More Nigger/Kike LIES! (read title of page at top of browser)

http://community-2.webtv.net/@HH!B9!66!23DB8E9E6C7A/PABarton/HISTORYOFAFRICAN/page2.html

"Humans began to spread from Africa over 100,000 years ago. These humans were culturally advanced and had language, culture and high intelligence conducive to a homosapien brain. At the same time, the HomoErectus inhabited Europe and Asia and the Neanderthal inhabited Europe. Most scientists agree that by 60,000 years ago, most of the world was inhabited by people who left Africa. This small group with a certain specific genetic marker is responsible for the entire non-African human population. This is verified by the fact that the genetic markers of all other humans are found in Africa, while Africans have a wide variety of genetic markers that are not found in the rest of humanity."

http://www.randi.org/jr/111403.html

Reader Dan Holland tells us:


I've recently come across something quite shocking. I'm a 23-year-old college student in Savannah, Georgia (Home of Deepak Chopra's Memorial Hospital! Come today and see miracle energy healing practiced next door to real medicine! But I digress). Today, my little sister came home from school stating that she was going to be learning, in her fourth grade history class, about how Africans discovered America. The evidence that she says she was given so far was, "Well, they both have pyramids."Randi comments: As I've pointed out before, the pyramid is a very basic and stable building form, so there is hardly any mystery that it's been used by many cultures. Fact is, that's the shape of a structure that's already fallen down, so it can't be any more stable than that!


Apparently, there will be handouts and brochures, and the parent who is responsible for this travesty is attempting to obtain books and lectures from the main proponent of this insult to the discipline of history. One of my friends is a history major at Armstrong [Atlantic State University] with a focus on what's called "women's studies." At Armstrong, this general term is used to promote the study of the influence of minority groups and their roles in history. This is an important and still-emerging discipline in history today, yet his professors disdain his choices as "wasted classes." I feel sure that crackpot theories such as these continually taking the forefront of this discipline is part of the reason that being recognized as a historian who focuses on minorities is still seen as "fringe." I so hate it when bad science shouts louder than good science and thus makes itself heard....

Why does this mentality thrive in no discipline but history? If I tried to claim that gravity was caused by invisible leprechauns holding us down, and that any who disagreed with me were anti-Irish bigots, I'd be off to the loony bin.

My sister managed to bring home one of the handouts today. It's a 34-page booklet, titled "The African Presence in Ancient America: They Came Before Columbus" and it's prepared by one Ivan Van Sertima.

Page 3 has a doozey. It has a map of the line drawn out by the Treaty of Tordesillas. I will quote: "Drawn at the request of King Don Juan of Portugal in June, 1494, before the European "discovery" of South America, on the strength of information gleaned from African mariners in Guinea." Now, to my remembrance of history, and I could easily be mistaken, the fact that the line included Brazil was a mistake, a historical fluke that eventually gave Portugal an American colony.

The next several pages are sculptures of "negroid" heads. Now, to be honest, they don't look like African figures at all to me. They look like faces with exaggerated features, a pretty common trait of ancient sculpture. A few of them look somewhat like the super-exaggerated figure that was used in KKK literature to suggest that Africans evolved from apes while white men did not, but nothing looks like any of the African Americans I see daily.

The next page shows a picture of what Sertima terms "Descendants of black governors of Ecuador." The copy I have makes it very hard to read, but it is a picture of three Africans looking rather royal... in spanish dress. Sertima says they are "Zambo chieftans from Esmeraldas (in present-day Ecuador) who visited Quito in 1599. They are shown here in Spanish dress and Indian ornaments but were descendants of a group of 17 shipwrecked Africans who gained political control of an entire province of Ecuador in short order." I don't know enough about this to attack it, but it seems somehow wrong to me. Perhaps someone with a little more knowledge can handle it?

One reason we're offering this here, and I'd like to know, too.


A few pages later, there is a picture of two thread patterns that both have crosses. Sertima claims they are "identical." Not so, not hardly. The first one has small, thick crosses imbedded in one thick one. It is imbedded in a square that has triangles going outside its edges. The second image shows a thin cross imbedded in a circle, which is contained within a square that has rounded loops in the corners. Also on this page is something even more laughable. He compares the triple crescent found on Mexican shields with the crescent symbol of Arabic descent. If they shared this iconology by more than pure chance, wouldn't the Native Americans have shown some other signs of Arabic influence when the Europeans got there? Also, he claims that the period of strong contact was somewhere in the neighborhood of 1200 B.C. Islam hadn't been formed then, and certainly held no sway over Egypt and the Phoenicians that he claims had strong ties with America. The next page compares medieval African smoking pipes with Native American pipes. Now, there doesn't seem to be any connection here, as the embellishments are all different. Of course the basic underlying structure looks similar, as they're both used for the same purpose. Much like a chisel, or a dagger, tools designed for one purpose tend to follow a basic model. Form follows function.

A bit later, he talks about "Black gods" in Mesoamerica. Well, not too unusual, I think, since they had pale-faced gods as well. Cortez rather famously exploited this fact, as I recall.

Then, the next few pages again focus on "Negroid heads," this time, in the giant faces carved by the ancient Olmecs. Again, these look more like what I'd find on KKK posters than any actual African Americans I've ever met.

And more and more of the same.

Here's some gem quotes from a webpage devoted to Sertima as a tribute:

The destruction of African high-cultures after the massive continuous invasions of Europe left many Africans surviving on the periphery or outer ring of what constituted the best in African civilizations. New facts that challenge this image create such consternation and incredulity that an extraordinarily emotional campaign is mounted by some of the most respected voices in the scientific establishment to explain away the new data. That drift of dynastic Egypt from Africa has now dramatically slowed. Recent archeological finds have caught up with the mythmakers. More and more the history of Africa is being reconstructed upon the basis of hard, objective data rather than upon the self-serving speculations and racist theories about the black barbarians.

Yes, apparently, all historians that disagree with him are racist. Somehow, I am unsurprised. Oh, and here's his reply to a similar criticism by more noted historians:LIE FOUR: Faced with the startlingly Negroid features of some of the Olmec stone heads, my critics try 4 ways out: (a) They are "spitting images of the native;" (b) they appear dark because some of them were carved out of dark volcanic stone; (c) some were made of white basalt which turned dark over time; (d) ancient Egyptians and Nubians were remote in physiognomy from sub-Saharan Negroes and none of them could have been models for any of the "Negro-looking" heads. Having said all that, they then claim that "races are not linked to specific physiognomic traits." THE TRUTH: No need to shoot them down on this. They turned the gun on themselves.

http://www.randi.org/jr/111403.html

The "Amazing James Randi" does a good job of debunking all sorts of things, this being one of them and the extended quote from the post above mine is from his site.

Nigs will say ANYTHING to elevate themselves from the mud they were spawned in. I read they were trying to claim the greek descended Egyptian Queen Cleopatra as their own... They base a lot of their mistaken understanding of ancient Egypt on their notion Akenaten was a nig. They get all proud of it citing "the most beautiful woman in history" Nefertiti as being a nig... without ever stopping to consider that that freak family was wiped from the face of the earth - "King Tut" too because their degenerate reign set a new low in a land of lows. In short order they were dispatched and a very non-nig sat on the throne thereafter.

If the nogs were so advanced in every aspect from 10,000 yrs, then wouldn't they be the ruling race and everything historical looking favourably towards them?

Unbelievable what lengths theses lies are amounting to!!!

I've heard blacks claim that Gaius Julius Octavius (Octavian or Augustus), the first emperor of Rome was a black man. Now, lets look at this bust of Octavian...

Sure looks black to me! :rolleyes:

They get all proud of it citing "the most beautiful woman in history" Nefertiti as being a nig...


If this is a reference to the recent supposed reconstruction of the face of Neferiti, which turned out not to be her, then the face was Caucasoid but edited for television to make it look more Negroid.

Read and be amazed!
http://www.white-history.com/
The pharohs were white!so much for the winged flying niggers from alpha centuri thoery. :p

They already try to claim Hannibal and Cleopatra as blacks; how long before they go for Scipio Africanus, Genseric, Kitchener, Rommel.......

Greetz

I happened to be within heering distance of a radio the other day which had an NPR fundraiser tuned in. They were playing a recording of nog anthropologist ‘Dr’ Ivan Van Sertima who was claiming Negro genesis of civilization and every other damn thing, since the current thinking of anthropologists say mankind ‘evolved’ to his current form in Africa. LOL Yeah, he evolved and LEFT Africa and kept evolving until he reached perfection with the White race, the noggs are the degenerated leftovers of the evolutionary process, two hundred thousand or more years behind us. LOL. Check this out, never heard a groid grunt this before, this nigger was claiming that Rameses II, one of ancient Egypt’s greatest pharaohs was actually a black man, and that his mummy was brought to France by unscrupulous White historians and irradiated with gamma rays to make him look White and his hair red! I almost fell out of my fuckin chair and choked on my lunch, is this the kind of shite they teach our White younguns in school these days? Holy fucking shit, no wonder you Whites under the age of 25 are fucked in the head! If it wasn’t for the kindness of the White race, the nigger would be on the end of a chain sayin yes massah, we really treat this half ape much better than he deserves. And look upon the gratitude he shows us cousins, the gratitude of a lower animal … he bites the hand that feeds him. Cheers

T.Garrett

PS You know, these niggers claim that ancient Egypt, which was a White Mediterranean civilization, was conceived by negroes (LOL) really should be refuted by every honest historian and anthropologist just purely in the name of truth, but as that jooish judge said in Canada in a case against a WN in defence of pee-cee there recently, don’t really remember the particulars, “Truth is no defense’ …. Cousins, this is not our way, our people evolved the most advanced civilization on this planet by using truth and reason as our guiding stars, not superstition and lies. The truth heer is hard to face for many, but we must rise one day soon and kill this joo who made this perversion of our society possible, our survival and the further evolution of the race human will soon demand it. And then we might have to put mr nogg back on his chain, or in a cage, whichever he prefers. That will be the choice we will give him in ‘gratitude’ of his abuse of us and our goodwill.

Cool avatar Garrett!

Great pic and great avatar T. Garrett.

They already try to claim Hannibal and Cleopatra as blacks; how long before they go for Scipio Africanus, Genseric, Kitchener, Rommel....... They also claim Shakespeare and William Wallace and Bill Clinton....eh....well, they're STILL wrong about the first two!