Believe me, if most of us didn’t think you genuinely believe your misguided and off-kilter “theory”, and that you were just trolling us, you wouldn’t even know what hit you. Just consider yourself very, very fortunate that we decided to ignore your tangent on 9/11 in favor of your main line of argument. Down that road you really don’t want to go.
How about 9/11? We all understand that planes cannot vaporise if they fall down. We were never shown images of an actual plane flying into the Pentagon, with all these security cameras running.
Take 9/11 as an anology. Million Americans scared to death to ask questions, to make statements, to come forward. Imagine what lies the 9/11 museum will show.
My research is still in progress. I went public to stimulate folks to come up with more facts. I’m not a black-suprematist, but I’m against white supremacy.
Seriously…don’t go there. You will regret it. I speak as one who absolutely disbelieves the Truther crap, but doesn’t want someone to walk into that raging furnace without warning. Do not go Truther here.
No, it’s just that all the data says the world is heating up. There are a very few scientists who think man isn’t contributing to the heat, but the vast majority think that man is. So you’re simply ignorant about what is going on.
You aren’t a researcher. You are a layperson who is too ignorant to know that his ideas are childishly unformed and without merit.
You are advocating a racist idea that the people in charge of Europe for the rise of its power were secretly another race. It’s just like a white supremacist saying that whites built the pyramids or were the power behind the great cultures in India.
You have failed utterly to make your case and yet, you refuse to admit it.
You don’t know the half of it, the fact that someone can breeze in and promote racist power fantasies with no evidence and not be shouted down is why this site is wonderful.
Still, your ideas are childish and simply the result of an ignorance so profound and all encompassing it has made your every idea worthless.
I posted this earlier but in true Egmond Codfried style, he never addressed any of it. So I am re-posting it. I even helpfully bolded the important parts.
The portrait of King Charles does not make him look black. Not remotely. He does not have African features. You can call him a “tall black man” all you want. How can this boy grow up to be a black man? Tell me how. Explain the process to me. How is it that someone can begin life looking like that, and then end up a “black man”?
I can explain King Charles’s Bourbon ancestry all day long, but it doesn’t matter because Egmond is claiming that it’s the STUART side of King Charles that is responsible for his being “black.” If that is the case, could you explain how this man could be the scion of a great black dynasty in Scotland? And don’t tell me that his face was whitened in his portrait. You could make his skin as black as ink and it would not change Henry Stuart’s facial features, which are Scottish through and through. Actually, he looks like a lighter-haired Robert Burns. I guess Burns was black too.
EVERYBODY WAS BLACK!
Egmond Codfried, many others in this thread have done yeoman work in arguing the merits or lack thereof of your theory and I will not repeat or extend their efforts.
Instead, I merely wish to ask you one question:
Is it possible you are wrong?
If your answer is “no”, then you are not practicing any semblance of the scientific method. If your answer is “yes”, then please spend an moment or two on some honest examination of your detractors’ claims.
No. Everybody IS black. Those white dudes you see on TV, in the streets and in the mirror ? Photoshop.
(as a side note, I must offer a correction for my last post, which I can’t edit anymore : I dunno wherefrom I pulled that “whose skin was very white” bit. It’s not in the original. In my defense, I was being forwarded porn at the time of writing.)
Take this to a new thread if you want to argue about it. This one is rambling enough. For record, however, security camera footage of that plane hitting the Pentagon is easily available online. It’s ironic that someone who links to Google over and over again has apparently never tried Googling this.
Actually you are a little bit wrong…just a tat.
The Human Race originated in a small village near Cork/Ireland called Póg Mo Thóin and the whole of Europe was yellow, from drinking to much Ale.
Then they all took off to Africa, because it was much warmer there, natuarly they developed a little tan.
After a while they decided to travel back up north, because the ale was of a much better brew.
Over centuries, the blackness just bleached from drinking to much lager, instead of the good ol stout.
This theory is scientificly proven to be absolutly correct and is non debatable, after all, I spend something like 17 years of researching it.
You can see the reasemblence to African people in almost everybody over here in Ireland.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2008/02/080207163811.jpg
My research tries to explain why the black man went from the central figure in an Adoration scene, to be next compared to an ape.
========================================================
Black Irish resemble Negroes according to this American cartoon.
Slavery. White Europeans tried to justify slavery by claiming that blacks were inferior.
Next question?
Some parting remarks;
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10791592/
There are about three sites which mention books bound in human leather. They all pooh pooh the idea as ‘normal’ for that period, but one article mentions that yet this was not discussed in polite society.
For me it illustrates how the elite would view its white subjects; like some kind of cattle.
This explains also the fieriness of the French revolution were nobles were murdered were ever they were found, hung at the lampposts in front of their houses.
Actually, I had heard that repeated ingestion of mushy peas and brown bread were responsible for the melanin-bleaching. Otherwise, as an Irish citizen, I see nothing in this post that does not accord with our current scientific understanding of bio-ethnicity. Carry on.*
*Egmond, if you’re reading this, that was sarcasm.
You aren’t doing research. You are promoting a fantasy.
You think that the most logical reason that blacks went from “exotic” to “ape-like” for some westerners is because the aristocracy of Europe was black?
Don’t you think it might have something to do with centuries of slavery? And maybe that during those centuries of slavery the only blacks westerners were likely to see were utterly uneducated? Don’t you think that maybe had something to do with it?
Well, if the *cartoon *says it. :smack:
They where all inbreed… read up.
Also, yours is an old claim…read up…was sorted years ago…
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=79613
Why do you suppose that is? Because they had Negro ancestors, or because the cartoonist was trying to associate the Irish with a the reviled Negro?
Doesn’t it bother you that your evidence is completely unrelated to your claims?
You are not a scientist. You are a layperson who doesn’t know how to evaluate evidence. Posting a random link that is unrelated to your claims isn’t evidence.
This is now turning into some kind of bizarre, retroactively-revanchist fantasy on your part to imagine some kind of black domination of Europe. You are spouting pure nonsense and it is beginning to appear similar to the rantings of a schizophrenic, homeless New York street preacher.
http://www.luminarium.org/editions/maskblack.htm
http://argentphoenix.com/images/Inigo_Jones,_design_for_Masque_of_Blackness_1605.jpg
[Anne of Denmark]
The Masque of Blackness was commissioned by Anne of Denmark, the grandmother of The Black Boy, Charles II Stuart.
After reading the whole play I concluded it was written in praise of black beauty, which does not fade, and goes on to explain how blacks came to Europe looking for a milder sun. The Queen played the River Niger, a west African river.
Oh, I just can’t resist (and I notice you’ve ignored my question to you).
Why would this necessarily only be how a black elite would view its white subjects? About 60 years ago, there was a white European elite that did a pretty good job of brutalizing its white subjects. Of course, there are thousands of other examples of elites brutalizing their subject populations throughout history. This has NOTHING to do with race.
And as for the French Revolution, I think most of us reasonably attribute the “fieriness” of the French Revolution to factors such as crushing taxation, a rigid social hierarchy, famine, etc. Why do you think that racism is a better explanation than those other, more conventional, reasons?