I havent claimed a fucking thing... Other than claiming you are a lost self hating bastard.
History channel shows Hannibal as a Black man. Whites go crazy cry revisionism.
- Thread starter Dr. Truth
- Start date
If i were googling i would have cut and paste and not fell victim to a fucking typo. ... But then what would you have to hang your hat on.
Dude you got caught. Admit it and move on...If i were googling i would have cut and paste and not fell victim to a fucking typo. ... But then what would you have to hang your hat on.
This is what you wanna focus on now?? How does that remotely make sense... If it were a google run how the fuck would a typo occur? babble/babbageDude you got caught. Admit it and move on...
When the last time you went to Rome bro?
Actually February. One the way to see ruins in Turkey - the city of Izmir (once Smyrna). Why?
And Babbage real has nothing to do with modern computers. Any more than Galileo had to do with the Wright Brothers. That's why I think 1) you don't know about this subject 2) you are frantically googling it
Because although Babbage tried to make a computing machine he failed - so why would that have ANY bearing on the system that ACTUALLY worked? (like Galileo's flying machine doesn't help explain the Wright Brothers - see!)
But if you just GOOGLED (which you did) "origins of computers" his name would have come up.
Yes THAT is just what you did LOL.
But you didn't READ it. You just name dropped and hoped I would be fooled. I'm not. It actually just reinforced my argument. You don't know anything about this subject. Which is nothing to be ashamed of - I just picked subject I know a lot of about so the advantage was mine. But you shouldn't try to BS through it. I'm quite sure you know about many things I have never studied - Roman history and computer science are not on the list though.
Had you even heard of Babbage before? if you had then why didn't you know his attempts were failures and had NO bearing on the actual development of the modern computer. Were you even aware of Turning and Shockley before this? (Shockley is one of the BIGGEST racist assholes on record by the way) - but he was brilliant and did develop the one thing really needed to make computers...
Because when you actually go to these geographical locations its hard to ignore/deny african influence and migration of people. Your perspective seems limited to books and formal education.
There is no modern version without the versions that predate it... But regardless, that wasnt your point. Your intent was to rattle off era defining inventions you perceived to have zero african input while continuing your nonstop worship of europeans. You also used it to denote superiority and proof of white people not needing to revise history to further propaganda... And you were wrong.
More of this huh? You do know there are only a handful of words beginning with "BABB" do you not? Did the white man you love so much not give you predictive text as well? He was kind enough to bestow it upon me bro.. It was a fucking typo. Let it go man.
Yes. But im not sure you have. That was my point.
I first heard of Babbage when I read Godel,Ecsher and Bach about 25 years ago. But I don't think you know about him - otherwise what does he have to do with the modern computer?? Why would you mention him if you KNEW about him and that he has no connection??
You mention that there is no current version with out the previous ones and attempts. Spoken like someone who knows NOTHING about this area. Just like Galileos drawing of flying machines have NOTHING to do with airplanes Babbage work has nothing to do the the Universal Turing Machine. He DIDN'T make his Difference Engine - If you knew ANYTHING you would know this! You don't.
He's a name that would come up on a google search for "origin of computers" however. If you REALLY knew about him why would you mention him??? You were trying to bullshit me.
But let all that go.
Just fulfill your assertion that Blacks were "pivotal in the creation, advancement, or development in any of the three" Please pick ANY of them go as far back as you like draw the connections. even obliquely. Please. Take your time. YOU are the one who made this assertion NOT ME. You did it glibly and with great confidence. Please put your money were your mouth is and stop deflecting in order to avoid admitting you have no knowledge of these subjects - let alone have ability to connect them to some black source. PICK ANY ONE!! Refrigerators - Light bulbs - computers. You said you could do all three but I'll give you one. JUST ONE.
I await an irrelevant response with NO attempt to prove the black connection you asserted. I have a feeling I'll see you do it when Trump builds his Mexican wall (NEVER!)
Last edited:
Hey man, ive already answered and addressed ALL of this shit.. Why you feel the need to retype the same shit a 3rd time is beyond me... Type that shit a 4th time.. the response will be the same Tom.
No asshole, YOU used those examples as proof of white excellence and black absence... I found them grossly laughable because the truth is the exact fucking opposite.. Its not an assertion you fool. Its fucking fact. If you're so fucking engulfed in white washed euro homo roman empire history to the point where you dont know the most basic of black american inventions then you arent fit to fucking breath and should probably go kill your fucking self.. Sincerely. You gay retired old rusty ass pseudo intellectual cac worshipping knee grow you. You're a got dam disgrace.
See. No answer.
You can't do it.
You didn't even think you could. You were just trying to bullshit me. I called you on it and you punked out.
Tap out dude....
Don't reply without a proof of black connection to those three items.
Look here my man, im fine with that. Just know, you are the bigger fool for not knowing and saying the opposite. White power.
"He can't do it...He can't lift the Hammer..."
"It's OK son; you're going to change the world"
THAT commercial is YOU dude.
Don't reply without a proof of black connection to those three items.
We should take this to another thread because I am curious about this. On the one hand, the CDC data does show that white men were more likely to die of melanoma than any other group, so Mrfreddygoodbud is correct.
However, I keep coming across articles like the ones below that argue that African-Americans are more likely to die of melanoma. So there is either faulty data out there or faulty interpretations of data.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5623503
http://www.healthcentral.com/skin-cancer/c/640929/99307/caucasians/
Outside of so-called "hotep" circles, and even within them, few American Black people actually believe that we are descended from the Ancient Egyptians (or Etruscans or Moors). The main belief is that there has been a denial by academics in the Classics and other fields concerning two core issues: (1) the African origins of Ancient Egyptian civilization; and (2) the influence of Ancient Egypt and other non-Euro cultures on the development of Ancient Greece.
Concerning your other comments:
1. Germans and Iranians, or, rather, the Germanic languages and Farsi, all are rooted in an Indo-European/Indo-Aryan mother tongue. You can make a strong case that Germans and Iranians/Persians had a common origin as a people.
2. Did the Romans really believe this or was this just a product of the Illiad (or Odyssey)?
3. Jews didn't do what? They weren't captured in Egypt? Or they didn't escape?
4. Did the Roma believe this about themselves or did other people in Europe say that about them?
5. When in British history did they claim to be Roman?
1 - That was the German argument. This is the reasoning - A German linguist determined those tongues had a similar origin. Fine - could be. But the German reasoning was that "This was the first and home of civilization - Tigris area etc. They must have been the most advanced most superior people. We are the most advance superior people ergo WE are the Aryans...Huh??
2 - This is a major part of Roman national mythology. It is best detailed in the Aeneid. They believed they had their origins in the flight of Aeneas after the Trojan war. Gauis Julius Caesar (pronounce Kaius Ilius Kaiser - I now know from studying Latin all year) supposedly derives his gens (Julia) from his descent from Iulus (Ascanius) son of Aeneas. And thereby is descended from the Goddess Venus. All a great crock of shit. But yeah if you read Livy's Books 1-5 that will cover it.
3 - Apparently no archeological evidence exists that the Jews were ever in were in slaved or freed from the Egyptians. No record of this exists in Egyptian history and they have pretty good record having a written history unlike most peoples. I remember when the story broke a few years ago. It was Jewish archeologists who determined that it was all a bunch of crap. Here's an article http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/the-j...laves-in-egypt-or-is-passover-a-myth-1.420844
http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/judaism/2004/12/did-the-exodus-really-happen.aspx
4 - True that is the name the others gave them. But the point being that people just get this stuff wrong and it sticks.
5 - Regarding the English - read Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain. (actually a good read - in it you read the source for King Lear and Cymbeline - oh and Merlin and Aurelius - Arthur!) Yes the British believed that Brutus (the first Brutus not the one with Julius - the guy who killed Tarquin - see Livy book 1-4 or even Shakespeare's Rape of Lucrece ) some how made his way to Britain and founded their people. And THAT is why they are BRItish because of BRUtus - again complete crap.
Anyway I note delusion and uncritical absorption of information is not unique to our situation rather a recurring theme. Folly is the norm. Look at the spread of Christianity. Constantine convert and changes the entire Roman empire to it. Why he saw the symbol of the Cross before a battle. A miracle - especially to us - wow! a cross in the sky!! But it wouldn't have been what we think of it as. It would have been Greek. The Greek symbol for Christ
It would have been the letters Chi (Ki) over laid with the letter Rho (cHuroh) or for us an "X" and "P". So the dude saw SUN GLARE!
If he had sun glasses NO Christianity. The folly of mankind....smh
Last edited:
The chart per page is going by rate per 100K. I'm not arguing against incidents of skin cancer by race. Like I've been saying from the start, if you're looking at that, it's can confuse you and hides the most important aspect if you don't know what to look for. It's called the "relative survival rate". They have charts for 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 5 years, etc. This is what tells the tale. When white men and women get it, they have a high 80 to low 90 percent chance of survivability after five years after their initial diagnosis for skin cancer. When you start to look at black men and women, it's drops to low 70s for men and mid 60s for women.
Example:
You take 100 white males who are diagnosed with skin cancer and 87 of the white males are living after 5 years due to early detection.
You take 100 black males who are diagnosed with skin cancer and 73 of the black males are living after 5 years. In most cases, those lost souls are gone because they learned too late that they had skin cancer under a false assumption that they couldn't possibly get it.
Hell, black woman get it even less, but they have the lowest relative survival rate of any group, and not for just skin cancer, but breast cancer as well.
For those that don't know what he's talking about, you can usually find this symbol on a communion table in a lot of churches.
However, I think that symbol was appropriated by the early Christians. I think it predates it.
-----
Yep. It does.
Last edited:
Yeah, but this shit is spreading like wild fire on the Internet. They've shown through DNA testing black Americans whose ancestors were brought here have nothing to do with the area folks are trying to claim. Neither do these Europeans. And it isn't like they don't have the DNA on file. Folks will skip over the areas they have ties to for Egypt and West Asia. You know why? Because cacs didn't think shit of the rest of Africa. They only cared about Egypt. They didn't care about oral religions, so people today have to run all the way to Ethiopia in order to justify being Christians. No direct genetic link to the place, but they'll claim it.
No African DNA in Native Americans(although there is Australian aboriginal DNA which explains the 'black' people folks want to claim as Africans even though they are genetically closer to Asians), but folks will claim them too. I thought it was supposed to be Europeans that ran around distorting history and claiming accomplishments they didn't do. Imagine if Indians claimed the great wall of China simply because it's on the same continent.
That's how foolish some of this shit is. I like honest studies of history. Who built what isn't going to affect my self-esteem one fucking bit. Folks won't even let cacs have Stonehenge or Greece. And the books that promote those stories aren't even well put together texts. They cherry pick information and make claims that can't even be backed up. Fairy tales and myths are selectively used. It's like one person just makes some shit up, and then is 'sourced' by future writers. And that's what is being passed off as honest history. It's just as bad as Columbus 'discovering' America.
1. I think you're simplifying the German Nazi belief. I think they traced the origin of the Aryan "race" to central Asia, and claimed that great civilizations, like Indus Valley and Persia, were built by Aryans.
2.
3. Those articles go a step further and basically say that any Jewish migration, slave or not, into and out of Egypt and into Canaan was limited. There was no mass migration at all. Very interesting.
The chart per page is going by rate per 100K. I'm not arguing against incidents of skin cancer by race. Like I've been saying from the start, if you're looking at that, it's can confuse you and hides the most important aspect if you don't know what to look for. It's called the "relative survival rate". They have charts for 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 5 years, etc. This is what tells the tale. When white men and women get it, they have a high 80 to low 90 percent chance of survivability after five years after their initial diagnosis for skin cancer. When you start to look at black men and women, it's drops to low 70s for men and mid 60s for women.
Example:
You take 100 white males who are diagnosed with skin cancer and 87 of the white males are living after 5 years due to early detection.
You take 100 black males who are diagnosed with skin cancer and 73 of the black males are living after 5 years. In most cases, those lost souls are gone because they learned too late that they had skin cancer under a false assumption that they couldn't possibly get it.
Hell, black woman get it even less, but they have the lowest relative survival rate of any group, and not for just skin cancer, but breast cancer as well.
For those that don't know what he's talking about, you can usually find this symbol on a communion table in a lot of churches.
However, I think that symbol was appropriated by the early Christians. I think it predates it.
-----
Yep. It does.
Is the symbol on the coin?
I like that you brought that point up. Now that's REAL study of history. If something doesn't fit with what the narrative is, oh well. That's life. Why didn't the Jewish folks try to hide that shit? Oh wait, they're not the 'real' Hebrews from the bible.
No. That's pretty much is where it comes from.
The Nazi ideology was greatly inspired by a book called "The Inequality of the Human Races" by Arthur de Gobineau a french man in the 1800's. I read it a few years ago and keep a copy in my library. In it he basically says the Nordic people are the most beautiful, intelligent and creative people on the planet. (we are the lowest according to him) He the details early civilizations in the middle east and concludes that since they were so much more advanced than the rest of mankind they MUST have been Nordic. Hitler pretty much echos these ideas in Mein Kampf. Both books are worth reading.
Strangely every thing Hitler says doesn't sound completely crazy (He'll say the Weimar Republic has a fault in that allowing a group to rule no individual is responsible for failures and everyone can duck out - where as if you had one leader when he failed you could assign responsibility and quickly get rid of him.) So your reading this and thinking: "OK that kinda makes sense - Oh wait this is HITLER!" But it's not as crazy as you'd think -otherwise how could he convince the German people - they weren't ALL crazy. (But the sections on the Jews are REAL crazy though - but actually not out of line with the prevailing thoughts in Germany about them).
More interesting he very much sounds like the Afrocentrist Hidden Colors people. HIS people are the greatest and anything wrong that happens is assigned to the Jews. They (the Jews) seem to be working under a "system" where they all conspire to ruin and exploit the Germanic people over vast centuries - like the "system of white supremacy" theme where all these disconnected whites are working in concert to suppress our history etc.
I don't deny these things have happened. But that doesn't mean it's a vast centuries long conspiracy worked on by all these groups of whites with a definite plan. That's just what Hitler thought about the Jews. (Read it - it SOUNDS like a Tariq Nasheed podcast)
But that's where they got this from. They actually thought Persian peoples were REALLY Nordic Teutons...smh. So I guess the nordics left the area and the Persians moved in and everyone forgot - Just like us and the Egyptians.
Sad.
Last edited:
I can't tell if we're agreeing or disagreeing. I have read Mein Kampf, but it was years ago. I am simply saying that there WAS a root group of people who spoke the original Aryan tongue, and they branched off into Europe, Persia and India. Were they blonde, blue-eyed Nordic-looking people? I doubt it? Did they build the civilizations in Persia and the Indus Valley? Persia, maybe, but I think they overran the original Dravidian civilization in India. But that is another conversation.
So you truly don't believe that there has been a definite plan in American history - an academic, political, social, and economic system - that is expressly hostile to black people and has sought to suppress our advancement? If so, I strongly disagree with you here, and I could overwhelm you with evidence to support my case.
1. I think you're simplifying the German Nazi belief. I think they traced the origin of the Aryan "race" to central Asia, and claimed that great civilizations, like Indus Valley and Persia, were built by Aryans.
2.
3. Those articles go a step further and basically say that any Jewish migration, slave or not, into and out of Egypt and into Canaan was limited. There was no mass migration at all. Very interesting.
Is the symbol on the coin?
Between the bird's legs.
Gobineau is very specific in detailing the appearance of the Aryan - he is fixated on their "beauty" so it's safe to believe he thought the writers of Gilgamesh were nordic looking people. If fact his main argument is descriptions in Islamic history describing the beauty of Armenian women. He details how such beauties MUST be nordic (otherwise how could they be the most beautiful women in the world?)I can't tell if we're agreeing or disagreeing. I have read Mein Kampf, but it was years ago. I am simply saying that there WAS a root group of people who spoke the original Aryan tongue, and they branched off into Europe, Persia and India. Were they blonde, blue-eyed Nordic-looking people? I doubt it? Did they build the civilizations in Persia and the Indus Valley? Persia, maybe, but I think they overran the original Dravidian civilization in India. But that is another conversation.
So you truly don't believe that there has been a definite plan in American history - an academic, political, social, and economic system - that is expressly hostile to black people and has sought to suppress our advancement? If so, I strongly disagree with you here, and I could overwhelm you with evidence to support my case.
What you are describing is a true migration of human out of Africa into the Tigris areas and beyond. So yeah mankind is connected in this way and linguists are verifying what we now know about migrations. But that was not what or why the Nazi's thought they were Aryans. Any more than they would have thought they were African (which they are by the same logic). They held this belief based on what they thought were superior traits and appearances. Quite another thing - so even if they were right they were right in a very wrong way.
I also specifically said while I believe whites suppress blacks I don't believe it to be a vast centuries long conspiracy involving disparate groups all working towards some future goal. I think each group is just doing shit to maximize their own position in real time. I don't think the Belgians were working in concert with the Americans and the Arabs to white wash history etc. because the were afraid of our greatness...
So yes I believe there is a system to suppress and limit blacks in America - I just don't think it was planned out by and prepared with forethought by the Greeks, Romans , French and English as part of a centuries long scheme...
Last edited:
Not sure if that symbol is related. the Chi Rho symbol is very specifically connected with the Greek spelling of Χριστός (Christos) - just the first two letters. So I can't imagine why it would appear before Christ other than a coincidence...unless that coin is post Christ which would explain it.
Also Χριστός is why we have X-mas
But you think that is what the Afrocentrists believe?
The theme you've touched upon is precisely why the argument put forth is completely and utterly tainted. To allude that Afrocentrists believe and are guilty of omitting facts in order to advance or inflate a narrative while softly suggesting that such a coordinated effort hasn't been afoot by whites across their varied group is insulting. Christianity and the way religion has been distorted is just one simple easy to grab example of their concerted effort to distort history and frame it in a Eurocentric perspective.
I can't. I don't have the time to dive into this in the detail it deserves but this is a disturbing thread on many levels.
They're from time of Ptolemy III five centuries before. If I understand correctly, the Chi Rho mark on the coin is like the printing series we have our coins and paper money today. What any other meaning it has besides that I have no clue. The only thing I've found,, with a cursory look referring to other deities, is the elder god Chronos (Χρόνος), not to be confused with Zeus's father, the titan Cronus (Κρόνος). He's not a savior god. He's the personification of time.
Yeah, I was with CharlieBrown to a point, but he is too readily discounting Afrocentrism along with too casually dismissing the reality of racism in the Classics and other related fields of study. I think a big problem is that he is associating Afrocentrism with today's "hoteps", Tariq Nasheed, and the like.
Well some do. I'm not trying to analyze them actually. I merely mention the similarity between the types of conspiratorial thinking found in Mein Kampf and allegations of concerted efforts by large groups not connected closely in time or region. Particularly the singularization of plural groups. Hitler frequently attributed thoughts and motives to "The Jew" - as those all those people of Jewish background in various regions over different time spans were working in concert with a particular goal in mind (like the BORG). You cannot deny there are certain groups who use similar language and singularization when referring to whites. So stories of Napoleon shooting the nose of the Sphinx is attributed to the same group and motives as Jim Crow in America - all done with a singular group purpose in mind.
I don't deny these are wicked people or that they are white. I just don't see them working in concert with a singular goal in mind. Hitler did, which is why he refers to the plural as a singular. So do quite a few afrocentrist - not all, just the conspiracy minded ones.
I suppose they have their reasons and logic, but then again so did Hitler. In fact a large part of Mein Kampf was his justifying this way of thinking. I didn't buy it from him either. And again it has nothing to do with whether such and such a group of whites actually did some wickedness. I refer ONLY to concerted efforts by different groups over vast time period. They dont need to be working together to do some wicked evil shit; they can just do it on their own.
It actually extends to a larger concept too. Attributing the brilliance of a particular person to "the group" - or the stupidity. I think that is what is leading to this attempt to co opt histories and regions, as though THAT makes "me" better. Let's take the Greeks - just because Euclid was brilliant doesn't not mean Greeks or by extension whites are brilliant - it just means Euclid was - the rest are dumb as rocks. Euclid doesn't represent Greeks. He represent smart people. I group him with Newton etc - not as white - just as smart. In fact I previously pointed out there are NO great mathematician or scientist among the Romans. Why? Well they seem to have believed that all that stuff was for slaves (really) and that rhetoric was more important. So what happened to all the smart white people prefigured by Euclid? Just like a black criminal in the USA is not representative of blacks no matter what Bill Oreilly thinks on Fox News ; he represent criminals. And Bill OReillys dumb ass didn't get smarter because Stephen Hawking is white. I get no shine if every Nobel Prize winning physicist was sudden to turn black - it wouldn't make me any smarter. Anymore than Jesse Owens makes me faster.
One of the funniest lines in the "Big Bang" series was when they asked Leonard's mother if she wasn't proud of her son winning some big award. She said "Why? I didn't do it."
Last edited:
Truly. A well read fool is worse than an uneducated one.
The depth and consistency of a the Eurocentric narrative is so overwhelming that trying to compare it to ANY Afrocentric narrative is dishonest. The very fact that there is so much misinformation to quote is in itself the result of a coordinated attempt to distort history.
Which in and of itself makes the denial of a concerted effort by whites- across so called nationalities and cultures- to suppress truth and oppress (BLACK) people, absolutely patently idiotic.
You're unbelievable. Talk about conflating. The way you've taken bits of information and combined them in order to prove your point is wholly inaccurate. To suggest that Napoleon wasn't directly involved in denying black people freedom and that his mindset didn't extend through Jim Crow is ridiculous... Especially considering it's well documented Napoleon promised he'd put down Tuossaint Louveture's rebellion in Haiti and return Frances crown jewel to her while securing Louisiana. As a result Napoleon sent 50 thousand troops to Haiti while he took 20 thousand to Louisiana... During the height and most brutal period of slavery.
You quote Mein Kampf to frame singularization and then remove Napoleon from that mindset even though napoleonic France was heavily involved in everything slave related. The collective consciousness of the day was denial of African humanity. It was the only way all of the European nations involved in the act of slavery- in its modern day brutal form -could justify its existence. The mindset became more prevalent and entrenched and evolved, eventually influencing the mindset and motives of those in Jim Crow south here in America.
Blown away by the weakly supported rationalizations in your posts.
I'm sure you believe that they are involved in vast conspiracy. I'm sure you have reasons you believe are convincing. I'm even sure they don't just seem crazy on their surface. I merely note that Hitler showed similar thinking in Mein Kampf. I specifically mention that he too gives reasons and evidence for his thinking. And particularly note that he doesn't just seem like a nut. I'm quite sure he was convincing to the German people. They too thought the concerted working of a large group of people was part of a mindset etc. He very careful details his reasons. Lays out historical evidence and makes a clear path to his conclusions. Yet knowing who the man was makes us pause and question his conclusions. Something must be wrong. For me it was the concept of the collective mind. you can make of that what you will. For me it was a sobering realization....
Last edited:
Well, I think that's because all of it has been linked together these days.
There's a lot of bullshit on both Afrocentric and Eurocentric sides. The hardest part of studying history is weeding through the bullshit. You have some on both sides who claim the other side isn't human. Both sides claim to have civilized the other. Both will claim that other people in the world basically were incompetents who had to learn from them(see Native Americans). It's Horseshoe theory, but with history.
It's nice to see DNA evidence shooting down a lot of bullshit coming from both sides. It allows for a more honest look at history(for those who give a fuck about such things). Plus they are digging up archaeological shit all the time. If people refuse to revise their texts accordingly, they are bullshit artists pushing an agenda. They are no better than the ancient alien guys.
Tell them cac niggas to stop trying to steal yoga too. Always trying to someone else's shit.
The false equivalency on display here is as insulting as it is astounding. You guys are amazing.
Similar threads
