years later, a ship commanded by Nuno
Tristão attempted to land in the Senegal region. It was attacked
by African fighters in canoes, and the crew of the ship was
wiped out. And in 1447, a Danish raider commanding a Portuguese
ship was killed, along with most of his crew, when local African
boats attacked.

Although African vessels -- mostly canoes -- were not designed
for high-seas navigation, they were fully capable of protecting
the coast, even in the 15th century. As a result, in 1456, the
king of Portugal dispatched his ambassador, Diogo Gomes, to
negotiate treaties of peace and trade with the African rulers
along the coast. From that point on, and for 400 years, the
African slave trade was conducted as a matter of international
commerce among equals. The notion of European sailors roaming
through [West] Africa at will, kidnapping as many [people] as they
wanted and shipping them off to America, is completely false
-- and an insult to Africans, who kept European armies off
their soil until the beginning of the 20th century.

Of course, this fact of history makes the Atlantic slave trade
a bit more problematic, from a moral perspective. It is not
simply a question of black and white. Slavery was well known
in [many] African societies, as much as it was a fact of life
everywhere else in the world during those times.

As soon as Diogo Gomes' diplomatic expedition to West Africa
had succeeded, the export of slaves began to number in the
thousands. During the bloody course, perhaps 10 or 15 million
Africans had been delivered as slaves to the New World, and
perhaps just as many more had died in the process. These [people]
were captured in Africa by Africans, shipped to the African coast
by Africans, and only then sold to European traders in trade ships
to begin the dreaded Middle Passage to America. African kings and
rulers were active and willing participants in the slave trade,
which made them rich[er], and which could not have existed
without their full cooperation and support.

Indeed, when African kingdoms decided to stop trading in slaves
-- for their own reasons -- there was no way for European nations
to force them to continue. The earliest example of this is the
Kingdom of Benin on the West African coast (in what is now Nigeria)
In the 1520's this state began to restrict the sale of slaves,
finally cutting it off entirely by about 1550. This was probably
not done for moral reasons, however. Records from this period show
that the kingdom was becoming wealthi[er] from the export of cloth
and pepper. Although it is only a guess, we can imagine that slaves
were needed within Benin itself to produce these valuable products
which could bring more wealth to the king than the sale of human
beings.

As uncomfortable as this aspect of black history may be, it
at least explodes the myth of a "dark," helpless and ignorant
African continent that was always at the mercy of European
greed. Nothing could be further from the truth. The more we
learn about African history, going back even to the middle
ages, the more we learn that Africans were full and active
participants in the world -- on both sides of the Atlantic.

---