Black Kings Erased Out of History

WorldWar1812

Well-known member
Messages
99
Reactions
252
We know all kings come from a single root. Windsor royal house changed in WWI (1917) the official name (Sax-Coburg-Gottha) to the more "inglisch" Windsor. As if they knew German-Prussian branch was about to disappear (as it happened), and being pointed as a damn'warrior and cruel dynasty (as they really were).

WWI finished Austrian Habsburgs, German Prussian dynasties and through communists (financed from Switzerland), Russian Romanovs (Romanovs weren't the real and ancient Russian true dynasty -rurik-, so communists did the job to vanish those liars).

House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

Sakha (branch)
Knife or Stone, but Noblish Men.
Sax, Sachs (Goldman-Sachs?), Sah egyptian god, it's related. Etimologies have several explanations for Shah.

Shah (King of Persia)
Sah (Orion- The Hunter or the Warrior), from saxons can be translated as knife or stone (italian root Sasso it's a big rock or mountain), maybe even be linked to Sassanids, but mostly the Knife (Sax), not only as war attribute but royalty.

anglo_saxon_migration_by_arminius1871.jpg

Through official history, and the Holy German-Roman Empire (probably the real ROME Empire), Saxs located in south danemark (Jutes=Jews?) were the most terrible enemy they had and the hardest to conquer.
Sea control, pillage of vikings and normands saxons (this skill to steal the wealth of nations, can be linked to templars finantial control).

There are lots of aristochrats whose their wealthy comes from stealing and pillage (like Grimaldi's House - Monaco).

The Sax or Knife, it's very prominent in ancient georgian and armenian kings tombs. Russian word кинжал (kinshal) or dagger, relates king to Kin-shal (knife/dagger). There are some rumours about the ancient lineage descendants of giants and young human queens that needed assistance on giving birth with a knife (caesarian section).

Khanjali


Sax, Schach, or russian word for chess (used since very old times to show aristochracy how to face a battlefield) is the same (Шах-Shakh). In fact chess game it's Шахмати shakh-mati (Check-Mate/Shakh-Mat), Mat as primordial big mother or as a bee queen (originally the piece that determined to win the game was the queen), as if winning a chess game showed metaphorically reaching the pregnant queen and slashing (with a knife -sax) the womb to get a new king. Shakh-Mat (Check-Mate).

Shakh (Sah), again relates to arabian word Sheik.

So Aristochracy comes from dinasties and royal families that can be traced almost to a single root.
What does it mean Aristochracy?. There are several interpretations. What it comes first to the surface it's ARIS/ARES, greek demigod for war (Mars/Ares).
That probably can be explained, as landlords, and middle ages who owned castles and their lands were gained mostly through war.

It's important to note that King (Rex in latin), references to a piece of land, but not superior attributions being a king it's not exactly being in the capstone of the pyramid's power.

King=Rex (Reg), Reggio or Region etimologically relates to Rex (King). So a King has the administration of the territories, but not sacred meaning. Upper (in that hypothetical capstone of the pyramid), places the Emperor. So an Emperor or Empress it's in a higher place of power as it has not only military powers, but superior rights on legislation (money control, taxes), and mostly over all religions or sacred power (and of course the emperor represents the only legitimate "blue blood" warranty to survive through ages).

A King, and his descendants, his royal branch can be lost, but the main royal lineage of the emperor cannot as it's the head of all those royal branches.
This is why is used the royal bees as a metaphorical picture where there's one single bee queen, the rest can be lost one way or another.

There has been through different ages, a single blood (babylonian brotherhood), that could have changed in appearance, but the head of them remains always in the highest top level of power, since the pharaohs era (remember the maps showing babylon in egypt in site of mesopothamia).

So we have this royalty branch (now Windors), as the older branch, linked to Saxe-Coburg-Gottha.

House of Windsor - Wikipedia

UK flag (1801), represents a lot, combines Saint Andrew and Saint George flags, three typical masonic colours (most powerfull nations blue, white, red -UK, USA, France, Russia). White represents pureness (sacred command), Red represents legislation control (finantial), Blue represents military power (like NATO flag). Octogon templar symbolism it's clear on the Union Jack flag. As UK-London it's the core of actual royalty (the bee-hive for the
bee-queen).

What it's interesting here it's what happened in old times with black people's nobility, as it seems has been erased out of the official history.

Nobility, Nobel comes from "celestial heaven" (so people related to the stars), Небо (Nebo) in Russian (Heaven). Nibelungs sagas from Germany can be explained through this etymology.

And I point specifically on this because the "bizarre" fact that the coat of arms of German city Coburg shows a sort of black prince or black people royalty branch (by the way phonetically Coburg=CB=KB=Kaaba).


Diving into old metaphysical Egyptian (coptic, again CP=KB) concepts, the KA it's the life force or spirit (inner energy which keeps us alive, this is easy to draw or imagine within a kyrlian photography showing the blue aura all living things has), and the BA it's the soul, or what survives this physical matrix beyond the death. So here we could go through "beyond death notions", entities (angels or demons) and the ancient knowledge to communicate with
them (remember, and there should be a reason for that, all traditional religious systems, and of course abrahamic religions forbid any attempt to do this).

In the modern world, this knowledge falls into high aristocracy class. Nowadays modern astronomy has devoided totally the real concept of what is called firmament, depicting a "dead" or material universe out of any other metaphysical conception. Let me remind you that "metaphysical" it's not a futile word or an invention but a real side (hidden) on this physical world.

Astrology actually has been ridiculed, but in ancient times, those people knew perfectly well how important astrology was. The real knowledge (very complex) is the astrology not the modern astronomy full of tales for children.

So, trying not to lead so far this to "conspiracy", who knows, WHO rules this world (I mean metaphysical entities) that at first sight sounds ridiculous, but in fact it isn't. Then again we probably ignore how real power works in the top of the bee-hive or "capstone in the pyramid" of these "aristoi" or "blueish blood people".

As we have been forced (very explicit today) being totally void of the spiritual side of life (and that has very dramatic consequences on real knowledge), to dismiss or lose the link to the metaphysical side, we are very close to zombies or what nazis (nassis) called "üntermenschen" (infra-humans), totally undefended against the knowledge high aristocracy class keeps since very old times.

Nazi, Nasa, Nasi.

I'm interested in black people's royalty, and why they have been erased out of official history as if it never happened, as my own intuition tells me this fact it's related on this sort of ancient knowledge cover up.

What happened to black people's nobility?

There are lots of pictures, artistic manifestations, showing us black kings, black princess, in recent times such as renaissance (we could draw a separating line since 18th century), as if it never happened, but there was a black royalty.







Official history tell us black people was always almost not too much evolutioned in a civilization's ranking, setting them more or less in a neolithic (several millennia) stage of civilization development. That's totally false.

St. Maurice

Saint Maurice

cranach_editbulletin.jpg



Shakespeare's "Venetian Moor", depicts a black person character. Nowadays the character has been archaetypically moved to the greedish jew, as shown in the movies.
But "Il Moro di Venezia" was a nigger, a black merchant, a Moorish. Even in Greek Mavros remains as "black". And the country of Mauritania (as all the western Africa coasts) were governed by black people kings not the actual moor appearance (Muslims) we see nowadays.


So "Moorish" has two meanings:

-related to navigation skills (mariners)
-dark skin people (maroon, brownish, or even black people)

This brings to me the fact that the ancient Phoenicians, maybe they were not simply "dark skin" but even black people. I don't want to focus this (as much people does) in a racial debate. Ancient world had white, black or yellow kings. I'm interested to know why black people fell in a sort of unfortunate disgrace world wide.

Some historicians argues that those black people coat of arms (so many in Germany for instance), can be explained simply as a little faction of nobility gained through war as black people were used in military forces. But as we know aristocracy is a very closed circle. I can understand they were used in war and rewarded in some way by that but not widely set in high nobility positions.

Here comes the controversial subject of the "broken noses".

There are lots of sculptures, statues on ancient egypt with broken noses (so many), it seems that more than accidental falling, or any other reason, it has been promoted (and maybe that began not exclusively with white people in 18th-19th century but a bit before with ottoman Turkish Muslim people) to broke the nose of ancient egyptian royalty which in facts seems a very clear willing to hide black people's physionomy.




Great Sphinx MISSING NOSE Mystery - by Gorilla199

Then again I ask. WHY?
I'm not thinking on racial debate, I pick up higher motivations. Racial debate as some other vectors are used to manipulate people's minds (divide and conquer).


The reason to hide black nobility has to be much deeper hidden in legitimation's questions on royalty.
So erasing the black royalty out of the club.

Maybe black people's nobility knew so much?. They did wrong things? Or wrong metaphysical entities?
 
Last edited:

milhaus

Well-known member
Messages
199
Reactions
759
In the second video he said he discussed Black Britain, the clone queen, and the black Queen Elizabeth. I found the other video, I think.


He is using the picture from this article:
British Royal Family Shocker - Queen Elizabeth II is Black

I don't really understand what he means and I am so confused by the similarities of this joke article and why it even exists.

The secret is out. The head of the British Royal family, Queen Elizabeth II, is black. When she was born, on the 21st of April 1926, there were gasps of horror from those in attendance. The fidelity of her mother, Elizabeth, wife of Prince Albert, Duke of York - later King George VI, was at first questioned. But it soon became apparent that the family's distant African genes had come to the fore, and so it was that Elizabeth was born black.
With both her parents being white, it was decided that Elizabeth would not be seen in public without specially-made makeup, secretly designed by the top scientific brains of the day.

Some would have preferred that a constitutional crisis be averted by hiding the child away, and telling the world that she had been stillborn. But Elizabeth, later fondly known as the Queen Mother, was having none of it. This was her daughter who she loved with all her heart, and who she had had difficulty carrying and who at the end up had been born by Caesarian section, and her precious first born child would have to be disguised, nothing more.

There was also the risk that the Queen Mother may not be able to bear more children, after her difficult first birth, although history tells us that she later bore another girl child, Margaret.
Another lesser known but widely documented fact online is that Queen Charlotte (1744 - 1818) was also black.
I guess this author is making fun of this type of research or what? And why?

Any insight would be appreciated. I am really out of the loop on this subject.
I think the nose thing is really strange and I had sort of a crazy thought when hearing that woman saying Khemet was Egypt and was stolen. But what if the different structures around the world are energy harvesters/healing stations, like people here have said, and the differences are because each race has specific or different ways of absorbing "metaphysical" energy. Might be kind of out there, though.
 

HulkSmash

Active member
Messages
70
Reactions
212
WW1812 - great job of researching. This is a very interesting conundrum. Firstly, this doesn't surprise me about ancient black nobility at all. Egypt used to be called Khem, which means 'black', for cryin' out loud! That speaks volumes in and of itself. To me anyway. Secondly, it makes me think of Sitchin again ( i know, sorry all you Sitchin haters, :p ), but he claims the Annunaki chose the 'batches' of slaves, the Adams and the Eve's, from the native humans of the time. They were dark skinned according to the modern archaeological stance. So it should be no surprise the melanin gene was carried over when they did the genetic manipulation. I know many of you still won't go to the modern-humans-as-genetic-hybrids position, but there is much evidence to support it and I suggest again to check out Lloyd Pye's work regarding this. Its my opinion that black folks are the original humans on this planet. I remember from my anthropology schooling learning about skin colors and geographic location and how white skin is really not as suited for most of the planet. Evolutionarily and biologically speaking, its seems like a step down, a weakness. White skin seems more adapted to less sunlight. Vampires seem always white. Why? Annunaki were white skinned according to the Sumerian texts. I think this whole 'bloodlines' thing is connected here. Furthermore, the Olmecs of South America have giant stone faces that are obvious dark skinned. I think the missing noses is an example of the lengths to hide this black genetic origins from history. There is so much that has been hidden from us. This site is amazing. Thanks again to everyone!
 

Ice Nine

Well-known member
Messages
710
Reactions
2,936
Great topic @WorldWar1812, it's a really overlooked subject. Anybody who has spent any time at all studying ancient Egypt and Egyptians can certainly see there has been a major cover-up of facts.

@HulkSmash "modern-humans-as-genetic-hybrids position" this is absolutely the only scenario that makes any sense to me, perfect sense.

I think your entire post is spot on. All a person has to do is an image search of ancient egypt and black people. Don't even have to do much reading to see the evidence.

History can be so farcical, only I'm not laughing.

The Minoans also were black people. 5 Ancient Black Civilizations That Were Not in Africa
 
Last edited:

whitewave

Well-known member
Messages
1,422
Reactions
4,474
That speaks volumes in and of itself. To me anyway. Secondly, it makes me think of Sitchin again ( i know, sorry all you Sitchin haters, :p ), but he claims the Annunaki chose the 'batches' of slaves, the Adams and the Eve's, from the native humans of the time. They were dark skinned according to the modern archaeological stance. So it should be no surprise the melanin gene was carried over when they did the genetic manipulation.
My understanding of Sitchin's theory is that the annunaki used a primitive "animal" (human?, ape? pig? mix-n-match?) to form the first human hybrids. They were hybridized with the annunaki genes. So, does he specifically mention black PEOPLE or some animal? It's been a while since I read Sitchin so I just don't recall. TIA.
 

HulkSmash

Active member
Messages
70
Reactions
212
My understanding of Sitchin's theory is that the annunaki used a primitive "animal" (human?, ape? pig? mix-n-match?) to form the first human hybrids. They were hybridized with the annunaki genes. So, does he specifically mention black PEOPLE or some animal? It's been a while since I read Sitchin so I just don't recall. TIA.
It has been a while since I read the series, but I seem to remember he claimed the gene splicing was with the early homo sapiens because Enki recognized 'compassion' in it. However, there were mentions of MANY other gene splicings with animals. Myths of centaurs, minotaurs, griffons, satyrs, sphinx, etc... Island of Dr Moreau kind of stuff. Who knows really, but the mention of so many of these creatures in the past, in SO many cultures, really makes me wonder. I know our knowledge of genetics is pretty darn close to making hybrids, if not being completely capable already. A space faring race almost definitely is going to have greater knowledge and capability to create very strange stuff.
 

Red Bird

Well-known member
Messages
313
Reactions
708
It’s well accepted there were blacks (negroid) people in ancient s. America and Mexico who were depicted in huge statues (so you would think they were important). Also some in n. America supposedly.
23492

THE COLOSSAL STONE HEADS OF THE SOUTHERN GULF-COAST REGION OF MEXICO

East African Invasions in South America: Tracing Cultural Clues and Artifacts Left by Early Travelers

I think the line of Ham, Noah’s son, covers it pretty well and while not all were black they went everywhere, even first.
We’re all the same humans with different gene traits, there are no races in the Bible, only nations. Race is man made- sort of like gender. That controversial enough?
Edited to correct- we WERE all humans, but the differences are not racial.
 
Last edited:

lostwithtime

Active member
Messages
43
Reactions
179
WW1812 - great job of researching. This is a very interesting conundrum. Firstly, this doesn't surprise me about ancient black nobility at all. Egypt used to be called Khem, which means 'black', for cryin' out loud! That speaks volumes in and of itself. To me anyway. Secondly, it makes me think of Sitchin again ( i know, sorry all you Sitchin haters, :p ), but he claims the Annunaki chose the 'batches' of slaves, the Adams and the Eve's, from the native humans of the time. They were dark skinned according to the modern archaeological stance. So it should be no surprise the melanin gene was carried over when they did the genetic manipulation. I know many of you still won't go to the modern-humans-as-genetic-hybrids position, but there is much evidence to support it and I suggest again to check out Lloyd Pye's work regarding this. Its my opinion that black folks are the original humans on this planet. I remember from my anthropology schooling learning about skin colors and geographic location and how white skin is really not as suited for most of the planet. Evolutionarily and biologically speaking, its seems like a step down, a weakness. White skin seems more adapted to less sunlight. Vampires seem always white. Why? Annunaki were white skinned according to the Sumerian texts. I think this whole 'bloodlines' thing is connected here. Furthermore, the Olmecs of South America have giant stone faces that are obvious dark skinned. I think the missing noses is an example of the lengths to hide this black genetic origins from history. There is so much that has been hidden from us. This site is amazing. Thanks again to everyone!
It has been a while since I read the series, but I seem to remember he claimed the gene splicing was with the early homo sapiens because Enki recognized 'compassion' in it. However, there were mentions of MANY other gene splicings with animals. Myths of centaurs, minotaurs, griffons, satyrs, sphinx, etc... Island of Dr Moreau kind of stuff. Who knows really, but the mention of so many of these creatures in the past, in SO many cultures, really makes me wonder. I know our knowledge of genetics is pretty darn close to making hybrids, if not being completely capable already. A space faring race almost definitely is going to have greater knowledge and capability to create very strange stuff.
"Enki, a brilliant scientist, tried to untangle the secrets of life, reproduction, and death on Earth. Questions such as why did the Homo sapiens (the Anunnaki creation) live longer lives than the primitive ape men and ape women (whose DNA was used) but lived shorter lives than the Anunnaki/Elohim who came down to Earth. Could it be genetic or environmental?

Conducting more experiments on the genetics of their hybrids referred to as Lulu (Mixed One), Enki mixed his own sperm (essence) with their DNA and conducted the slow process of cloning until he created a perfect model giving them the ability to reproduce. He named the new creation Adam (Adapa), meaning human. He was granted greater intelligence than the previous creations and the ability to procreate; but not having the longevity like the Anunnaki/Elohim.

“With wide understanding he had perfected him. To him he had given Knowing; lasting life he did not give”.

Creation of Mankind - A Sitchin's View - World Mysteries Blog

According to Sitchin, there is an additional race of humans.
 

in cahoots

Well-known member
Messages
100
Reactions
461
A great topic that we would not see discussed anywhere else without a lot of harsh language and talking past each other!

Heredity is right in the word KING ("kin", as in family or "ken," as in known or know - also close to "kem/black"?). Power is etymologically defined to be a family inheritance. I think the brouhaha about no races, diversity, etc. is a great push to congeal not only our legends and history, but our literal genetic memory, to blur them together and make the path back down the root of the family tree untraceable. I'm no ethnic purist, but it really feels like we are being corralled into a generic, dissociative blandness, rather than a true celebration of the differently specialized and time-honoured ways of being. One must wonder if the slave trade was the fallout from a harrowing of the lands of the old kings, inverting their social status, scorching their earth, and stranding them from their true inheritance en masse, much like our theory on the Orphan trains.
It has been a while since I read the series, but I seem to remember he claimed the gene splicing was with the early homo sapiens because Enki recognized 'compassion' in it. However, there were mentions of MANY other gene splicings with animals. Myths of centaurs, minotaurs, griffons, satyrs, sphinx, etc... Island of Dr Moreau kind of stuff. Who knows really, but the mention of so many of these creatures in the past, in SO many cultures, really makes me wonder. I know our knowledge of genetics is pretty darn close to making hybrids, if not being completely capable already. A space faring race almost definitely is going to have greater knowledge and capability to create very strange stuff.
Today's commonplace ideas about evolution are very, how can I say this politely? Incomplete. There is so much more at play than a piecemeal, random mutation, inchworm rate of evolution. Evolution seems instead to happen in large spontaneous bursts, given our lack of intermediary species among us or properly stratified in the fossil record. Looking to evidence of hybrids from the past couple hundred years, one finds some of the least-possible-seeming interspecies progeny are actually the best- and most-documented. One of the most common, actually, is a pig looking like a human baby with Harlequin ichtyosis:

23497

Hits a little close to home for Mother Nature to just be goofing off, doesn't it?

My personal favourite is the "cabbit". When they cohabit, rabbit bucks will mount cats, and the cats do sometimes receive the mount. The result appears to be quite consistent, and most of the videos of them online appear to be from Spanish or Portugeuse speaking countries, where they casually call them "gatonejo". What's fascinating with this hybrid is that it seems to be pretty much a clean 50/50 cat rabbit - literally, the front half is a cat, and the back half is a rabbit. Look!


But, of course:

23498

I believe I was shown this website through recommendations by you guys, but media above is sourced from the website of a PhD geneticist: The Hybrid Hypothesis: Introduction

It’s well accepted there were blacks (negroid) people in ancient s. America and Mexico who were depicted in huge statues (so you would think they were important). Also some in n. America supposedly.
View attachment 23492
THE COLOSSAL STONE HEADS OF THE SOUTHERN GULF-COAST REGION OF MEXICO

East African Invasions in South America: Tracing Cultural Clues and Artifacts Left by Early Travelers

I think the line of Ham, Noah’s son, covers it pretty well and while not all were black they went everywhere, even first.
We’re all the same humans with different gene traits, there are no races in the Bible, only nations. Race is man made- sort of like gender. That controversial enough?
Edited to correct- we WERE all humans, but the differences are not racial.
I've seen these heads. They don't look African to me - they look distinctly Polynesian. The flared nostrils are similar across these ethnicities, but I find the African nose to be less flat at the centre than what i see in people of, say, Phillipino descent, and in this statue head. Ditto for the almond shape of eyes and the puffed out bottom eyelids - nonetheless, it's a race out of place.
 

welkyn

Active member
Messages
38
Reactions
145
Have to weigh in with a couple of disagreements here:

First and foremost, nose defacement is common across the world - you want to look at some old Chinese, Roman, Celtic and other statuery that has the noses cut off (often, it would seem, with blades, interestingly enough - perhaps ceremonial in some cases).

Secondly, as far as "other nobility" goes: if you look into European history, you see countless examples of the nobles of local regions being effectively "disinherited" by conquering nations. A good example would be Ireland - what the hell happened to Irish nobility? They definitely existed, since Ireland has a long list of Kings of many provinces stretching over thousands of years. So how come there isn't much of an Irish aristocracy going about anymore? Simple: the Norman aristocracy that took Ireland in war ostracised the native nobles and relegated them to subservient positions. In the 18th century, being "Irish nobility" meant you were little more than a commoner in England - but a lot more than an Irishman, who was more like a serf or slave.

To put it bluntly, I can definitely see the evasion of black nobility in histories as being a form of this in-built racism/exclusionism in the ruling classes of Eurasia and the Middle East. Pretty much anyone who had money or power seems to have been racist - non-racism or anti-racism was the exception for most of the world's history. (Note that this isn't an exclusively "white" or "civilised" phenomenon - African nobility are just as likely to have looked down on non-African nobility, as well as other, unrelated African nobles, as being inferior or "not really noble").

This means that, rather than intentionally whitewashing (lol) the history of black nobility, non-African historians might simply have overlooked it. It was probably not at all lucrative for Eurasian historians, in fact, to do much at all about the history of Africa - who would pay for it? Who would put the money forward for such a task to be undertaken? And for what reason? There simply wasn't any interest in what was going on "over there". Now that Africa has been forcibly introduced into the modern world, there is an interest in what has happened there before. The question now is whether this interest will be allowed to produce the facts - which is more dependent on researchers than it is on governments or other power structures (to a point).

As far as Egypt is concerned, it's generally accepted that many different "noble" families from many different (and unrelated) lines came to power in both the Old and New Kingdoms - there were African, Berber and Indo-European Pharaohs for sure, as well as representatives from other races/ethnicities. Hence the depictions of white, brown and black people in different roles/positions of authority throughout the Egyptian pictoral corpus.

For the record, Egypt was called "Khemet" after the soils left by the Nile flood, which were deep black (indicating extreme fertility). This is also the root of the word "alchemy", from "Al Khemy", meaning "the art of Egypt".

Now, all that said, this is an interesting line to go down, for it's certain that the bulk of Africa's "feudal" history is overlooked by both European and Middle Eastern historians. Presumably this is because Africa has, until recently, played only a minor role in the development of these two areas; the specifics of African Kingdoms further south than the Sahara have meant nothing to Eurasians for the most part of two thousand years, if not longer. Now that Africa is key in global dynamics, we'll hopefully see a lot more authentic and honest research going into Africa's history. But until that becomes evident, it's good to go into topics like these to this kind of depth, since it's sure that as much as the Eurasians of the past may have ignored Africa in general, Africa was still a key part in the affairs that were going on elsewhere in the world.

Perhaps I'm only offering a word of caution: before we decide that there has been a cover-up we must penetrate, which would require one particular set of deductive methodologies, we might ascertain whether or not people simply weren't interested enough to record these details in any depth, and have thus lost a lot of this knowledge in the wake of Africa's modernisation - as indeed has happened pretty much everywhere in the world, even in the home of our modernity (industrial Europe). I think that it's more likely that a lot of this information is there, but it is sequestered in African minds and in African records, written in languages which we do not speak, therefore unavailable to us unless we get in touch with African researchers who are on the ground in their countries investigating the histories of their peoples.

(Edit: so, to summarise - do we have any Africans on our board, and if so, would they be able to let us know what the state of history is in their nation and in surrounding areas? To what degree do African historians go into their deep history, and how successful are they in dredging up information about that history? If we don't have any Africans here, we might need to go ask them about this.)
 
Last edited:

lostwithtime

Active member
Messages
43
Reactions
179
It’s well accepted there were blacks (negroid) people in ancient s. America and Mexico who were depicted in huge statues (so you would think they were important). Also some in n. America supposedly.
View attachment 23492
THE COLOSSAL STONE HEADS OF THE SOUTHERN GULF-COAST REGION OF MEXICO

East African Invasions in South America: Tracing Cultural Clues and Artifacts Left by Early Travelers

I think the line of Ham, Noah’s son, covers it pretty well and while not all were black they went everywhere, even first.
We’re all the same humans with different gene traits, there are no races in the Bible, only nations. Race is man made- sort of like gender. That controversial enough?
Edited to correct- we WERE all humans, but the differences are not racial.
23501

Princess Ruth Luka Keanolani Kauanahoahoa
Keelikōlani Of Hawaii
17.VI.1826 - 15.V.1883

23502

Head of an Olmec baby figurine.

Native Hawaiians (Hawaiian: kānaka ʻōiwi, kānaka maoli and Hawaiʻi maoli) are the Aboriginal Polynesianpeople of the Hawaiian Islands or their descendants. Native Hawaiians trace their ancestry back to the original Polynesian settlers of Hawaiʻi.

The problem is that there too many guesses based on facial features.
 

Red Bird

Well-known member
Messages
313
Reactions
708

Princess Ruth Luka Keanolani Kauanahoahoa
Keelikōlani Of Hawaii
17.VI.1826 - 15.V.1883


Head of an Olmec baby figurine.

Native Hawaiians (Hawaiian: kānaka ʻōiwi, kānaka maoli and Hawaiʻi maoli) are the Aboriginal Polynesianpeople of the Hawaiian Islands or their descendants. Native Hawaiians trace their ancestry back to the original Polynesian settlers of Hawaiʻi.

The problem is that there too many guesses based on facial features.
That’s exactly it- that’s all there is plus or minus pigment. I didn’t say African.
However it is interesting to see, in this thread, how black peoples seemed to play much bigger roles in the past. Maybe it has to do with what happened to Africa.
 

Kansas

New member
Messages
7
Reactions
14
In my gut this feels like a mix of history and propaganda... I can't refute any of the evidence, I just don't think it's accurate... feels like part of the set-up to make Europe less European over the coming decades.
 

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
3,755
Reactions
14,135
In my gut this feels like a mix of history and propaganda... I can't refute any of the evidence, I just don't think it's accurate... feels like part of the set-up to make Europe less European over the coming decades.
I doubt that looking at historical events through the prism of current political events allows for the unbiased view on those historical events.

If propaganda was indeed the case we would probably be watching it on the likes of CNN, instead of reading this stuff on our SH forum.
 

Kansas

New member
Messages
7
Reactions
14
I doubt that looking at historical events through the prism of current political events allows for the unbiased view on those historical events.

If propaganda was indeed the case we would probably be watching it on the likes of CNN, instead of reading this stuff on our SH forum.
I appreciate that, but prolonged exposure to propaganda has jaded me... my first thought in encountering the Tartaria/mud-flood idea was: "Holy shit! the Mormons were/are sponsored by the Jews and this is the new plan to get the masses to flow into the one-world-religion."
 
OP
W

WorldWar1812

Well-known member
Messages
99
Reactions
252
I forgot to say, this bizarre story of the "piggy people" (religious conversion to catholicism), called in Spain "marranos", more than being referred to eat pork probably it's strongly related to sailors and good navigation skills (marrano very close to mar=sea), or people who kept ancient navigation maps.

I cannot found the video in english but there are good reports about jews (aka moorish, morisques) financing and really standing on first line with respect to "america's discovering", as I meant on other threads america of course it was enough discovered (not officially) in 1492, simply there was a kind of officialization and making public to states or kingdoms navigation routes in order to broke previous secret monopolisation of templars (enormous silver trading from south-america). Or just a sort of disguise with respect this trading, as Columbus ships were using the templar cross.

This adventure was probably dangerous for several characters (including mysterious Columbus, that appears to be a sort of puppet man, or a character with false identity, being very closely related to jews -xuetas- of Majorca).

Indeed their departure (with several proscrits) was out of time given to jews to abandon spain. And appearently black people in the crew.

I don't like this guy (a liar), but this book appears to be on the right side, despite possibly full of sionist BS victimism.


Post automatically merged:

In the second video he said he discussed Black Britain, the clone queen, and the black Queen Elizabeth. I found the other video, I think.


He is using the picture from this article:
British Royal Family Shocker - Queen Elizabeth II is Black

I don't really understand what he means and I am so confused by the similarities of this joke article and why it even exists.





I guess this author is making fun of this type of research or what? And why?

Any insight would be appreciated. I am really out of the loop on this subject.
I think the nose thing is really strange and I had sort of a crazy thought when hearing that woman saying Khemet was Egypt and was stolen. But what if the different structures around the world are energy harvesters/healing stations, like people here have said, and the differences are because each race has specific or different ways of absorbing "metaphysical" energy. Might be kind of out there, though.
Far beyond the joke (as it's known EII she's linked to arabian monarchies -muhammed prophet), and taking nowadays as a degrading or insult
(moron, derived from moorish?)

Sex Pistols - Is the queen a moron? - YouTube




YES. :D.

But we know it's not a joke.
Post automatically merged:

It’s well accepted there were blacks (negroid) people in ancient s. America and Mexico who were depicted in huge statues (so you would think they were important). Also some in n. America supposedly.
View attachment 23492
THE COLOSSAL STONE HEADS OF THE SOUTHERN GULF-COAST REGION OF MEXICO

East African Invasions in South America: Tracing Cultural Clues and Artifacts Left by Early Travelers

I think the line of Ham, Noah’s son, covers it pretty well and while not all were black they went everywhere, even first.
We’re all the same humans with different gene traits, there are no races in the Bible, only nations. Race is man made- sort of like gender. That controversial enough?
Edited to correct- we WERE all humans, but the differences are not racial.
Interestingly, Ham=Kham=Khem(et).
Generations of Noah - Wikipedia

Cam(Kham), Shem, Japhet.
 
Last edited:

Laluna

Well-known member
Messages
32
Reactions
100
I don’t have time to site sources but the idea that Europe was clueless about Africa outside of Northern Africa is a lie that’s finally been outed. The lack of research is not due to ignorance. I do think it was intentional just like other minority groups.

Similar to America, most educated africans are taught the same lies we were from a British perspective. Our media is filtered.

Also:

It’s always strange to me that people accept blacks were first yet soon as they cross an imaginary border they were not black anymore. IMO we all were black before the concept of Africa was invented. These black people either populated the world or were always here. They had all types of features but were mostly dark brown to chocolate brown with kinky to curly hair. Mixing with subspecies and major environmental/atmospheric conditions repeatedly changed them to what we see today. Eurasian looking black people are a relatively new looking human. Seems like at one point there were no winters and earth was fully tropical so dark skin prevailed.

What is an exclusive non black nose? There isn’t one. The indigenous cultures world wide were wiped out. If you don’t want to call them “black” that’s fine but historically they were overwhelmingly brown skinned people. Not pink, yellow, “olive” or whatever else. I think the idea that “races” are only from certain continents is complete bull and one of the ways they control us.

Exactly when this happened is up for debate but the powers that be definitely know or else there would be so much division today.
 

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
3,755
Reactions
14,135
Or may be “Gods” relatively simultaneously genetically created multiple races for whatever purposes they had.

It appears all this stuff about who was first could only be true through Darwin’s evolution theory.
 

Laluna

Well-known member
Messages
32
Reactions
100
Or may be “Gods” relatively simultaneously genetically created multiple races for whatever purposes they had.

It appears all this stuff about who was first could only be true through Darwin’s evolution theory.
Really? How so? Didn’t Darwin say we were first pale?
 
Last edited:

Japod

Member
Messages
14
Reactions
33
Yes, this is where the term the Dark Ages comes from. A lot of old churches in Europe still have painting of these black nobles that havent been whitewashed.
 

Similar threads


Top