| Egmond Codfried |
12 januari 2012 16:44 |
Citaat:
UPDATE: BLUE BLOOD IS BLACK BLOOD (1100-1848)
The research question was: why do white’s hate and fear Blacks so much? What did Blacks do to whites to make them so hateful? When did they do these things to whites? Why can’t one discuss these matters with whites?
I’m not claiming that whites are bad people and Blacks good. Instead I have found that whites hate and fear blacks because they were despotically ruled by a black and brown complexioned European elite, which identified as Black. Blue blood is Black blood (1100-1848).
Racism and eurocentrism then becomes a liberation ideology to free whites from Black rule in Europe, and prevent this from occurring again. The reason why this sounds very strange is because whites have rewritten history since they were emancipated in 1848. They have turned history white. The whites today are descendents of the European Serfs. During the period 1100-1848 there was trade in human leather in Europe, and it were most likely that the Serfs who were flayed, and their skins used to bind books, make clothing and make shoes. The Serfs, the whites; were considered less then human, and Human Races were invented to give them human status since 1760.
The Nobility in Europe started with black and brown complexioned native Europeans, who were descendents of the first Europeans who entered Europe 45.000 years ago. The whites came 6000 years ago from Central Asia.
During the medieval era black and brown Europeans were called blue men. A poem describes Saracens as: blue and black as molten lead. Blue was a euphemism for black.
The nobility started from 1100-1200 and the nobles called themselves blue blood. Blue men, blue blood. And intermarriage was the cornerstone of the nobility, to remain coloured. The nobles dominated the whites (and the non-noble Black Europeans)in a caste system, with everybody with colour as part of the caste system, and whites as the outcasts. A reversed apartheid system with Blacks on top.
All this sounds very strange to us, because the whites were emancipated in 1848, and from then started painting the history white. So today we look at images of persons who are described as black and brown, but look white. The use of these whitened portraits should be considered revisionist, as they are taken out of context. The brown and black skinned elite sometimes painted themselves white, which led to portraits where they are portrayed as whites. But they had also portraits which showed their dark complexions as well. But these we do not get to see, but they still exist. Some of these are over painted, with pink paint.
The brown and black Europeans symbolised their identity with images of Moors and Black Madonna's. They considered Black superior over white, so god was white. In the same way we find today white Madonna’s in countries were everybody is brown and black. The Moor is a classical African, and nobles who resembled these Classical Africans were regarded as having pure noble blood. So we also have many images of heraldic Moors, to show the families Black ancestry, and descriptions of noble's and kings as brown or black in looks. But there also remain Black portraits, most prints. The saying: a prince on a white horse, is derived from the fact that the white horse symbolised the white population who were ruled by black and brown princes, like how a prince sits on a horse.
All can be verified in Google. I feel I need to push these new findings, which earlier writers of Black History had little knowledge of. Blacks are running in circles and have no means to end white supremacy and racism, because nobody offered a theory how it all started. This theory goes to the beginning, and explains all the Blacks in western art, the Golden Moors, The Black Madonna’s as remnants of a forgotten black civilisation. The revisionism is still active. A Jane Austen (1775-1817) who is described as ‘a brunette complexion’ wrote about brown and blacks in the gentry, yet her personages are portrayed by whites in movies. It’s clearly written in her books that her main personages are brown and black, yet…So Black should just re-examine everything from this new blue blood is black blood perspective and free themselves from white supremacy.
Egmond Codfried
The Hague
|
Dit houdt verband met de topic in de zin dat de macht altijd in de handen blijft van de machtigen, als er geen revolutie Plaats heeft gevonden. De rijken van toen zijn de rijken van nu en schijnbare democratie is slechts cosmetisch. Komt nog erbij dat de macht niet voorkomt uit de instituties die wij kennen, maar uit andere lagen, zoals de misdaad. Ik stel mij zo voor dat een Staat participeert in de oorlog in Afghanistan om de drugsbelangen van de eigen criminele elite veilig te stellen: niet omdat men iets geeft om democratie of de noden van de Afghanen. zo stel ik mij ook voor dat Justiotie met de mensenhandelaars, de pooiers in bed ligt, waardoor het mogelijk is dat duizende verhandelde vrouwen op elke straathoek legaal verkracht kunnen worden, en niemand dat kan verhinderen. Integendeel zou men als burger, voor het demonsteren voor mensenrechten voor deze sex-slaven; meteen door de politie worden opgepakt voor het verstoren van de openbare orde. Daar heb je het: de openbare orde wordt niet door de meerderheid van de burgers bepaald, maar door de mensenhandelaren. |
