Remove this ad

Why I believe black Americans aren't (predominantly) African

Rss     Subscribe     Share     Tweet    


0 Points

avatar

psmith85

Posts: 312 Member Since: 11/22/15

Lead

Oct 17 16 6:41 PM

Tags : :

This is a dense subject, so I'll just summarize the basic theory, then get into some of the evidence, which is overwhelming (if one is willing and able to make the necessary paradigm shift) but has been wiped off the history books and out of academia. Everything below can be taken as my belief, but is strongly supported by evidence.

Most of the entire world was populated with people who would be today called black until much much more recently than believed. By black I mean most of the people had what are known as negroid features: thick, kinky hair, wider than average noses/nostrils, darker skin. Let's throw out a range of 500 to 15,000 years ago (depending on the region in question) as the time when black people were displaced, exterminated, or interbred into new races e.g. 'Pacific Islanders,' Indians, Arabs, etc. Blacks did not all evolve in Africa and spread from there. Some blacks provably evolved separately in Australia (which disproves the Out of Africa thesis, though shill listees like Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher still promote it constantly), and may have also evolved from non-sapiens hominids in South America. Civilizations thought to be non-black (e.g. extremely ancient Asian, Arab, and European civilizations) were in fact black and had not evolved into different races as early as we are told, and many archeological finds have been attributed to the wrong races. Linked here is a map that shows the racial makeup of the globe compared with what we are taught in schools: https://postimg.org/image/lllqttcdt/ (reality) https://postimg.org/image/wqjfnhxpv/ (schoolhouse version)

Blacks were the predominant race in all of South and North America excluding the Great Plains and Pacific Northwest regions of the US, Northwest Canada, and Arctic regions in Alaska and Canada; much of Southern and Central Europe (as far north as Britain, Normandy, central Germany, and southern Poland; see Venus figurines, e.g. Brassempuoy, Grimaldi figures) the entirety of Southeast Asia (Maniq, Andaman, Aeta people), all the Pacific islands including Australia (see black Fijians, Papua New Guineans, New Caledonians, Vanuatans, etc.), New Zealand, Hawaii, and Japan (Ainu people; misrepresented in photos, here is better one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ainu_people#/media/File:Hairy_Ainu_man_Mongoloid.png; of course labeled 'mongoloid' by spookapedia; and here http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Ainuss.jpg) ; the Kamchatka peninsula of Siberia, India, where the inhabitants were initially primarily black and intermixed with caucasoids and mongoloids into the 'Dravidian' race over several thousand years, and all of Africa (the Great Sphinx is clearly a 'pure'/mostly negroid skull with the nose broken off). Basically, everywhere in the world just south of 45th parallel (as an approximate average extent), which for reference in the US is around the Canadian border, was predominantly black-populated, though there was co-existence and hybridization with mongoloid peoples who appear to have arrived in the Americas much later (during the last ice age i.e. 12,000 to 15,000 years ago, certainly long enough to make them also indigenous in my opinion) than the aboriginal negroid people (at least 50,000 years ago, perhaps since the dawn of man). The default evolutionary result for everyone south of these 'black frontier' regions would seem to be black and in the frontier areas, black-mongoloid/black-caucasoid mixed. That South America would be the only southern lands without blacks is not realistic, and was in fact not the case given the irrefutable evidence of negroid presence.

At some point, both caucasoid Europeans and mongoloid Asians, who appeared to have lived/evolved separately in Northwest Asia and extreme Northern Europe and North central/east Asia respectively (East and West Russia), spread southwards, pushing negroid people off of Eurasia and North Africa. This did not happen hundreds of thousands of years ago as has been believed. It's my belief that Europeans and Asians dwelled and evolved in barely habitable regions near or beyond the glacial maximum, and began to spread south after the end of the last ice age about 10,000 years ago, into areas that had been abandoned by black peoples during the onset of the last ice age.

When explorers arrived in the New World (in the Southeast US, Brazil, and Caribbean), they initially encountered not mongoloid American Indians but black aboriginal people, as well as some groups who were 'hybridized' for lack of a more human term. Illustrations and written accounts invariably demonstrate this, as well as a wide array of other evidence (in spite of efforts to destroy it or cover it up).

Here is an example of an explorer's account. It's from Verrazzano's letter to King Francis I of France, said to be 'the earliest description known to exist of the shores of the United States' (from where is today Indian Beach NC in 1524):

'They are black ('di colore neri,' of black color) in color, not unlike the Ethiopians, with thick black hair (also translatable as wooly), not very long, tied behind the back like a small tail. As for physique of these men, they are well proportioned, of medium height, a little taller than we are. They have broad chests, strong arms, and the legs and other parts of the body are well-composed. There is nothing else, except that they tend to be rather broad in the face: but not all for we saw many with angular faces. They have big black eyes, and an attentive and open look . . . they are agile and swift runners.'

'Black' skin, large black eyes, tall, muscular build, wooly hair, fast runners. Who does that sound like? Here is a sampling of some of the other evidence:

1) Several accounts of the first explorers and hundreds of photographs, drawings, and sculptures of natives depict negroid people, not mongoloids. No art or written accounts depict mongoloid people.
2) Negroid skeletons have been found throughout the Americas dating back at least 15,000 years, before the time Siberians cross the Bering Strait and became American Indians. The Luzia skeletons (15,000 years old) are the most notable. Charcoal remains and evidence of cooking from the same area date back over 50,000 years. A variety of archeological finds date between 30,000 and 40,000 years, apparently only attributable to negroid populations. Given this, the most likely scenario would appear to be that black peoples were aboriginal in the Americas, and that if they evolved from apes that those apes may be extinct, or pre-sapiens hominids may have somehow migrated there, if even by accident over much smaller sea distances during the ice age.
3) Several ancient, advanced American civilizations, such as the Mayans, Olmecs, and Toltecs were clearly negroid peoples based on archeological evidence e.g. figurines, Olmec colossal heads. Aztec people appear to be hybridized mongoloids and negroids. There is proof Olmec people had contact with West Africa 1,500 to 2,500 years ago (e.g. native African plants found in tombs). The Olmec-African connection is somewhat of a red herring that posits that Africans first came to the Americas between 1,000 and 3,000 years ago, when the continents would have already been mostly populated by negroids for tens of thousands of years.
4) There is incontrovertible proof that blacks spread through all the Pacific islands and Western Pacific Rim by at least tens of thousands of years ago, including to Japan and Northeast Russia. It is highly improbable they would not have also arrived in South America, if even by accident, especially given that they had reached every Southern Pacific island and that sea levels were hundreds of feet lower during the period in question and travel from Pacific Islands to South America or Africa to South America would have been much easier. Moreoever, we know that they were there given the dozens of skeletons found in South American.
5) The Mound Builder/Mississipian civilization, a network of cities, roads, and sedentary agricultural towns in today's Southeast and Midwest US that comprise the majority of the native population in those regions, has figurines exclusively depicting negroid people, and its societal and economic structure mirrors that of black Pacific and African peoples and bears no similarities to that of mongoloids. Fully sedentary people have a history of being successfully enslaved, while nomadic people like mongoloid Indians do not. Most of the people in the Mound Builder groups would have been farmers and knowledgeable in and accustomed to farming.
6) There is documentation that black slaves such as Mathieu da Costa, an 'African' freeman who was 'brought to Europe,' spoke Indian languages fluently (he is said to have been an African slave who has inexplicably living with Indians in Ontario Canada, when no records show his removal from Africa and no evidence exists of African heritage, and have become native-level fluent in several Indian languages; it is clear he was enslaved in the Americas, brought to Europe, set free at some point, and later hired for his native language skills). There is no other explanation other than that they were from America and were either of or associated with the tribes in question.
7) Black slaves were fully familiar with folk medicine and indigenous plants and wildlife in the Americas, inexplicably having 'learned it from the Indians' in spite of having spent little to no time with Indians and having had little to no contact and no common language with them.
8) Very little African influence can be found in the ancestral foods of black Americans. All 'soul food' and 'black' foods are uniquely American. Some tenuous claims to African preparation influence have been made. The same is true of black American musical styles.
9) The physical figure, hair type, and athletic ability of black Americans is much more similar to that of Pacific blacks and negroid/mongoloid Pacific Islanders than black Africans. An honest and close look at a huge percentage of black Americans reveals non-African, unique phenotypes. The lie that this can be attributed to a handful of slave owners raping their slaves is completely implausible as will be explained below. Famous blacks such as Martin Luther King, Frederick Douglass, Denzel Washington, Will Smith, Morgan Freeman, Red Foxx, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Mike Tyson, Richard Pryor, Lena Horne, and Muhammad Ali have no known white ancestry and do not look at all like any African peoples. They do however strongly resemble some Pacific blacks. Some black leaders such as Frederick Douglass have expressly denied African heritage. We would not expect American blacks to look exactly like Fijians or Africans because they were their own people that evolved by themselves for at least 12,000 years, possibly much longer. There is also strong and less strong evidence that some blacks came from West Africa to South America (e.g. Olmec tomb evidence), stories of ships lost at sea and being washed ashore in South America in a matter of a few days, not a remotely implausible scenario that occurred numerous times over similar distances in the North Atlantic), though the continent would have already been populated by aboriginal or Pacific blacks. Norwegian ethnographer Thor Heyerdahl crossed both from West Africa to Brazil and from South Pacific islands to South America in Ancient African-style reed boats without incident. Heyerdahl's voyages were made possible by prevailing sea currents running west from Africa to South Africa, and east in the South Pacific
10) When American blacks take DNA tests, Eurasian DNA, likely from millennia of admixture with Eurasian mongoloid American Indians, comes back as 'European,' with a huge portion of black American DNA being routinely labeled as 'unknown.' No specific areas of Europe are identified as when white people take DNA tests, and there is no distinction made from say French Eurasian DNA and Siberian or Mongolian DNA. DNA testing is tightly monopolized by a handful of companies who could easily mischaracterize results. Additionally, I know of no criteria that distinguishes black Pacific islander DNA from African DNA (though the former are not Africans any more than Europeans are Central Asians or American Indians are Siberians), so there would be none to distinguish indigenous black Americans from Africans. All three groups are black and would share similar DNA, though for black Americans it is mischaracterized as all being African in origin. I do not believe it to be a coincidence that the vast majority of Americans and Europeans are unaware that there are blacks throughout the Pacific islands who look extremely similar to black Americans. Hair styles such as the 'Afro' are common among blacks in the Pacific islands, such as Fijians, but have never been adopted in Africa. While any curly-haired person can grow an 'Afro,' it may be more difficult for Africans to do so since they are less closely related genetically to black Americans they are Pacific blacks and have different hair type. There are also several distinct aboriginal hairstyles depicted in art from early European contact that have become popular with modern black Americans in recent decades.
11) The supposed departure points from Africa, such as Goree Island, have been revealed to be false. No legitimate point of departure has been identified in their stead. No modern African tribe or nation has history or historical memory of slaves being captured and sold.
12) Most Africans are not taught about American slavery in schools. Shockingly, many West and Central Africans are not even aware of American slavery or how blacks came to be in the Americas.The statistics regarding the number of slaves who were shipped from Africa has been all over the map, having claimed to have been millions (up to 100 million by W.E.B. Du Bois with 60 million claimed dead!) and later hundreds or even tens of thousands by other scholars, then again millions by others, suggesting a flawed guesswork methodology and lack of reliable data. If the number of slaves who supposedly came by ship can change so greatly over time, what were the original numbers based on? Surely not largely on specific records, but on assumptions. Modern black African tribes have resisted calls by the US and UK to accept blame for the slave trade, since they have no historical memory of the event (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/18/africans-apologise-slave-trade ; 'they should apologize to put a final seal to the history of the slave trade.')
13) Blacks were known as negro or colored until the 1960s, when the term 'African-American' was introduced and has gradually been reinforced by the power structure. There is almost no documentation of blacks being referred to as Africans prior to the 1800s. Negro was a blanket term that described any dark-skinned person, whether in the Pacific, Africa, or the Americas.
14) There are an abundance of reasons (explained below) for why slaves would have been lied to about their origins, and plausible means by which their history, language, and culture could have been erased. The strength of the motive for slave owners to lie about all slaves being from Africa and for the American government to back this false history amounts to evidence in itself, especially given the other direct evidence that they were not from Africa.
15) Assuming it hasn't been exaggerated, documented slave importation, which is itself based on very scant records, does not nearly account for the population of blacks in the Americas prior to the Civil War (see below). Further, I believe the majority of (if not all) slaves who arrived in US ports were shipped not from Africa but from Latin America and the Caribbean, where it is acknowledged the over 90% of 'African' slaves were shipped to British, Spanish, and Portuguese plantations, for which records are much less detailed. This can be translated as the majority of aboriginal blacks having been enslaved in South and Central America and the Caribbean rather than North America.
16) The complete cover-up of negroid presence in the Americas and Pacific islands in American schools and elimination of discussion of important ancient groups such as the Olmecs and Mound Builders indicates something important is being hidden.
17) During the 1920s, several laws caused negroid Indians to be classified as negro and later as 'African-American.' As little as 1% supposed African blood, i.e. any African blood whatsoever, meant that the person had to be classified as negro rather than American Indian. Whether the people had any African blood or not, they were legally eliminated as Indians by these laws. This caused contributed to the extinction of many tribes 'as tribes' and bands within tribes, and led mixed, partially mongoloid tribes to disassociate themselves with phenotypically 'negro' bands and members. Huge numbers of Choctaw people were excluded from tribal enrollment for not looking like mongoloid people. Some other North American tribes I believe to have been negroid or heavily hybridized negroid are Guale ('extinct'), Timucua ('extinct as tribe'), Yamasee ('extinct as tribe'), Assateague ('extinct as tribe'), Powhatan ('extinct as tribe'), Seminole (some bands),Shawnee (some bands), and many others.
18) Among dozens of cases of first contact with indigenous peoples in Africa, Asia, and Oceania, no groups were wiped out on the order of 90%, or anywhere near that, by disease. There is no evidence of identifiable mongoloid Native American groups having been totally wiped out by disease, only unnamed 'native peoples' in the 1500s and 1600s. The more plausible explanation is that these people were exterminated en masse with some survivors being enslaved.
19) Archeological and historical materials relating to Mound Builders or the earliest known contact have been removed from display or priced off the market. Copies of books describing natives as negroid people were never printed or taken out of print and sell for thousands of dollars. Other extremely important historical documents, such as some of Verrazzano's original letters describing the Americas, have been 'lost.' Figurines have been removed from public display on the grounds of being 'too valuable.' Major mound sites are overgrown or left on the grounds of private homes (some mounds even admittedly sit underneath large homes). No major American museum displays the thousands of Mound Builder that have been recovered. The largest archeological site in North America, Cahokia, the biggest Mound Builder city, sits in the middle of an East St. Louis slum (the most dangerous city in the US) and has surely been heard of only by a tiny percentage of Americans.
20) Since the broadcasting of 'Roots' in the 1970s, the media has been strongly behind the push to call blacks African-Americans, as have politicians in inserting the term into museums and exhibits, public school curricula, etc. Based on their track record, any concerted effort the media and Hollywood is part of must be strongly suspected to be a deception.

My belief is that perhaps 100,000 to 200,000 indigenous negroid people were enslaved (with about 10,000 Southeast tribes having been documented in transaction records as being permanently enslaved and sold; most of the records were likely destroyed, withheld, or never recorded; see below), the vast majority being women and young children, with most of the men, older male children, and any older adults being killed. Once enslaved, they were shifted from Spanish and Portuguese-controlled areas of South America and the Caribbean to North America, and vice versa, with some sold to Europe, the real 'Triangle Trade.' Combined with disease and starvation, there was probably a starting a population of from 500,000 to several million. Bred under controlled conditions intended to maximize slave assets, this could easily have risen to 800,000 from 1492 to 1792, which was the official number of slaves at that time and the first decade that slave populations were officially measured. Based on documented slave ship voyages, which could very easily have been falsified or exaggerated, I believe about perhaps 50,000 to 100,000 Africans were imported into the Americas in the 1800s and mixed with a majority of native 'negro' slaves. Although as noted, even these importations could have come from 90Additionally, many of the 'imported' slaves were transported by ship from other areas of the South i.e. resold by planters. Depending on the exact figures involved, and whether African slavery happened at all (in any kind of significant numbers), I would estimate black Americans are 70 to 90% indigenous American and 10 and 30% African. Since they lived together for centuries and had no barriers to intermixing, virtually all blacks would be part-indigenous American and part-African.

There is the inevitable objection 'we/they would know if they were natives.' Imagine you have no morals and your goal is to conquer a populated continent turn captured American natives into Christian slaves, erase all existing ethnic and cultural identity, and make them believe they are from a faraway land called Africa. I came up with this in about five minutes, so I'm sure it was considered by thousands of slaveholders over three centuries. Assume the following conditions existed: 

1) 80 to 90% of males are killed (or separated and worked until death) immediately, sparing only enough men to impregnate the women.
2) All adults over childbearing age are killed or left to die, instantly destroying most cultural memory.
3) Different tribes are transported long distances from their home territories and mixed by tribe and perhaps also by gender, destroying in the first generation any ethnic or linguistic unity and all family lineage. All slaves are given English names.
4) Traditional clothing is destroyed and slaves are clothed in Western garb, with any cultural expressions like traditional hairstyles, tatoos, or body modifications banned.
5) Knowledge of traditional cooking is lost by the second generation due to the masters' providing of food and use of Western cooking methods and implements.
6) When practical, second generation children are separated from their mothers once they are breast-weaned.
7) Selected first-generation males are taught English (or Spanish, Portuguese, etc.) and all slaves by the second-generation all slaves speak English.
8) Once most slaves speak some form of English, speaking native languages is punishable by death (reality).
9) Any expression of religion other than Christianity is punishable by death.
10) Slaves are not be allowed to read, write, or keep histories or mementos of any kind (reality). Slaves who passed on oral traditions or expressed culture in any way would be reported by turncoats promised better treatment from masters and disciplined, sold off, or killed.
11) Slaves are told the English word for the faraway place from where they and their later African compatriots came was 'Africa,' which would have no meaning other than a word, and they would not have had any real notion of global geography. This keeps them hopeless, detached from their roots, and unconfident in their ability to rebel and reclaim a homeland.
12) Allow this process to run for 12 to 15 generations, with no history being kept on the internal workings of plantations for 300 years. Do you think any indigenous confident self-identification and tradition would remain?
13) When they arrived, African slaves were made to be of a higher rank than natives, forced to interbreed with natives, and slaves were further conditioned to believe they were African.

I studied the causes of the Civil War pretty thoroughly in college, with a lot time spent on Southern society and economy. The South was extremely isolated from the North. There were no rail lines and few roads, and almost the Southern economy consisted of trade between the South and England, cotton for finished goods (which I believe was the primary cause of the war, that the North wanted to 'open' the Southern market and prevent the closed Southern economic system from spreading southwards and westwards). Anyway, the slave owners, who often had hundreds of slaves per one white in extremely remote areas, were terrified of slave rebellion. It was their greatest social and business concern. They were constantly devising ways to make slaves believe they couldn't rebel, that it would result in failure or that slavery was in their interest (in terms of adopting Christianity, learning  Western ways, etc.). Convincing all slaves they were from Africa would achieve three primary objectives:

A) Slaves would not believe they would have an inherent right to retake the land where they were held.
B) Slaves would not be confident in their ability to reunite with other tribes, relearn the lay of the land, or necessarily survive off it, and may have been told they were surrounded by far larger and more numerous white cities and settlements than was the case.
C) Stories about how Africans sold their own countrymen into slavery would make slavery seems much more grey morally and less black, even as it was occurring. And when it inevitably ended, 'it was just a different time and both sides did bad things,' rather than a simple kill, conquer, and enslave reality.

The American government would be happy to participate in this deception. One of the greatest lies about American history is that the continent was undeveloped and uninhabited Here is a map of all the Mound Builder cities :https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Mississippian_cultures_HRoe_2010.jpg. Their cities dotted the entire Southeast and (east) Midwest, including in modern day Savannah GA, Mobile AL, Pensacola FL, and many other modern cities. The cities held thousands of people, sometimes tens of thousands and were surrounded by large permanent farms. Roads connected all of the cities. I believe some of the larger mounds may well be hidden underneath neighborhoods. And I believe many of the plantations were 'turn-key' Mound Builder city-states, i.e. abandoned, pre-cleared, pre-conditioned farms, where planters just became the new boss. The point here is that the East was not an empty frontier where fearless pioneers hacked their way into the wilderness. All portions of the Americas were fully inhabited, reasonably developed places. The Americas were many times larger than Europe and full of resources, and whites in Europe wanted them at any cost including carrying out great deceptions. The American government would benefit the following ways:

A) They would not have to give their land back to the people they wiped off it, especially the more inhabitable, arable, and valuable (from an 1800s perspective) land of the Eastern US, instead just pushing nomadic tribes westward and boxing what remained of them into small reservations in barren deserts and plains in the West.
B) Stories about Africans selling their own people sharply reduces the responsibility to pay reparations.
C) Telling blacks they are from Africa reduces the chance of any kind of populist independence/separatist movement, or bona fide renaissance of culture.
D) Telling blacks they were sold by their own African countrymen makes them feel inferior and rejected by their supposed native continent. 
E) They have always gotten off on telling great lies and keeping people in the dark.

Since everyone who looks at the evidence is forced to acknowledge negroid pre-Columbian Americans,, it is often then argued 'well, those groups must have disappeared for some reason, but they're not the same people as black Americans.' There is ample proof that blacks were in the Americas before mongoloid peoples and thus there for at least 50,000 years, and then suddenly stopped at 1500AD. Even apparently serious scholars acknowledge a civilizational 'end date' of 1500-1600 AD (post-European contact) and chalk up to 'mystery.' You really have to ask, when large percentages all other (mongoloid) tribes survived, why would all negroid peoples die off in a single decade after more than 50,000 years of being present. It defies all logic. Obviously they were subjected to total conquest and enslavement, and they decided to enslave only negroid peoples and not mongoloids, probably primarily because the former were not nomadic and could not be dealt with in any other way, and also simply because they looked somewhat less like white people than mongoloid Indians.


Who were the Mound Builders and what happened to them?

If you search for Mound Builders in Google, the first suggestion is 'Mound Builder myth,' but they are anything but. The Mound Builders, also known as Mississipian culture, were a civilization in the Southeastern and Midwestern US that lasted for over 5,000 years, from 3,500 BC to 1600 AD. They lived in towns and cities as large as 50,000 to 100,000 people, surrounded by earthworks and tall stockade fences miles long, and containing thousands of structures. There have been hundreds of archeological digs and thousands of artifacts recovered. Inside the cities were massive mounds (photos do no justice) that held residences of leaders and religious buildings. The city-states were surrounded by vast tracts of agricultural land from which the populations were fed, and connected by a network of roads proliferating through the entire Eastern US. In every respect, social, political, economic, they were the opposite of mongoloid nomadic Indians, but similar to ancient Central American civilizations like the Mayans and Olmecs. The mongoloid tribes who lived alongside the Mound Builders were semi-nomadic or nomadic and hunted and gathered in uninhabited land between cities. Several prominent scholars in the late 1800s asserted that the Mound Builders had to have been ethnically distinct from the mongoloid tribes, but this was supposedly debunked by a single study from a politically connected scholar at the turn of the last century. The civilization mysteriously disappeared overnight at the exact point of European contact, supposedly from disease and war, as did similar cultures in Central and South America. Virtually all Mound Builders and other negroid peoples disappeared, but none of the mongoloid tribes disappeared from disease. Does this make sense to you? 

We are told in school that millions of natives died from infectious diseases. I believe this to be an exaggeration, and that tens or hundreds of thousands of them were enslaved (many having been worked to death by Spanish and Portuguese colonists rather than intended to survive and reproduce), and in controlled conditions grew rapidly in population into today's American (meaning North and South American) negro populations, perhaps with contributions from African slaves (let's say from 10-25%).

Only the Mound Builders needed to be wiped out to make way for colonialism (with nomadic tribes only needing to be gradually pushed westward), only they were wiped out. Obviously they were conquered and survivors enslaved, which was covered up and replaced with the 'brave wilderness pioneer discovering empty land/rugged individualist' storyline taught in American schools. I have zero doubt that the Mound Builders/Mississipians (as well as black Caribbean and Central and South American peoples who were sold into North America) are modern black Americans.

Here is a comparison between the various groups in question:

Most pre-modern black Africans and black Pacific islanders: large-scale, sedentary city/town society, large-scale permanent agricultural economy, strict social hierarchy, chiefdom with powerful leader, built mounds to avoid flood damage.

Mound Builders/Mississipian culture, Olmecs, Toltecs: large-scale, sedentary urban society, large-scale permanent agricultural economy, strict social hierarchy, chiefdom with powerful leader, built mounds partially as means to avoid flood damage, depicted negroid features in figurines and other artefacts. 'Mysterious disappearance' coincides exactly with discovery of New World and rise of chattel slavery in the Americas.

Modern black Americans: Currently live in greatest concentration in exact areas previously inhabited by Mound Builders, resemble figurines made by Mound Builders, Olmecs, Toltecs, and Mayans, match description by early explorers such as Verrazzano, built mounds on slave plantations to avoid flood damage. May have adapted to slavery better than nomadic Indians would since the lifestyle for most of those captured was not entirely dissimilar to their existing agricultural life, though obviously far more brutal and unjust. 

American Indians: decentralized, small village-based society generally with non-permanent structures including tipis, nomadic or semi-nomadic hunter-gatherer economy sometimes with small-scale agriculture, less autocratic chief with council-based political system, relatively egalitarian social system, did not build mounds, depicted mongoloid features in artefacts. 

Indigenous mongoloid Siberians (Chuckhi, Aleut, Nenets, Ket, etc.): decentralized, small village-based society generally with non-permanent structures including tipis, nomadic or semi-nomadic hunter-gatherer economy sometimes with small-scale agriculture, relatively egalitarian social system less autocratic chief with council-based political system, did not build mounds.

This is not to say that all black aborigines were Mound Builders. Most black-populated areas were not in the Mound Builder/Mississipian cultural region. Black tribes appear to have inhabited the following areas:

Southeast US
Midwest and South Central (up to Minnesota and southern Ontario and as far west as Iowa and Arkansas and Texas)
Northeast (as far north as Quebec)
Parts of the South
Caribbean
Central America (esp as hybridized people)
Northeast and Central South America, i.e. Colombia, Venezuela, Guyanas, Brazil, and in smaller pockets as south as Tierra del Fuego
Note that all areas of first European contact (except for Central America and the Andes, which were reached soon after) are primarily or exclusively negroid areas
The Andean region was inhabited by mostly mongoloid but still hybridized people.

Mongoloid areas were the following:

Alaska and Arctic regions of Canada
Plains and Rocky Mountains regions of Canada and US
California and West Coast
Parts of the Southwest
Parts of Central America, usually hybridized
Andean region, Northwest South America
Co-existed and hybridized with black tribes throughout entire Eastern US and Canada

I believe that upon European contact the nomadic, hunter-gather and semi-nomadic mongoloid tribes generally moved westward away from white settlement and in some cases resorted to conflict, while the generally more sedentary and agricultural black tribes were more likely to have fought the settlers and/or were killed and enslaved even if they did not resist, just to get them out of the way of settlement.

And no surprise...there are already a few flat earth shills who have picked up this topic.

Further reading

The body of evidence on this topic is very scattered and sloppily presented, and there are a lot of pretty clownish people presenting it (e.g. people speaking in knock-off, costume-type Indian clothing not of the appropriate tribe). The Youtube channel 1000gohead has the best information overall. His series Undeniable and Somebody Lied present a wealth of evidence. At times, the presentation is pretty bizarre, but if you watch all parts of both series and objectively look at the evidence I believe you will be convinced. Disinfo sources often focus exclusively on Arnoldus Montanus's book 'America.' Montanus never visited the Americas so his findings have been attempted to be discredited by that fact. However, Montanus made his illustrations based on testimony of a close associate, and there are dozens of written accounts, illustrations, and sculptures by people who visited and lived in the Americas in the 1500s and 1600s that match Montanus's. Alexander von Wuthenau's 'Unexpected Faces in Ancient America, 1500BC-1500AD' and 'Pre-Columbian Terracottas' are probably the largest collection of negroid figurines and artifacts, and Van Sertima's 'They Came Before Columbus' and 'African Presence in Early America' is considered one of the best books on the overall subject. Many books on the subject focus on maroons who 'escaped and lived with natives' (i.e. returned to native life). Here are the Youtube links I referred to: w atch?v=o50HstBDHUs w atch?v=bqYc0_1QfN8. Again, the presentation is bizarre at times and I believe some of the photo comparisons are off, but if you watch all parts of both videos and sift the good evidence from the bad I believe you will be convinced of the argument being made. The most important thing to remember is that this is primary source evidence, and the style by which it is presented (which I think is generally pretty catchy anyway) makes no difference.

Notes on the Map 

The above-linked map depicts a conservative estimate of the potential extent of black settlement, including most to all of Africa, all of Australasia and Oceania, much of Asia, most of southern and southeast Asia, and Japan; most of western, southern, central, and southeastern Europe; all of South and Central America, and much of North America including all areas where they would eventually be enslaved by Spanish, Portuguese, and British colonists. Solid color indicates original settlement, solid lines indicate displacement, intermixing, or co-existence, and dotted lines indicate possible presence. The rest of northern Africa (including Ancient Egypt, whose Great Sphinx clearly has a now-destroyed negroid face),  as well as much of Europe and a more northern extent of the Middle East, south Asia, and east Asia, may have been inhabited until recently by black people. It appears that Neanderthals, caucasoids, and mongoloids may have co-existed with negroids in these areas but the latter were eventually marginalized or displaced between 1500BC to 1500AD. Who between these two groups first settled these areas is not known. 

In some cases the presence of black people is confirmed by ample historical sources, in others, such as determining black settlement of Europe, it must be assumed based on archeological clues. The discovery of negroid skeletons and archeological items throughout Europe proves to reasonable certainty that blacks lived in most of Europe, as far north as England, southern Germany and Poland, and Ukraine. In summary, the map shows most habitable regions on all continents settled by black people, with separate offshoots of humans that would become caucasoid and mongoloid developing in central, northern, and eastern Asia, perhaps during the Last Glacial Maximum (i.e. most recent ice age) and at some point spreading outwards, variously displacing, intermixing with, and co-existing with negroid peoples, initially in areas that had likely been abandoned during the ice age and may have been empty or sparsely populated.  

It is important to note that during the last ice age, from approximately 24,000BC to 12,000BC, sea levels were 400 feet lower, making it much easier to move between continents and more numerous islands. During this period Afro-Eurasia was linked at both Spain and the Horn of Africa in addition to the Sinai peninsula. Australia and Papua New Guinea were a single landmass, as were Indonesia, Malaysia, and southeast Asia. Pacific islands would have been more numerous and have made it easier to reach South America from southern Pacific islands, and from South America through the Caribbean to North America. Some archeological evidence from this period would currently be underwater, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico area and around Florida. 

Last Edited By: psmith85 Oct 21 16 8:48 AM. Edited 26 times

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Remove this ad
avatar

Northbert

Posts: 47 Member Since:09/15/16

#1 [url]

Oct 20 16 4:39 AM

Interesting and compelling theory!

I'd buy it, but I think the mounds are less used for flood protection and more for ceremonial purposes, like the ancient Egypt used their pyramids as temples of initiation.


Frank C. Higgins wrote in Ancient Freemasonry:
"We can expect the explorations eventually to bring to light a lot of new material that will link the mound builders of the Mississippi Valley, the Mayas of the Yucatan, the ancient Egyptians and the Chaldees into one primitive brotherhood."


Spoiler Warning: This primitive brotherhood is an ancient predecessor of Freemasonry, also know as the Mystery Babylon hidden religion.

Maybe the Freemasons/Illuminati that conquered the American continent didn't want everyone to know that they killed and enslaved their own "ancient brethren".

But they did this with the Inkas/Mayas also so there goes this theory out of the window.



32°-Freemason Arthur C. Parker wrote in American Indian Freemasonry (1919):

"There will be some who will state that the Indians never made objects that reveal craftsmanship but that such things are the work of the "mound builders." Such persons are not well informed of modern research, for if they were they would know that the mound builders were Indians and that the old time theory of the mysterious "Mound Builders," is an exploded myth. Indians built the mounds and made all aboriginal artifacts found in them. Documents have been discovered that prove that the French and Spanish explorers saw the Indians erecting mounds. All archeological authorities now know that America had no "mysterious race that was vanquished by the Indians."



33°-Freemason Albert G. Mackey wrote in his Encyclopedia Of Freemasonry:

"MOUND BUILDERS

Early inhabitants in the valleys of the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers who seem to have had a civilization more enlightened than that of the aborigines first met by the white settlers. The mounds built by these people are scattered over the territory extending from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico and from the Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic Ocean. Many of these are in Ohio—some circular, others four and six-sided. Sometimes there are combinations of these and certain structures are known as altar mounds, small rounded heaps of earth having at the
center a hollowed mass of hard clay showing the effects of fire and containing ashes and charcoal. The hollowed parts are from three to four feet in diameter. In Adams County, Ohio, between two branches of the Licking River, is  a remarkable mound lying upon a narrow ridge and is in the form of a serpent, the jaws being wide open and measuring across some seventy-five feet. The body is about five feet high and behind the head about thirty feet across.

The whole length is 1,348 feet and it covers an area of about four square miles and, following the curves of the body, the tail is arranged in a triple coil. In front of the head is an egg-shaped enclosure with a pile of stones at the center, and beyond this a somewhat indistinct form thought to represent an animal. There are other mounds representing birds, reptiles, and so on in Wisconsin, and the suggestion has been offered that these were of a totemic character and served as objects of worship and perhaps were regarded as the guardians of the villages. The conclusion of various authorities is that the Mound-Builders lived in the stone-age and had no knowledge of smelting, though they made many articles in beaten metals and from other materials. A study of the skulls indicates that they were not of one race."




Further conjecture on various mounds was reportedly given by Frank C. Higgins in the July 6, 1919 New York Herald newspaper. One of the mound builder constructions was thought to symbolize the conjunction every 120 years of Saturn, Jupiter and Mars. This mound also “embodies pure Egyptian sacred geometry, embracing the pythagorean 3, 4, 5 proportion and the equally significant formula of three times 12 – the width of the sides – four times 12, and five times 12, or 36 [3 x 12] times 48 [4 x 12] times 60 [5 x 12] which yields 103,680 [36 x 48 x 60] or the sum of four precessional cycle[s] of 25,920 years each.”
https://ersjdamoo.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/masonic-symbols-linked-to-american-indians/

Quote    Reply   
avatar

gianthoax

Posts: 136 Member Since:06/02/16

#2 [url]

Oct 20 16 7:41 AM

Very impressive PSmith, this is your best work by far. In fact, this is the best presentation of original research I've seen on the NWOternet in sometime. I will need to digest these ideas for a while before I can intelligently weigh in, but there is no doubt a distinction in African American phenotype with African phenotype which requires more explaination than slave masters raping their slaves. It would also add a new dimension of understanding to the Boule (Uncle Tom) phenomenon, which we still see in full force in the current day. 

This analysis would be far stronger if you did not base it off the ice age model of prehistory, which is itself another deception by the gatekeepers. I suggest you look into the work of Charles Hapgood (Earth's Shifting Crust and The Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings) and you also might benefit from looking into Helena Blatavsky and the evolution of root races. 

I also think you should consider that the leaders of the native negroids sold out their own people. Perhaps not all of them, but the corrupt of their leadership and that the same is generally true for the native mongoloids. I find it ineffective to play the racial blame game. History is far too subtle and complex to cast our perceived races under the label of "oppressor" and "oppressed." The oppression of the black man in America has as much to do with controlling the mass of white men by giving them a lower standard by which they can feel superior in comparison as anything, and this is also a phenomenon we see in full force to this day.

I think you step out of line when you suggest that the narrative of the western frontier is entirely fabricated. You don't seem to be differentiating between the early conquistadors and the later American settlers. If Cortes completely wiped out the Aztecs, why do you assume that either he or another early militant explorer didn't wipe out the Mound Builders? This alternative narrative stops making any sense the second you suggest that the early American settlers co-existed with the Mound Builders, while it makes perfect sense that the Mound Builders would have already been virtually wiped out by the time the American frontier opened up.

Also, I suggest you remove the sentences in your paper which suggest that negroid people may have evolved from a different kind of apes. Not only is that a completely absurd suggestion, but you have absolutely no reason to believe that nor any notion of how that could have even happened. Those sentences really tarnish what is otherwise intelligent discourse and it adds fuel to the racist idiots who you know will jump on it and exploit it for their ends.

When you list "E) They have always gotten off on telling great lies and keeping people in the dark" as one of the reasons why the American Government would participate in the lie you sound like a child and it becomes hard to take you seriously.

Last Edited By: gianthoax Oct 20 16 10:48 AM. Edited 6 times.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Northbert

Posts: 47 Member Since:09/15/16

#3 [url]

Oct 20 16 11:49 AM

gianthoax wrote:
and you also might benefit from looking into Helena Blatavsky and the evolution of root races.


sorry mate, with that line you busted your "cover" so hard, it's beyond believe...

what degree are you, ol' chap? there are no more than 33 under the Scottish sun, you know?

Quote    Reply   
avatar

gianthoax

Posts: 136 Member Since:06/02/16

#4 [url]

Oct 20 16 2:11 PM

The conspiracy didn't begin with the Masons you fool. The Masons were the legion of the just and righteous whose power was infiltrated by sinister minds starting towards the end of 19th century.

Last Edited By: gianthoax Oct 20 16 5:22 PM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Northbert

Posts: 47 Member Since:09/15/16

#5 [url]

Oct 21 16 12:44 AM

gianthoax wrote:
The conspiracy didn't begin with the Masons you fool.

Of course not, who would say such a ludicrous thing? The Masons are naturally just a continuation of the Knights Templar, who had to go underground in the 14th century.

gianthoax wrote:
The Masons were the legion of the just and righteous whose power was infiltrated by sinister minds starting towards the end of 19th century.

So until the end of the 19th century the Masons were the legion of the just and righteous in your opinion? Oh, yeah, that must be the reason why between 1826 and 1836 the Anti-Masonic-Party was formed and active in the USA. Because the Masons were that "benevolent".


But this thread is about the Mound Builders and black slaves in America. Not about watching you sucking giant Masonic dick and shilling for them. So we should better stick to the topic and ignore your distractions. If you really want to tell everybody how good Masonic dick tastes, maybe we can open a new thread for that?

Quote    Reply   
avatar

gianthoax

Posts: 136 Member Since:06/02/16

#6 [url]

Oct 21 16 8:07 AM

Thank you for that information about the Anti-Masonic Party, I've been trying to track the chronology of the lodge's moral decline. That the first signs of corruption started becoming visible around 1836, one generation after the lodges great victory of the American Revolution and their ensuing rise to power, is no surprise to me. However, it would be at least 100 years from that point before the lodge would lose any remnance as a force of good.

I am still strongly suspicious that the final decline of the Masons was fueled by a second secret society with no Masonic lineage who had members which joined Masonry and rose to power in its ranks, but who kept their ultimate loyalty towards a different creed. The name of such a society I could not bring forth, but within the various lodges of Masonry I think the Shriners may have been their primary breeding ground.

Regardless, if you are looking for the origins of the conspiracy which rules our current day look towards the creation of the telegraph and the first global news wires. Whether those were organized by people who's primary loyalty was to Masonic lodges, I do not know.

Last Edited By: gianthoax Oct 21 16 8:10 AM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

psmith85

Posts: 312 Member Since:11/22/15

#7 [url]

Oct 21 16 8:20 AM

Gianthoax:

I also have by doubts about their benevolence, especially considering that the architect Robert Mills, who in the 1830s designed the George Washington Baphomet statue in your avatar, was a Freemason. So I think at the least you have to reconsider your dates. If they were already putting eye-pyramids, Novus Ordo Seclorum, and hexagrams on the US seal in 1782 (and covering up the origin of black slaves) before the Constitution was even signed, were they ever not compromised? If so, when?

You make a good point about the settlers. I think that colonial powers of other countries did help carry out some of the conquest, even primarily, particulary the Spanish and Portuguese since they had more of a military presence in the areas in question and antagonistic relationship with natives than the French. Spain controlled Florida and parts of the southeast until the early 1800s. . Had the Spanish crown cooperated with the small number of slave trading companies, African origins of many slave importations could easily have been fabricated. I believe many of the Mound Builders and other negroid tribes were probably enslaved in North America in early expeditions and taken to the earlier plantations in the Caribbean and Central and South America, and then sold to North America later. Before 1800 the vast majority of slaves were located outside of the US. My idea was not the settlers or even many planters were necessarily to blame (for the cover-up). What I meant was that the original clearing of the land and establishment of main roads between key geographical points had already been achieved by the natives. What I meant by 'new boss' is that this infrastructure, and the native labor to operate it (which was shifted around the colonies from the time of first contact) was already in place. Thus the co-opting of this knowledge and infrastructure for a new white society was a state-sponsored event, the private settlers more or less being unwitting hangers-on of this project

I also like to avoid the oppressors-oppressed 'splitting' game, but I haven't seen any evidence that Mound Builders or other negroid aboriginal Americans sold out their own tribes. I have seen a lot of evidence the mongoloids did repeatedly turn against the negroids, often at the behest of whites, and that slaves turned against other slaves. When you look at the 'black-out' of the existence of past and present negroids outside of Africa, particularly the huge amount of archeological evidence, it's hard to argue against there existing some kind of anti-black conspiracy.

America is a vast land, and by 1800 was barely penetrated by settlers (though military conquests, fur trapping, etc. had occurred). The large bulk of the Mound Builder lands were not reached by organic settlement until the early 1800s, likely long after negroid groups had been conquered, so they wouldn't have co-existed with them. Although I do believe many early planters were aware that the slaves were native to nearby areas.

We know that some Australian aborigines did not evolve from African homo sapiens, and there were hominids in South America at least 50,000 to 100,000 years ago. There are only two explanations for this I can see, the 'other ape' one probably being the less likely. Considering I'm claiming Egyptian and ingenious Mayan civilizations among others to have been mostly or fully negroid while Europeans at the time were relatively primitive, it's hardly insinuating any kind of inferior long-term evolutionary outcome. The more likely explanation though is that pre-sapiens hominids somehow reached these areas and evolved into sapiens there. Maybe they were much more intelligent than is thought, or who knows, maybe they got swept out in a sea storm and floated there on a tree branch (during the ice age when distances may have been far shorter).

As far as 'point E,' maybe it could be reworded or elaborated, but I believe that's actually the case. When you have all the symbology put in front of our faces constantly, and things like the Sandy Hook children singing the national anthem at the Super Bowl, and again, things like your very avatar, what other conclusion can you draw?

I'll have to look into your ice age theories, although I think when you're refuting the entire field of geology (effects of glaciers, etc.), it seems to be heading into ('no forest on') flat earth territory. The Blavatsky root race stuff is way too much for me at the moment, but I'll look it over. Personally I like to keep things in the realm of 'hard' historical and archeological evidence that can be discussed in an academic fashion, not unproven lore and legend like Blavatsky's. Then the whole discussion can seem like myth and the massive body of hard facts get overlooked.

Northbert:

I think it was both, and that the mounds were a way to protect people, moveable property, stored food, etc. during regular floods, which may have had some religious relation to Great Flood stories. The primary religious structures of the Mound Builders were all built on mounds, but I'm not sure that's always the case for mounds that were built by black slaves on plantations and by some African tribes. Many of them also contained tombs inside.

The Arthur C. Parker quote is important because it gets into an issue I didn't include, which is that the negroid and mongoloid groups, while they co-existed for thousands of years, often went to war and were not always friendly. There are many examples of the European colonists siding with mongoloid tribes against other tribes that are 'now extinct,' particularly in the Southeastern US. In a large number of cases the mongoloid tribes captured these slaves directly or were awarded them by the Europeans for their participation.

I never knew about the Serpent Mound, which is still intact in Ohio and covers 60 acres. Interestingly wikipedia says 'there are serpent effigies in Scotland and Ontario that are very similar' (though Ontario was part of the same cultural region).

Mackey quote 'they were not of one race' = they were black.

There is actually a huge amount of evidence the Mayans were also negroid, and that the Incas were likely part black. I'll soon be compiling below much of the visual evidence for the theory (figurines, artistic depictions etc.) I referred to in the post, much of which is Mayan artifacts.

Last Edited By: psmith85 Oct 21 16 8:37 AM. Edited 3 times.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

gianthoax

Posts: 136 Member Since:06/02/16

#8 [url]

Oct 21 16 8:49 AM

It is quite clear that you have done no research besides the disinfo conspiracy theorist garbage of your shill hero William Cooper on Masonic doctrine. The fact that you equate Sandy Hook with the seal of the United States makes me think you don't even have the capacity to comprehend how a group in power could morally decline over time. 

Of course I know the George Washington "Baphomet" (completely the wrong name for it) statue was by a freemason. I did not put it up there as a symbol of corruption but as a symbol for the once high ideals of our Nation and the Masons themselves.  Did you forget that George Washington brought freedom to this land? Or are you still stuck equating pseudo-anarchism with "freedom"? 

As for the theory, upon doing a little more research it became clear how firmly established the existence of the trans-atlantic slave trade was in history like for example several laws passed by the United States barring shipbuilding for the slave trade or the importing of slaves. You've got no case here PSmith.

Last Edited By: gianthoax Oct 21 16 9:53 AM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

psmith85

Posts: 312 Member Since:11/22/15

#9 [url]

Oct 21 16 9:57 AM

Another thing I'd like to add is the question of how the general public was fooled or made to believe they came from Africa. The short answer is that they weren't, only recent generations were, and the truth has been lost to history. The lie began to be perpetrated as early as around the 1820s or 1830s (340 years after slavery carried on more or less unmonitored and unrecorded), but was never complete, and the public consciousness of negroes as exclusively African did not appear to arise until after World War II. Believe it or not, the manufacturing of 'African-American' identity did not really begin in earnest until the 1970s. Most of the 10-15 African nations supposedly in question have never acknowledged participating in the trade, and the two that have, Benin and Ghana, did not acknowledge or apologize for it until the year 2000 and 2006 respectively. The shoring up of the lie continues today with the replacement of 'black' with 'African-American' in museum names, holidays, etc.

What I've gathered from historical sources is that on the relatively rare occasions blacks were mentioned, they were simply colored, or negroes, or savages, or 'blackamoors' (used to describe both American and African blacks), or some other general term, never African, so that, contrary to what some people might expect, there is no significant body of evidence from the first 300 years of colonization that might be expected to 'debunk' or at least challenge this theory. There isn't any indication that people assumed blacks were only African and did not know they were native to the Americas. The basis for the belief they all came from Africa consists in large part of a few widely circulated advertisements for slaves (which themselves usually just describe 'negroes,' and often describe slaves being resold from one area of the South to another), records from a few American ports which could have easily been manipulated (including in real-time, so that indigenous negroes could begin to be replaced by supposed mass African arrivals in slave censuses, which began at the turn of the 19th century) and a cartoonish diagram of one supposed slave ship.

Last Edited By: psmith85 Oct 21 16 12:15 PM. Edited 2 times.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

psmith85

Posts: 312 Member Since:11/22/15

#10 [url]

Oct 21 16 10:16 AM

Gianthoax, you repeatedly refer to the high moral stature of the group that supposedly declined, but have never established it. Please also explain how the Baphomet pose or whatever you claim it to be relates to high ideals of the nation. I am genuinely interested in your position and am not being sarcastic. Yes, America has had the potential to be great on the basis of the underlying philosophy (i.e. free speech, free association, etc.), and its people have achieved a lot on their own since its founding because of belief in those tenets, but that doesn't mean that many of the Founders weren't potentially behind the project for their own selfish ends that could not be reached under the British monarchy and were necessarily the selfless heroes you make them out to be.

Absolutely none of the above research derives from Cooper's and he's not my hero by any means. I've actually barely looked into any of his work.

So suddenly I have no case after all the high praise? Give me a break. I've never denied some trade in African slaves may have occurred, and 50,000 to 100,000 importations isn't a small number. And as I've said repeatedly, there is evidence of a huge amount of trade within the Americas, from Brazil and the Caribbean to North America and vice versa, which would also use slave ships. Your point on that in no way debunks the theory, which isn't really theory but rather irrefutable fact (that negroids were the primary group first encountered by Europeans) with the only questions to be explored those of scale, chronology, and extent, and on how the deception around the issue was carried out. Here is the video series I mentioned, along with Somebody Lied parts 1-6 (as I've acknowledged, some of the evidence and photo comparisons are junk, and the presentation can be goofy at times, but if you watch all parts of both series I think you will see enough good evidence among the bad to be convinced):

Quote    Reply   
avatar

gianthoax

Posts: 136 Member Since:06/02/16

#11 [url]

Oct 21 16 10:48 AM

Initially, I thought you were onto something which I now realize that I jumped the gun probably because of the seed of the lie which Gramham Hancock planted in my mind back when I read his work on the Olmecs. I have seen the side by side comparisons you have linked (which were likely made by the same disinfo agents who came out with "No Trees on Flat Earth"), but the same kind of side by side comparisons could be made with italian people and black americans or russian people and black americans or just about any other ethnic group as long as the pictures could be carfeully curated.

Also, upon studying the Omlec statues I realized they looked very similar to the Guatamalean people I've met. 

For example this guy:
image

The Olmec statues look as much like Native Americans as look like Africans and if it weren't for Graham Hancock's sophistry I would have never even considered the latter.

As for the virtues of Masonry I suggest you specifically look into Manly P Hall's The Secret Teachings of All Ages, and also consider that the hand positions of the George Washington statue does not refer to Baphomet, but that hand positions of both the George Washington statue and pre-Crowlean depictions of Baphomet refer to something (hint: look up The Magician tarot card).

Quote    Reply   
avatar

psmith85

Posts: 312 Member Since:11/22/15

#12 [url]

Oct 21 16 11:16 AM

I'm all for open discussion, but if you want to turn this into a 'debunking' thread, you won't win. There are numerous Olmec colossal heads. Some could be said to share some similarities with mestizo Central Americans with negroid-mongoloid-hybrid phenotypes. But others have visibly kinky hair when the helmet is not depicted and are undeniably black. What you fail to account for is that 90% of the most iconic Olmec statues look like 90% of negroid people (and don't trust Google Image who is heavily skewing the results for any search on this topic), i.e. they display typical negroid characteristics, while you believe that the 1-5% of negroid hybrids or non-negroids that also display some negroid characteristics (wide nostrils, thick lips, etc.) might for some reason account for those 100% of the hundreds or thousands of Olmec figurines. It's completely absurd reasoning, and is like the typical extreme reaching of 'debunking' sites that dismiss 500 anomalies in a row as separate coincidences, ignoring the billions-to-one odds. There is zero doubt the Olmecs were negroid, and when I have time to compile images I'll post them below. In the meantime I recommend anyone watch all parts of the above-mentioned series and you'll see 100-200+ images of obvious negroids depicted in art, sculpture (much of it Olmec and Mayan), photographs, etc. Here are some images to start off with (although it looks like the copyright police may have gotten to it like with 911 Taboo; luckily I had previously downloaded the videos):

https://postimg.org/image/wp78mzejt/
https://postimg.org/image/d5mpi587n/
https://postimg.org/image/dgxtsnmhz/
https://postimg.org/image/p6yprvudp/
https://postimg.org/image/s0qvj3s83/
https://postimg.org/image/hgfuo1n6t/
https://postimg.org/image/rrqtohiwl/
https://postimg.org/image/5ovty6k75/
https://postimg.org/image/4mgsh4mzx/
https://postimg.org/image/y4629cdht/
https://postimg.org/image/tv192in5x/ ('negrito' i.e. non-African black person masks)

Last Edited By: psmith85 Oct 21 16 12:34 PM. Edited 7 times.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

gianthoax

Posts: 136 Member Since:06/02/16

#13 [url]

Oct 21 16 12:58 PM

I'm not attempting to debunk, but upon looking at the array of statues and heads I don't find any more reason to believe they were depictions of people who we associate with Africa as people we associate from modern day Guatamala. Some of them struck with a particular similarity to Guatamalen men I've seen but when it comes down to it this is nothing more than a matching game. Which by the way you have used to support two completely opposite claims. First, the matching of the Undeniable videos which asserts that Native Americans (whom you call mongoloid) and Black Americans (whom you call negroid) are indistinguishable. Second, you use this Olmec statue matching to assert that the statues much be negroid because negroids as so distinct from mogoloids. Well which is it?

As for the other reason I found your theory to be compelling at first, the phenotypic differences between modern day black americans and modern day africans, I think there are two main points that must be considered:

1. They would have been isolated from the other africans and interbred for in some cases over a dozen of generations
2. There is a minimal accurate record of what black americans looked like when slavery was still in effect, and since slavery ended there has been a tremendous amount of mating between races which would account for why modern day black americans look distinct from their african counterparts
 
If you want to approach this from a phenotypic point of view you have to somehow explain the near universal trait of nappy hair that black americans have, which is genetically a dominant one, and does not seem to be prevelent in indigenous americans while it is nearly universally prevelent in africans. Skin tone and facial structure are far too varied to create a conclusive argument using those, but the nappy hair phenomenon stands as strong evidence against your claim.

I wouldn't rule out that they enslaved natives in the beginning perhaps there is more to that side of the story than we are told, but your 10% african slave estimate is far too low.

I find the mound builder culture interesting, but not for reasons of debunking the slave trade mythos as much as because of their similarity to the polynesian cultures particularly that of Easter Island. They both seem to have a birdman warrior based ritual which is at the center core of their culture and that hardly seems possible it could just be a coincidence. For that reason in particular I definitely encourage more research along these lines. 

Last Edited By: gianthoax Oct 21 16 1:28 PM. Edited 5 times.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

psmith85

Posts: 312 Member Since:11/22/15

#14 [url]

Oct 21 16 1:41 PM

If you don't think those links, especially the first few, look distinctly black, you're blind, plain and simple. 'Nothing more than a matching game.' No, not really. Only a small portion of the evidence above is directly related to visual appearance. But if you're not willing to take an honest look at the mountain of visual evidence, there's no point in participating in this discussion. There are a lot of Central Americans in my area. None of them except for the heavily part-black ones look anything like that. I'm using the terms mongoloid and negroid because it's the simplest and clearest way to discuss this when we're talking about two indigenous groups, although as I'll note below, most of the mongoloid tribes east of the Great Plains had significant negroid admixture, to the point of easily qualifying as 'black' in contemporary society (though those individuals have almost entirely been long 'disqualified' and declassified as Indians due to slave laws and reclassified as negroes by racial purity laws, where their indigenous status has in many cases become little more than a family rumor.

1) With a big enough sample (there were millions), you're not going to get a significant change in appearance. There was minimal interbreeding between races for almost 500 years. A tiny percentage of freed slaves or freedmen bred with mongoloid Native Americans and virtually none interbred with whites until after the 1950s. Let's say at least 95% bred with other blacks. Nowhere near a 'tremendous amount.' There would be one major difference though, and that would be from the mixing of various indigenous tribes that previously did not mix (e.g. different North American groups, North with South and Caribbean, etc.) And the whole point here is that they weren't Africans or part-African until African slaves arrived in the early 1800s. They wouldn't look now like they did then since they would have part-African ancestry and in some cases a small amount of DNA from other races, but as we can see from the archeology record, they're still pretty darn close to the aboriginals in many cases.
2) We can see many photos of blacks from the Civil War era up to the 1960s or so before any significant intermixing occurred, and they look pretty much the same. Many of the names mentioned above were born before this era began, and none of them have identifiable white ancestry.
3) Hair can be straightened with natural methods. As the documentaries show, many of the tribes shaved their heads, many used false ponytails and wigs, many had clearly fully straightened hair, and many partially straightened similar to Sammy Davis Jr. Skin tone and facial structure aren't anywhere near too varied to draw conclusions. I could look at those heads and tell you right away they aren't Norwegians or Spaniards. It's about percentages. When you have 100 samples and most demonstrate certain characteristics, you can safely conclude those characteristics were typical of the race in question. Much of the 'bad evidence' I referred to in the documentaries deals with people with clearly naturally straight hair, though those people do appear to be at least part black in most cases so the evidence can't be thrown out altogether. You can't use the fact that mongoloids don't have nappy hair as evidence against this when mongoloids are a different race than the people we're talking about here and their hair type is moot, particularly when we're dealing with the more pure-mongoloid Northern Plains tribes who often have the stereotypically 'Asian' straight black hair. The Undeniable video doesn't get into Mound Builders, but it really doesn't matter since he still puts forth a lot of good evidence for the general argument. 'Which is it?' It's both. My contention is that the Mound Builders were clearly negroid, but that there were also non-Mound Builder negroid tribes, some of whom were semi-nomadic, and people who were genetically expressing primarily negroid among mongoloid tribes due to the thousands of years of intermixing that had occurred between tribes. There were also some semi-sedentary mongoloid tribes. But the fully nomadic and fully sedentary societies were primarily made up of mongoloid and negroid peoples respectively.

Btw gianthoax, re: magician tarot card, etc., I think I speak for everyone when I say the cryptic hint-dropping and beating around the bush are a little tiresome. Please just say clearly to what you are referring, or don't say it at all.

Last Edited By: psmith85 Oct 21 16 7:22 PM. Edited 8 times.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Northbert

Posts: 47 Member Since:09/15/16

#15 [url]

Oct 22 16 6:00 AM

psmith85 wrote:
I never knew about the Serpent Mound, which is still intact in Ohio and covers 60 acres. Interestingly wikipedia says 'there are serpent effigies in Scotland and Ontario that are very similar' (though Ontario was part of the same cultural region).


The Serpent was a symbol for wisdom used by the ancient priesthood amongst other things for identifying each other. Thats why the Egyptian pharaohs wore them on their forehead:

image


Which would also support the quote of Arthur C. Parker, that they were connected in one ancient brotherhood.
psmith85 wrote:
The lie began to be perpetrated as early as around the 1820s or 1830s...


That is coincidently also around the time that Albert Pike got into Freemasonry, where at 1859 he became their Sovereign Grand Commander of the Scottish Rite's Southern Jurisdiction.

gianthoax wrote:
As for the virtues of Masonry I suggest you specifically look into Manly P Hall's The Secret Teachings of All Ages


I also suggest to read his book America’s Assignment with Destiny, which also should prove quite interesting.


image

Please explain the connection of the As above, so below principle with the high moral stature of the group that supposedly declined. (Interesting, that the magician uses a serpent in form of an Ouroboros as belt.


@Topic

For a "US-Black Slaves were imported from Africa"-Hoax would also speak in my opinion (other than mentioned before by psmith85):

1) For the young nation it would me better if the official history says that the natives were largely wiped out due to disease, cause their immune system couldn't handle the new bacteria and viruses than if the official history would say the early settlers killed and enslaved them all.

2) It creates guilt in the people of the nation and justifies foreign aid, money that can be funneled away for spook activities and so on.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

thepaulstalserviceforums

Posts: 844 Member Since:07/04/13

#16 [url]

Dec 10 16 1:17 PM

Haha! Never heard this one before.. Sounds interesting from what I've read so far. Will give it more of a read and reply later today, there's a lot here. Does this tie into the giant skeletons found in North America? Guess I'll find out when I finish reading this one.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

psmith85

Posts: 312 Member Since:11/22/15

#17 [url]

Dec 10 16 2:14 PM

Not necessarily. There's a theory that the Mound Builders were giants but that's not what I'm referring to here. I don't rule out that there were 'semi-giant' races of people in the past (since we know there was a 'hobbit' race), but it doesn't directly tie into this.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help