"GWhyte" <gwhyte3003@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:MrOdnaIOKrgTp83eRVn-vQ@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> You are engaging in all sorts of ad hominem rhetoric but again failing
to
> say anything substantial. You can keep on telling me how much I need to
get
> educated but I'm afraid you're not very convincing for someone who is
SOOO
> educated.
I apologize for conveying that impression. I am in no position to brag
about
any wisdom I possess. I am in search of wisdom, and have acquired little
of
it. I am still just figuring out what I _don't_ know. I have spent much of
the past few years just correcting erroneous misconceptions I had of the
history of man.
Think of me as someone who was lost, spiritually, for the first half of
his
life, and who is now, admittedly, committed to changing the world so that
others do not make the same mistakes I did.
> You are basically dealing with something like an approach to a religious
> faith. We have to look at scientific evidence.
You are thinking in a typically Western left-brain sort of way ... this
idea
that everything must be separated, dissected, and then objectively
analyzed
in a vacuum. The ancients unified all their areas of science with
religion.
All scientific pursuits continued along the same path as the path to
become
Ausar ... all involved the journey to Know Self. I am talking about the
Principle of Correspondence ... "As above, so below."
> In ancient times Egypt was
> much more black than it is now but there was a substatial "white"
presence.
> If that goes against your "faith", I'm sorry. Afrocentrists imagine that
iot
> was only with the invasion of the Hyskos that there was a substantial
white
> presence. Noboby else accepts that. But if you're an Afrocentrist it's a
> matter of faith.
What I have been trying to do is ****ge you towards admitting, and stating
plainly, without all the _double-speak_ , what you clearly already know
...
this being that the substantial contributions to civilization made by
Kemet
were the results of it being an uniquely Afrikan society .... and not due
to
any minor influences by any folk who might be argued today as being white
or
"not black".
You seem to be building a case which I think white folks started preparing
a
while back ... they had to grudgingly admit to themselves that all these
Afro-Centrists were slowly making a dent in the world's thinking. Someone
hinted as much in an earlier post, referring to how difficult it was to
change their students' minds about certain topics. I don't recall, was
that
you? Even President Clinton said once, in public no less, that ancient
Egypt
was black .... So, White Folks are gearing up to fall back to backup
argument #2:
BACKUP ARGUMENT #2:
"Okay, yeah, you are right, we'll admit that, at the very least, most of
Kemet was black. But, we all know black folks are inferior, we don't say
it
out loud, but we show it in a thousand different ways, don't we? So, it
just
MUST have been at least a few white folks there and, hence, it was this
minority of white folks who managed to lead those poor ignorant savages
into
building a true society."
Friend, admit the truth. If we were ever to get to a place where you admit
that Black Folks made ancient Kemet what it was, a big flourescent light
would come on from on high. It would immediately become clear that ...
hey,
since that is true, then this means, beyond argument, that the entire
premise of White Supremacy is pure, grade A, 100% horse manure. Why should
admitting that be such a difficult thing for a human being, one who acts
out
of love, to embrace? Think carefully about how to answer this question,
because within its answer lies all the reasons for why seemingly "good"
white people still end up allowing White Supremacy to exist and flourish.
Here is something which should shake the very foundations of your beliefs.
Take a quick glance at the following link. It provides a glimpse into how
a
white racist mind deduces that whites are what Hitler called the "Master
Race". This is, of course, just one of many Nazi web sites. But, what
should really trouble you is that some of the things you are hinting at
this
bottom feeder is flat out saying ... loudly and proudly:
http://www.white-history.com/
> > Semites (change this to White Folks)
>
> Linguistic research indicates that the Semitic language group started in
> Ethiopia. Check out the Linguistics department of the University of
Chicago.
> So your fantasy about white Semites is based on your Biblical
brainwa****ng.
I mentioned at the end of my last post that there was much you did not
know,
and that this would result in what I am about to say now not making a lot
of
sense to you. This was not a knock against your intelligence. It was meant
to prick your intellectual curiosity, to encourage you to dig a little
deeper below the surface ... if for no other reason than to prove me
wrong.
Of course, by definition of the very word itself, a pure blooded white
person (good luck finding one) could not be a Semite. And yet, we live in
a
world where certain people, who appear to be white, are commonly referred
to
as Semites. If you dare utter a word about them which is not 100%
complementary, all mainline media outlets will brand you an anti-semite.
Even a liberal democratic ex-President will step before the media podium
and
denounce the good you may be trying to accomplish in your life. You can
put
together a plan to organize millions of black people, to have them meet at
Wa****ngton, DC, peacefully, without weapons, and the entire American press
will either ignore what you are doing, or criticize it as being
anti-Semite.
But, now .... (stay with me, seek to intuit Divine wisdom which so exceeds
what man could ever logically deduce solely from science) ... what if
these people, these so-called Semites, are really just garden variety
white
folks ... with no more claim to being the Chosen People, to being
descendants of the 12 tribes of Israel, than George W. Bush?
What if the very scriptures, that these pretenders-to-the-throne claim to
have written themselves, predict that there would be a people, non-Jews
who
claim they are Jews, who would corrupt the Good News brought into the
world
by Jesus, but would ultimately bow at the feet of the true Believers?
Rev 3:9
"Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are
Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and
wor****p
before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee."
> > Were you ever taught the history of the Khazars, or why most Jews are
> either
> > Ashkenazis or Shephardics, or why the vast majority of Jews are
> Ashkenazis?
>
> You're going all over the world, to what point I'm all in a tizzy to
see.
And, so, we take baby steps towards the Original Truth ...
> > Go to your local libray, check out a copy of Arthur Koestler's "The
> > Thriteenth Tribe." Read it, and then afterwards we have much to talk
> about.
> > But, there is still too much you do not know for what I am saying to
make
> > much sense.
>
> Sorry, I don't have the time to pursue quests which may not be of major
> im****tance to the issues at hand. Suffice it to say that your
Bible-based
> interpretation of history would embarrass you if you were to address an
> audience of historian, archaeologists and linguists. You can only
impress
> the ignorant.
Change comes slow, I know, believe me I know. Just read the book. If what
you read strikes you as foolishness, denounce it then, but not before you
have even read a word. If you won't bother to educate yourself on the
topic
we are discussing, it would better to just admit that this topic doesn't
interest you and bow gracefully out of the connversation.
Istlota
|
