Birdman posted this link which is interesting by itself:

http://www.white-history.com/egg4.htm

The curious pic of the blond with the ponytail is actually the best in this group. It's from the 18th Dynasty, when a good proportion of the rulers were redheads or blonds. The Egyptians in this era looked surprisingly like Athenians looked about a thousand years later.

There was a egroup called "Redheads are Divine" a few years ago and they made an extensive list of history's greatest redheads. Two come from this era, Queen Nefertiti and Ramses the Great.


http://www.white-history.com/eggall02/mourners_blond.jpg

No doubt there are a few nigs portrayed in ancient tombs, too. What do you make of that? One Nordic family does not a white Egypt make.


The 'light eyed people' are all semitic as hell.

"Egypt" (they didn't call themselves that) went 3,000 years and had lots of ups and downs. In the late dynasties they were overrun by Syrians, Kushites and even Ethiopians. Much of the art you'll see is late era and nonwhite.

But even then they're more interesting than the Minoans, who always looked just plain strange to me no matter which era they're from.

The trouble with ancient art as a whole is that the very best stuff is not online or even in books. The Berlin Museum contains lots of sculptures from ancient Egypt that leaves no doubt what race they are, but I've never seen them displayed or published anywhere. Can't imagine why.

Vlad,

I'd appreciate it if you could find it. Sounds good.

Emory thought that the predynastic invaders of the Nile valley were white pirates and that explains their carvings of rock ships in the Eastern Desert. It would also explain the use of axe weapons too.

Emory also wrote in the early 60s, the last time scholars were honest about this subject.

YAWN! I see uncle Arthie is at it again. It seems he can't let go of one of his favorite fairy tales.

Who's Arthie? Had a sarcastic reply to you typed, but thought I'd better clarify your comment first. Not knowing who Arthie is, I can not tell which side you're on. Please declare a position.

[QUOTE=Whirlwind]Who's Arthie? Had a sarcastic reply to you typed, but thought I'd better clarify your comment first. Not knowing who Arthie is, I can not tell which side you're on. Please declare a position.[/QUOTE]


Arthur Kemp author of March of the Titans

[QUOTE=Whirlwind]Who's Arthie?[/quote]

Arthur Kemp.

Had a sarcastic reply to you typed, but thought I'd better clarify your comment first. Not knowing who Arthie is, I can not tell which side you're on. Please declare a position.

What position is there to take on this issue? It's really only a matter of Reality(genetics/anthropology/history) vs Fiction(Afrocentrism & Nordicism)

Thanks. I know who wrote the material. Thought maybe you knew someone by name, and I was on the outside of an inside joke. Miscommunication caused by mock familiarity.
With the recent discovery of a new group of hominids, comes the knowledge that the old perceptions about human origins is wrong. Out-of-africa, is wrong. We do not all have a common ancestor. No "adam and eve" we all relate back to.
You'd be best served by forgetting ALL the shit they taught you in school, and instead use March of the Titans as a framework for understanding human history.
Unless you believe the niggers used to be kings and queens of the Nile. And flew around the pyramids they built, in gliders.
Academic historians have a master to please. That master has an agenda. That master will not brook attemps to change or otherwise modify the agenda. This cripples any inquiry that flies in the face of the accepted story.
Do you want the truth, or an easy-to-remember fable?

[QUOTE=Whirlwind]With the recent discovery of a new group of hominids, comes the knowledge that the old perceptions about human origins is wrong. Out-of-africa, is wrong. We do not all have a common ancestor. No "adam and eve" we all relate back to.[/quote]

Even if the "out of Africa" theory is proven wrong, it was not meant as "we all came from Negroids". The "out of Africa" theory also says that the Negroid races themselves evolved from these hominids. Common origin does not mean that "we all came from Negroids". That nonsense came from the (unfortunately) popular mania of equating "Africa" with "Negro". Incidentally, this is in fact the same sorry-ass "argument" that most common (clueless) people and Niggers usually use when they are trying to "prove" that Egyptians, Libyans, Moors, Numidians, etc., were "Black"(i.e. Negro.) "Dey wuz from Africa, muffuka! Dey wuz blackz!" Typical simian "argument".

Unless you believe the niggers used to be kings and queens of the Nile. And flew around the pyramids they built, in gliders.

You do not need to fall into the realm of quacky claims about Egypt, or any other civilizations, to refute such utter bullshit.

That master has an agenda.

So does Kemp.

Do you want the truth, or an easy-to-remember fable?

Kemp's book is hardly "the truth", and in many aspects it's pretty much "an-easy-to-remember fable" all the same.

I prefer to believe in real, non-agenda-driven research and common sense.

Never meant to convey Kemp's work as gospel. Just a much better framework for investigations. Are you having a hard time accepting that Whites are the "Master" race?
Pyramids all over the world. All built independently? Do all the murals depicting White people as being involved in their early civilizations, inform your common sense of nothing?

[QUOTE=Whirlwind]Pyramids all over the world. All built independently?[/quote]

So? What possible "racial conclusion" can one derive from such a thing? Spears, arrows, bows, shields, etc., were developed all over the world. All built independently? Nah! We must be the creative genius behind it all. No other races were capable of coming up with anything on their own.

I have no problem to acknowledge the indisputable fact that Negroids are basically Stone-Age troglodytes who belong in jungles & caves, but I also have no problem accepting that it is quite obvious that other racial types, particularly those with Caucasoid facial features, though not always exactly "white skinned", were able to create their own civilizations independently. There is no need to make fairy tales and steal other groups' histories in order to make Whites "look good". Remember, we are not Negroes, a rapacious race which constantly needs to go on the prowl for other people's histories. Europe's history is more than sufficient to speak for Whites.

Do all the murals depicting White people as being involved in their early civilizations, inform your common sense of nothing?

What those murals tell me is that Caucasoid peoples of several different complexions and pigmentations developed various civilizations around what is today the Middle East and North Africa. That's what common sense and normal, sober scholarship indicates. From this to fantasizing about "Nordic Desert Empires" there is quite a stretch.

Say caucasian to a Russian and see what kind of reaction you get. Lesson: that word has been so misconstrued as to be almost meaningless. Might as well say light skinned. But then you'd wind up next door to Anina. Maybe if you could get past this blockade, you could start using your brain to figure out where all these White proto groups came from. And start seeing the pattern of White civilization building. Being overcome by dusky savages. Civilization breaking back down to the dust it was lifted from. In this context, we are in a fight for our racial survival. Again.

[QUOTE=Whirlwind]Say caucasian to a Russian and see what kind of reaction you get. [/quote]

Tell a Han Chinese the word "Mongoloid", and that he and an Incan Indian are "the same", and see what kind of reaction you get. Yet from a scientific viewpoint both racial types cluster in the same macro-group, regardless of shifting variations such as skin pigmentation.

Lesson: that word has been so misconstrued as to be almost meaningless. Might as well say light skinned.

You seem not to understand the meaning of the term "Caucasoid" very well. It isn't even based on skin pigmentation, but on facial features and skull shape, which are the primary determinant for racial taxonomy. Or would you rather go back to the times when anthropologists applied the word "white" not only to Europeans but to North Africans and Middle Easterners in general as well? I sure as heck don't.

Maybe if you could get past this blockade, you could start using your brain to figure out where all these White proto groups came from.

Maybe if you can get past the obvious fairy tales and use your critical sense, you can start seeing through the arbitrary agenda-driven BS of such texts.

[QUOTE=Whirlwind]...Civilization breaking back down to the dust it was lifted from. In this context, we are in a fight for our racial survival. Again.[/QUOTE]

True words. Elmer Pendell's little book Why Civilizations Self-Destruct influenced a lot of people on this subject and it's still reasonably easy to find. He covers Sumer and Egypt pretty well.

Whites built them and they were inundated by non-whites which destroyed them. End of story. Might be the end of our story if more people don't start waking up.