Video breakdown of the Negro in America being the true Jew and NOT African

[MostReal]

Long, but very educational.



If you watch it, be sure to drop your thoughts.

some good stuff in there breh, but a little to convoluted

 

[Robbie3000]

c00n thread.

Even without the race mixing, African-Americans are made up of several different West/Central African tribes. To give you a personal example, I'm half Malawian/Zimbabwean and as a result I don't quite fit into the stereotypical look of either. Zimbabweans are shorter and much slighter in build than Malawians/Zambians who tend to be much taller and heavier framed and somewhat lighter complexioned. My facial features don't really fit comfortably into either stereotype (although body-wise I'm much closer to Malawian). Now imagine what all the inter-(West) African breeding bodes for African-Americans who are a hodge-podge of a shytload of tribes/ethnicities from Kirdi to Igbo to Kru. Of course you'll look a bit different.

That being said, I seriously doubt you'd be able to tell Serge Ibaka, Nnamdi Asomugha, Wale, Masai Ujiri and Oguchi Onyewu are specifically African and not African-American without prior knowledge. You're stereotyping the shyt out of Africans and honestly you sound like a cac the way you lump us all together so dismissively. There's NO "African look" whatsoever. NONE.

You can't reason with Hebrew Isralites breh. Just ridicule them for the world to see how absurd their beliefs are. Anyone who listens to high school dropouts 2 time loses who live in halfway houses and dress like this in 2013:

Believe they are more closely related to Argentinians like this:

Than

are clearly out of their fukking minds and don't even deserve a serious conversation. Just ridicule.

These nikkas should go tell Cubans, Argentinians or Mexicans that they are related.to black people.

Biblical Twelve Tribes of Israel:

Judah — Black Americans
Benjamin — West Indians
Levi — Haitians
Simeon — Dominicans
Zebulun — Guatemalans, Panamanians
Ephraim — Puerto Ricans
Manasseh — Cubans
Gad — Native American Indians
Reuben — Seminole Indians
Asher — Colombians, Uruguayans, Brazilians
Naphtali — Argentines, Chileans
Issachar — Mexicans

 

[Slang]

So what is actually going on here is I never left Africa, right? I was always in North America and I am a god on earth?

Brilliant thinking.

Africa is the name of the ground you walk upon.

 

[John Hull]

I know I'm black, that's good enough for me.

But if I was to get all scientific I have Choctau Indian and even white mixed in my family tree which adds to the particular look of my family I suppose, but just keep in mind that racism is all based around HAIR.

That's it. All this splitting hairs (pun intended) about tribes in Africa is neglecting the fact that YOU (black man and woman) get discriminated against because of your notty, nappy, peasy ass fro. THAT's how you know that you're African. Don't get it twisted. (SWIDT).

Think about it. Those Arab-money mahfuggas and Dot heads at the 7 Eleven are all darker than most Negroes that you see walking around but they have stringy black hair that separates them from us. They might even have a bigger nose or lips than you but don't tell them that. They don't have nappy hair so they aren't NIGGRAS.

Mexicans and PR nikkas know this as well, they play the hair game on yo ass, black women can't rock the pony tail without jacking a real pony for their tail so you might as well get knowledge of self, stop hating each other.

All you Africans and Afro Ninja nikkas stop bickering about geography and even worse the Bible

Just get ready for the future and start building on a level that really matters cause believe me... We all WE GOT

 

[MostReal]

I always felt we were those gladiators in the movies.

Just like the Football & basketball players today They will change them into white people too by the time history is through with them

those blacks that were in Rome were the Moors, oh I see they are starting to mention it.

that Joel 3:1-6 interpretation @ the 1:30:00 mark is pretty impressive & thoughtful "yolk of iron on thy neck" is point blank blacks in America literally.

 

[Blackking]

I always felt we were those gladiators in the movies.

Just like the Football & basketball players today They will change them into white people too by the time history is through with them

those blacks that were in Rome were the Moors, oh I see they are starting to mention it.

WE were a lot of things in history... Thats a hell of a lot different than saying that we are some race alien to the rest of the diaspora. WTF is that crazy shyt?


By that logic I'm not African, moor, Hebrew, or any of that shyt.... half my fam is white indian and other random things... and I clearly don't look like I was born in the Congo. My fams pic of living on farms n mixing weren't really that long ago. We are black regardless if we are by products of slavery or born in South Africa.

 

[GetInTheTruck]

Don't Israelites believe that the father dictates what nation you belong to? Like they consider Bob Marley to be white because his father was.

Being that we know the white slavemaster was having his way with a lot of black women back in the day, wouldn't that make a significant amount of the "American Negros" white? How do Israelites deal with this?

 

[MostReal]

WE were a lot of things in history... Thats a hell of a lot different than saying that we are some race alien to the rest of the diaspora. WTF is that crazy shyt?


By that logic I'm not African, moor, Hebrew, or any of that shyt.... half my fam is white indian and other random things... and I clearly don't look like I was born in the Congo. My fams pic of living on farms n mixing weren't really that long ago. We are black regardless if we are by products of slavery or born in South Africa.

I'm pretty much aware of everything in this video all ready. I haven't been able to make a difference between Africans & jews like the OP is doing. IMO all of the people were black & that's really all that matters to me. The original people in the bible were black & they lived in and around Africa...that's the only thing I'm saying. I'm just happy more people are realizing that the bible was written originally by black folks.

 

[Blackking]

I'm pretty much aware of everything in this video all ready. I haven't been able to make a difference between Africans & jews like the OP is doing. IMO all of the people were black & that's really all that matters to me. The original people in the bible were black & they lived in and around Africa...that's the only thing I'm saying. I'm just happy more people are realizing that the bible was written originally by black folks.

Also, ideas of monotheism.. commandments, stories of creation similar to the Old Testament are in ancient Africa because African immigrants started speaking about it in the Middle East. There is a Museum in Detroit that you can listen to readings and read the stories of ancient African cultures and religious creation stories.... and if you listen... you hear all the modern religions in that. Then there are some tribal pagan animal religions as well... but even those have connections with Asian religions as the first kingdoms in Asia were originally controlled by blacks

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

at the back of the head facial feature guessworkery being done in here. This is a borderline Princepality of Zeon thread, very sad stuff going on. I feel great empathy for the BHI because you really have to have endured some trauma to believe in some wild shyt like this. It's a combination of racial frustration, pointed interpretation of a book that has been written and no doubt twisted by men, rejection of historical/genetic/anthropological evidence, and plain ignorance.

cultism is real brehs

 

[John Hull]

Who is the real African, KronDon or Brotha Ali?

 

[GetInTheTruck]

The first kingdoms in Asia were not controlled by blacks. We've been over this.

black washing is just as bad as white washing, be content with what you have.

 

[Blackking]

The first kingdoms in Asia were not controlled by blacks. We've been over this.

black washing is just as bad as white washing, be content with what you have.

It's really not possible for it have been any other way..... but it isn't black washing.... I'm not saying that all the great things were black. even in the buddah thread (where this was discussed) I wasn't even one of the ones arguing for that.... I'm speaking on the first people who controlled the area and migrated there.

 

[GetInTheTruck]

It's really not possible for it have been any other way..... but it isn't black washing.... I'm not saying that all the great things were black. even in the buddah thread (where this was discussed) I wasn't even one of the ones arguing for that.... I'm speaking on the first people who controlled the area and migrated there.

So what black kingdoms in asia re you talking about?

 

[Blackking]

So what black kingdoms in asia re you talking about?

well, I would considered the first settlement in India to be a kingdom since they had culture and language... and they were a force. Those people were black.. I fell like thats an obvious one simply due the migration patterns of Africans who settle the land.

I understand that northern migration and other theories were the only ones promoted by Indians and white for most of modern history but those have all been thrown in the bushed because history and genetics don't lie. Many genetic studies revealed that there has been no large scale genetic addition to India and regions around it, from other regions other than Africa. You can take a look at every single population in the world including American blacks to fully understand what the ancient Indians looked like during most of that history - and that will allow people to see why other nations of people and observers considered them what they were.

So if you look at migration patterns you notice people go with what they know. Ancient Africans who migrated followed seafood at their diet and follow fertile land... The only reason people didn't make the obvious link of fertile land is because we want to believe the first civilizations happen in all the other random places.... when in reality in the last few years and right now (exciting) are determining that ancient African civilizations that died out due to conflict and climate had civilization. Not to get into too much detail Ancient Indians had customs that exactly immolated Ancient African traditions.. they even would use names like Uttanapada in ancient indian text ... india lead to mid east culture which lead to the world spreading oral African traditions known as religions. (btw uttan is Manu son, Manu = noah, story of great flood - metaphorical African oral story told to talk about sin and natural disasters n shyt - same traditions that had the star that lead to son of virgin or just Sun in general... 'jesus' ect. ) Ancient Astronomers had some of the largest impact on the culture of kingdoms is my point

.
Africa was like the body and india was like the dikk that nutted out the rest. The indian story of Mahabharta was the largest sanskit writing put out and it was the one that first started talking about the other Asias.. like China. Put Chinese on the books. Earliest reference to the word .. china. Here is a 1800's photo to the Naga people.. File:Early nagas.JPG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What do you think these dark skinned people looked like in antiquity when you exam migrations and culture of them?? If you say they looked the same then who knows maybe you're right, but I don't personally think that's logic. I didn't live back then so it's a guess but what we do know is that the same triba culture that was in Africa was in Tibet, China, all of that part of Asia. We know that (because the Indians documented the entire world at the time for some reason... the AFricans didn't document shyt as far as we can tell) Gandharvas, naga, Apsara all we basically a similar type of people and interacted... they were variations of blacks with some different features due to climate change and diet... but formed a community in asia. Chinese people still looked black during the time sankit was writing about them... it wasn't though of as 'black' the way we think of it.. they are their own unique people, but their cultures and roots are the same as mine in ancient times. The quote from science daily is "Africa has the most genetic diversity in the world, but it is one of the least-studied places,".. NTM the cultural impacts are underestimated for some reason between China and Africa - y do you think this is? There was hardly any conflict, only trade.. PBS had a thing that talked about how Ancient African sailors traded all over... and how Ancient Chinese sailor traded with African and even brought Giraffes and other animals back to China. From D'mt putting the Mediterranean and mid east up on frankenscents to black kindoms in china... it's really too much to go over.

Kwang-chih Chang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Kwang Chang states:

"by the beginning of the Recent (Holocene) period the population in North China and that in the southwest and in Indochina had become sufficiently differentiated to be designated as Mongoloid and OCEANIC NEGROID races respectively"

As far as Japan is concerned... idk about it... some say that Sakanouye Tamura Maro was black. some say his tribal roots are from black civilizations.

Also note

Linguistic and geographical distance from the origins
In the 18th century, when comparative IE linguistics started, the majority opinion was that the original homeland (or Urheimat) of the IE language family had to be India. 7 China was a popular candidate, but India had the advantage of being linguistically and even racially more akin to Europe; making it the homeland of the European languages or even of the European peoples, would be helpful in the dethronement of Biblical authority, but by no means far-fetched.
The ancient Indian language, Sanskrit, was apparently the closest to the hypothetical Proto-Indo-European (PIE) language from which all existing members of the language family descended. It had all the grammatical categories of Latin and Greek in the most complete form, plus a few more., e.g. three numbers including a dualis in declension and conjugation, and all eight declension cases. Apparently, Sanskrit was very dose to if not identical with PIE, and this was taken to support the case for India as the Urheimat.
In reality, there is no necessary relation between the linguistic antiquity of a language and its proximity to the Urheimat. Thus, among the North-Germanic languages, the one closest to Proto-North-Germanic is Icelandic, yet Iceland was most definitely not its Urheimat. The relative antiquity of Sanskrit vis-à-vis PIE does not determine its proximity to the Urheimat. Conversely, the subsequent dethronement of Sanskrit and the progressive desanskritization of reconstructed PIE do not imply a geographical remoteness of India from the Urheimat. Yet, this mistaken inference has been quite common, though more often silent and implicit than explicit.

and

Saying that India had a large population may not sound -very revolutionary, yet in the context of the AIT, it is. The theory of the Aryan Invasions, complemented by the secondary theory of an earlier Dravidian invasion, assumes, as it were, that India was nearly empty. On the other hand, the steppes of Eastern Europe and Central Asia must have been a beehive of people. Today, the huge ex-Soviet Republic of Kazakhstan has hardly more people than the city of Mumbai, but in those days, the steppes had so many people, most of them �Aryans�, that they could flood both India and Europe with them; at least according to the AIT. So, against that common though unspoken presupposition, it has somehow become quite a statement to say that lands with a hospitable climate like India had a bigger population than the outlying steppes, and were a more likely source of emigrants.
In the early days of the Aryan theory, it was often assumed that civilization had to come from the North. One argument given was that people in the Tropics didn�t need either effort or ingenuity to survive, since they just had to pick bananas from trees or wait for coconuts to rain down; while by contrast, people in the North were forced to be inventive, creative and hard-working. Yet, there were advanced civilisations in the Tropics: Zimbabwe, Ghana, the Mayas, the Incas. Within Europe, it is the North which received civilizing influences from the South. This is not to belittle the ingenuity and effort of North-Europeans in their struggle for survival in tough circumstances - but that is precisely the point: they had to use their skills in the struggle for life, while people in a more comfortable climate (Mediterranean, Mesopotamia, India) had more leisure to focus on the long-term development of complex civilizational achievements. Therefore, it is quite normal that the greatest advances were made in places like India, that the demographic growth was the greatest there, and that consequently, IE expansion went from India to Russia and Germany rather than the reverse.
4.1.2. Civilization and demography
Population growth at that stage was mainly the effect of the recently invented practice of agriculture. The IE Urheimat was consequently a centre of agriculture, and the Proto-Indo-Europeans were a sedentary population, and not nomads as is often claimed: �Why does a migration happen? We have to distinguish two things in this context: the migrations of nomads (and of other tribes uprooted by waves of nomadic migration) and other migrations. The Proto-Indo-Europeans were no nomads: their well-developed agricultural and social terminology testifies against this; and so does history: nomadism is mobile cattle-breeding with regular change of pasture on vast territories, either absolutely without agriculture (agricultural products were to be stolen or bought) or with underdeveloped subsidiary agriculture. Nomadism supposes riding with cattle: either horse-riding or camel-riding. 3