Supposedly black Egypt

Lately a lot of progressive blacks have complained that Ridley Scott’s movie “Exodus” is racist for depicting Egyptians as Egyptian and Hebrews as white.  They want them all to be depicted black.

Ancient Egyptians in their art depict themselves as yellowish brown, somewhat arab looking, pretty similar to the way pharaoh is depicted in Ridley Scott’s movie.  They depict blacks as black, with exaggerated negro features, and show them in demeaning roles as criminals, slaves, and servants, pretty much as they are depicted in Ridley Scotts movie, and they depict whites as white, and as wearing costumes somewhat similar to those worn by the Hebrews in Ridley Scott’s movie.

Egyptian art depicts Egyptians on the one hand and Nubians and other blacks on the other hand with distinctly different ethnic characteristics and depicted this abundantly and often aggressively. The Egyptians accurately, arrogantly and aggressively made national and ethnic distinctions from a very early date in their art and literature

In Egyptian art and writing from around the time that the Hebrews are said to have left Egypt, blacks are slaves, servants, and criminals, whites are invaders and colonialists.

They viewed people who originate from the middle east, from west asia as the Hebrews did, as white and aryan, like the Hyksos, which fits with various records that back in those days, towards the end of the bronze age, west asia was full of aryan whites.  The Iranians and the Kurds were originally Aryan, are today browner than the Jews.  The Kurds recall their ancestors as fair skinned and fair haired, so likely the Hebrews were fair skinned and red headed.

Ridley Scott’s casting and costumes are largely lifted from ancient Egyptian art depicting themselves – a yellowish brown people very different from negroes, but nonetheless not exactly white either.

It is a historical fact that Egypt at the time that Moses is believed to have lived was racially much as it is now – a generally upper class white minority, a poor and frequently criminal black minority underclass, and a brownish majority that have and had  approximately modern Egyptian skin color, despise blacks, and were suspicious of whites.

From time to time Egypt gets conquered by whites. From time to time those whites import black slaves. And so, most of the time, Egypt is brownish with a white minority and a black minority, as it is today.

For example we see in an ancient Egyptian painting three black criminals or runaway slaves who have just been arrested and subdued by three white, or possibly light brown, cops.

And that is the way Ridley Scott depicts Egypt.

At the time of Joseph, Egypt had been conquered by the Hyksos, who were fair skinned, red headed, very possibly Aryans, and possibly Hebrews, and most likely a people closely related to Hebrews, which suggests that the Hebrews of that time were fair skinned, frequently red headed, and very possibly Aryans.

So, assuming Joseph was a real person, or based on a real person, the pharaoh that favored Joseph was white, quite likely Aryan, and so, quite likely, similarly Joseph.

So, entirely reasonable, on the basis of history and historical descriptions of the Hyksos, and on the basis of Egyptian art, to depict the Hebrews as whites.

The Egyptians perceived people who came from the east (west Asia, the middle east) and lived in tents as the same race as the Hyksos, so presumably perceived Joseph and Moses as white and Aryan, as Moses is depicted in the movie.

At the time of Moses, Hyksos rule had collapsed, bronze age civilization was in severe decline, and Egypt was ruled, as depicted in Ridley Scott’s movie “Exodus”, by brownish people with approximately modern Egyptian skin color – the pharaoh that “Knew not Joseph”.

Egypt was, if we believe the “Admonitions of Ipuwer”, at the time suffering from leftism, high levels of violence, lack of secure property rights, severe social decline, rioting, arson, severe family breakdown, female emancipation, and disastrous levels of political correctness. If we believe the Pentateuch it was also suffering from socialism. In short, not so different from Egypt today and the Arab world today, though with considerably worse family values, the then fall of the Hyksos paralleling today’s recent retreat of colonialism.

We have archaeological evidence of the collapse of Bronze age civilization not long after Ipuwer’s time, so I am inclined to interpret Ipuwer as describing real and contemporary events, as he claims to be doing, though some people argue he is just telling a morally improving story about long long ago and far far far away.

Ipuwer reports that foreign trade had collapsed.  We have archaeological evidence that foreign trade did indeed collapse at about that time, so Ipuwer is probably reporting real events.

Due to infanticide and “barrenness” (which I conjecture was the result of contraception, abortion, and non reproductive sex) Egyptians were, according to Ipuwer, failing to reproduce. If we believe the Pentateuch, the Hebrews on the other hand had strong family values, with women and children being property, hence infanticide was for them unimaginable, unintelligible, and absurd. Thus their population would have been growing as the Egyptian population was, according to Ipuwer, collapsing.

Human nature being what it is, the Hebrews would probably be blamed for the social decay that they were not suffering.

There are several parallels between the Pentateuch and the Admonitions of Ipuwer. Assuming Ipuwer’s Admonitions to be true, then the Pentateuch is myth based on real people and real events.

For example the Admonitions and the Pentateuch both say that the river turned to blood.

The Pentateuch says:

17 Thus saith the LORD, In this thou shalt know that I am the LORD: behold, I will smite with the rod that is in mine hand upon the waters which are in the river, and they shall be turned to blood.

18 And the fish that is in the river shall die, and the river shall stink; and the Egyptians shall lothe to drink of the water of the river.

Ipuwer also tells us that the river turned to blood and Egyptians were unwilling to drink the water. But in Ipuwer’s telling the Nile only turned metaphorically and spiritually into blood, because of the vast numbers of wrongfully slain Egyptians dumped in the river, and the many Egyptians who committed suicide in the river, not literally into blood.

According to Ipuwer, the Nile was physically and spiritually polluted by the vast numbers of unburied dead in the river, and was thus unclean in the sense that wrongfully spilt blood is spiritually unclean. The Nile was spiritually turned to blood by natural causes, not literally turned to blood by supernatural causes.  The Pentateuch depicts a miracle, Ipuwer reports social breakdown and civil disorder.

Assuming that the Hebrews had the strong family values depicted in the Pentateuch, the angel of death would have passed over the Hebrews and failed to take their children, not because of any miracle, but because Hebrews, unlike Egyptians, were disinclined to murder their own children.

Similarly, Ipuwer and the Pentateuch both depict a storm of fire over Egypt, but in the context of Ipuwer’s Admonitions, the fire presumably comes from the rioting mob of lower class looters and revolting slaves, not from heaven.

If you really want to, you could read Ipuwer as reporting the Nile literally and miraculously turned to blood, and fire literally and miraculously from heaven, but there is no way to read his report on the death of the children as anything other than entirely unmiraculous social decay and female emancipation. If the death of the children was leftism rather than wrath of God, then the river of blood and the fire was leftism rather than wrath of God.

Or if you really want to you could argue it was all wrath of God punishing the Egyptians for oppressing the Hebrews and for social decay, and Ipuwer is giving a naturalistic non miraculous rationalization of miraculous events, but I find Ipuwer’s account of these events more believable than the Pentateuch version.

And, according to Ipuwer’s Admonitions, people from West Asia who lived in tents were a big problem, undermining social cohesion. Sounds familiar.

So, I conjecture that they would have been blamed for all these happenings. The brownish rulers would have attempted to appease the brownish mob by punishing the white outsiders who lived in tents.  The white outsiders would have made endless concessions, but no concession would suffice, for no concessions would have any effect on the social decay suffered by the brown Egyptians, now incompetently ruling themselves when formerly they had been competently ruled by the white Hyksos, who had now become unwilling and unable to rule. (Bronze age civilization, which is to say white civilization, was suffering general decay.  The Egyptians survived it better than the purer whites.)

Ipuwer calls on Pharoah to expel the foreigners.

And the white outsiders would flee. A familiar story, much repeated since then.

Finding themselves pursued by an Egyptian army the white outsiders would need an leader with complete authority. Likely they would choose a white member of the Egyptian ruling class to lead them, and invent for him the correct ancestry. All that is conjecture of course, but it fits the known facts quite well.  The Pharaoh of the Pentateuch did what Ipuwer in his “Admonitions”called on the Pharaoh to do.  Those whitish outsiders were subverting brownish Egyptian society with the result that Egyptians were doing bad things to each other.

We know that Ridley Scott is correct to depict the pharaoh as brownish Egyptian upper class, and what little we know about the times is consistent with Moses being white Egyptian upper class, as depicted by Ridley Scott in the movie Exodus.

66 Responses to “Supposedly black Egypt”

  1. Barnabas says:

    No comment on Hebrew slavery?

    • Magus Janus says:

      i dont know that we have any evidence of it actually happening other than the Old Testament. To my knowledge there is no actual archaeological/historical evidence of it.

      that’s not to say it DIDNT happen, just that we have to be agnostic about it cuz we dont know.

      • jim says:

        What the Hebrews regarded as slavery was socialism. Ipuwer reports insecurity of property rights and leftism, which makes socialism likely, but does not directly confirm it.

        • B says:

          The Bible tells us that the Hebrews a) were localized in Goshen (a subdistrict of Egypt which was not as agricultural) as herders, b) were singled out for special treatment as slaves, with that whole thing with an allotment of bricks to be made and no straw, the demand for infanticide against male babies, etc. On the other hand, there was no food shortage, as seen by numerous reminiscences in the desert, so I doubt there was socialism. I think this is just you anachronistically retromapping your understanding of the present onto events 4KYA.

          • jim says:

            Pharaoh ordering Hebrews to produce a specific product is socialism. Pharaoh delivering the raw materials is what socialism intends. Pharaoh failing to deliver the raw materials is socialism in actual practice. If Hebrews ordered to produced bricks, someone else ordered to produce straw. And then the straw does not arrive. Standard Soviet economic planning.

            I don’t believe Pharaoh ordered infanticide consciously, intentionally, and explicitly any more than Obama commands abortion. Rather, the society encouraged infanticide and led to a lot of infanticide. Ipuwer complains of huge rates of infanticide among the ruling elite, and huge rates of infanticide resulting from female immorality.

            In the society depicted by Ipuwer, Hebrews would have come under government pressure to assimilate to a social order that led to very high levels of infanticide, much as businesses owned and operated by Orthodox Jews in America are forced to provide their employees with free abortion.

            Or pharaoh might have been alarmed that Hebrews were massively outrbreeding Egyptians, and ordered them to bring their infanticide up to Egyptian norms.

            Ipuwer’s version sounds more realistic than the Pentateuch version, and Ipuwer was writing close to the time that Moses is believed to have lived, whereas chances are the Pentateuch was written up after the Hebrews settled into cities in Canaan.

          • B says:

            The whole point of taking the Jews, who had been herdsmen over the Egyptian flocks, and setting them to construction work, was punitive:

            8 Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, who knew not Joseph.
            9 And he said unto his people, “Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we.
            10 Come on, let us deal wisely with them, lest they multiply and it come to pass, when there befalleth any war, that they join also unto our enemies and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land.”
            11 Therefore they set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses.
            12 But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew; and they were grieved because of the children of Israel.
            13 And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigor.
            14 And they made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in mortar and in brick and in all manner of service in the field; all their service wherein they made them serve was with rigor.

            Pharaoh committed infanticide on purpose:

            15 And the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, of whom the name of one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah.
            16 And he said, “When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women and see them upon the birthstools, if it be a son then ye shall kill him; but if it be a daughter then she shall live.”
            17 But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive.
            18 And the king of Egypt called for the midwives and said unto them, “Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive?”
            19 And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them.”
            20 Therefore God dealt well with the midwives, and the people multiplied and waxed very mighty.
            21 And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that He made them houses.
            22 And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, “Every son who is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive.”

            The straw, too, was withheld on purpose:

            4 And the king of Egypt said unto them, “Why do ye, Moses and Aaron, delay the people from their work? Get you unto your burdens!”
            5 And Pharaoh said, “Behold, the people of the land now are many, and ye make them rest from their burdens!”
            6 And Pharaoh commanded the same day the taskmasters of the people and their officers, saying,
            7 “Ye shall no more give the people straw to make brick, as heretofore. Let them go and gather straw for themselves.
            8 And the tally of bricks which they made heretofore, ye shall lay upon them; ye shall not diminish any thereof. For they are idle; therefore they cry, saying, ‘Let us go and sacrifice to our God.’
            9 Let there more work be laid upon the men, that they may labor therein, and let them not regard vain words.”
            10 And the taskmasters of the people went out, and their officers, and they spoke to the people, saying, “Thus saith Pharaoh: ‘I will not give you straw.
            11 Go ye, get you straw where ye can find it; yet not any of your work shall be diminished.’”
            12 So the people were scattered abroad throughout all the land of Egypt to gather stubble instead of straw.
            13 And the taskmasters hastened them, saying, “Fulfill your works, your daily tasks, as when there was straw.”
            14 And the officers of the children of Israel, whom Pharaoh’s taskmasters had set over them, were beaten and were demanded, “Why have ye not fulfilled your task in making brick both yesterday and today, as heretofore?”
            15 Then the officers of the children of Israel came and cried unto Pharaoh, saying, “Why dealest thou thus with thy servants?
            16 There is no straw given unto thy servants, and they say to us, ‘Make brick!’ And behold, thy servants are beaten, but the fault is in thine own people.”
            17 But he said, “Ye are idle, ye are idle! Therefore ye say, ‘Let us go and do sacrifice to the Lord.’
            18 Go therefore now and work; for there shall no straw be given you, yet shall ye deliver the tally of bricks.”
            19 And the officers of the children of Israel saw that they were in evil straits after it was said, “Ye shall not diminish any from your bricks of your daily task.”

            I have no doubt that Egyptian infanticide rates were high, and also that their disease burden was higher than that of the Jews, because that is how it has always been with us and the surrounding nations. Having rigid customary sanitation norms gives good results, as acknowledged by Richard Burton and the NYT in their recent article about how middle-class Hindus have higher rates of infant mortality and chronic malnutrition than their poor Muslim neighbors due to their disgusting sanitation standards.

            I also have no doubt that this discrepancy pissed the Egyptians off to no end, and that they remembered their enslavement starting under Joseph’s viceroyship (and forgot that they owed their veyr existence to this enslavement, as it is human nature to hold a grudge and forget a favor.)

            The origin of the Pharaoh who knew not Joseph is interesting. He may have come from foreign invaders forming a dynasty and trying to secure their position with the natives by throwing the Jews under the bus, similar to what happened in medieval Spain.

            Ipuwer had to worry about his audience, the Pharaoh, getting upset at him. Moshe, when he wrote the Chumash (the 5 books) didn’t have such a concern.

            • jim says:

              If, previously, straw was supplied, someone else had to supply straw, indicating general central planning.

              Entirely normal that central planning fails, that someone is commanded to produce such and such, even though the inputs for such and such fail to arrive. This would be experienced by the Hebrews as punitive, but it is simply that central planning tends to be punitive in practice, because the central planners unavoidably screw up, and then unavoidably punish other people for their own screw ups.

              Ipuwer is concerned by low Egyptian fertility, largely due to infanticide, and concerned by large numbers of foreigners, consistent with Pentateuch report that the Egyptians were concerned with the growth of the Hebrews.

              This likely would have resulted in the application of state power to inculcate Egyptian low fertility norms onto Hebrews as described in the Pentateuch, but pressuring the midwives to provide infanticide services, which pressure is ignored, is not the same thing as sending the soldiers around to slaughter the excess. Pharaoh did not apply directly and overtly coercive measures against fertility any more than Obama did. When the midwife delivers the baby, Pharoah is far away, but the mother and father are right there. If Pharoah wants results, has to directly coerce the father, rather than the midwife. Pressuring the midwives sounds more like Obama requiring Orthodox Jewish employers to provide free abortion, than Herod massacring the innocents.

              The origin of the Pharaoh who knew not Joseph is interesting. He may have come from foreign invaders forming a dynasty and trying to secure their position with the natives by throwing the Jews under the bus, similar to what happened in medieval Spain.

              Ipuwer seems to believe he was a local who replaced the formerly foreign pharaohs, though perhaps it was politically correct to believe that.

          • B says:

            By the way, what do you make of the recent interest in Biblically-themed movies?

          • B says:

            >Entirely normal that central planning fails, that someone is commanded to produce such and such, even though the inputs for such and such fail to arrive. This would be experienced by the Hebrews as punitive, but it is simply that central planning tends to be punitive in practice, because the central planners unavoidably screw up, and then unavoidably punish other people for their own screw ups.

            In the Torah, the Pharaoh himself orders no straw to be provided, as an explicit punitive measure for the Hebrews’ idleness as evidenced by Moshe and Aaron demanding he let them go and worship G-d in the desert (“and then we’ll be right back!” they say :))

            >Pharaoh did not apply directly and overtly coercive measures against fertility any more than Obama did. When the midwife delivers the baby, Pharoah is far away, but the mother and father are right there. If Pharoah wants results, has to directly coerce the father, rather than the midwife. Pressuring the midwives sounds more like Obama requiring Orthodox Jewish employers to provide free abortion, than Herod massacring the innocents.

            Well, you know, the comparison of Pharaonic Egypt and modern-day America has been made by some of our modern rabbis. Certainly, they were not totalitarian savages, as evidenced by Moshe and Aaron being able to walk in and backtalk and sass the Pharaoh at will (of course, Moshe being an adapted member of the royal family and the Pharaoh’s childhood friend helped.) And the Pharaoh started off not absolutely bad-it was later, as a result of his shitty choices, that G-d hardened his heart and gave him the determination to commit national suicide. There’s a parallel in there that I probably don’t have to explicitly draw out.

            >Ipuwer seems to believe he was a local who replaced the formerly foreign pharaohs, though perhaps it was politically correct to believe that.

            That is one theory I’ve heard. You certainly don’t see him reversing the enslavement of the Egyptians (minus the priestly caste.)

            • jim says:

              Yes, Pentateuch does say that pharaoh ordered no straw. But where did pharaoh get the straw from back in the days when they got straw?

              Which implies a widespread use of central planning, not just specifically against the Hebrews.

              That they gathered stubble (inferior to straw for mudbrick making) implies a straw shortage. Shortages are the normal consequence of central planning, where shortages of the correct inputs results in ersatz inputs. If central planning had not created a straw shortage, Pharaoh would have, in order to punish them, insisted that they use proper straw, not stubble.

              Pentateuch says that Egyptians were ticked off because the Hebrews were numerous and growing.

              Ipuwer is alarmed by massive Egyptian infanticide and “barrenness” and alarmed because the foreigners are numerous. Since the Egyptians were engaging in infanticide, I conjecture that the “barrenness” was also artificial. Everything else he complains about is the result of human choice and action. Since the Egyptians suffer from infanticide and “barrenness”, he could plausibly be interpreted to imply the foreigners are growing – that they do not suffer from infanticide and “barrenness”.

          • B says:

            >But where did pharaoh get the straw from back in the days when they got straw?

            From the fields. You know, they grew grain, once you finish threshing it, you have straw. They also had grass for their animals.

            >Which implies a widespread use of central planning, not just specifically against the Hebrews.

            All Egyptian civilization was centrally planned, not just in this period. But specifically here they centrally planned not to give the Hebrews straw.

            >That they gathered stubble (inferior to straw for mudbrick making) implies a straw shortage.

            Doubtful. That they had no hunger in those days implies a functional central planning system and no straw shortage.

            >ince the Egyptians were engaging in infanticide, I conjecture that the “barrenness” was also artificial. Everything else he complains about is the result of human choice and action. Since the Egyptians suffer from infanticide and “barrenness”, he could plausibly be interpreted to imply the foreigners are growing – that they do not suffer from infanticide and “barrenness”.

            Sure. Widespread barrenness is frequently a symptom of a degenerate society. Also, Joseph had had them circumcised when they sold themselves into slavery, but I assume by this point they had stopped that. We also know that Egypt was full of disease, quite possibly sexually transmitted. Finally, from Deuteronomy 18, we see that they had widespread sexual perversion, incest, homosexuality, etc.

            • jim says:

              If all of Egypt was centrally planned, your chances of getting the inputs you needed to produce your outputs were none too great, regardless of whether Pharaoh had it in for you or not.

          • B says:

            And yet in the desert we moaned about how Egypt had been a land of plentiful food.

            There’s central planning and then there’s central planning. Where you have one variable and thousands of years of data, you might do alright.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_empire

            I’ve also seen the great lost desert cities of Sistan. They did OK internally, until the Mongols showed up and wrecked the Kamal Khan dam.

  2. Alrenous says:

    Rivers can plausibly turn literally red from silt, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/9528500/Red-China-a-section-of-the-Yangtze-River-turns-red-in-Chongqing-China.html apparently.

    So you’re telling me a country closer to Athens and sophism had a breakdown of social order, while a thede from further away didn’t. I conclude that while democracy is always caused by sophism, sophism doesn’t always cause democracy.

  3. Mister Grumpus says:

    This is fascinating. And because of this, I would especially appreciate a few footnotes.

  4. Dan Kurt says:

    On a similar note readers might want to read about the Great Catastropyhy of the Ancient Western World:

    http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4095
    http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4106

    Dan Kurt

    • jim says:

      Bertonneau attributes the disaster primarily to outsiders. Homer’s depiction of Ithaca, and Ipuwer’s depiction of Egypt, attributes the disaster primarily to insiders.

      I conjecture social decay led to the insecurity of property rights reported by Ipuwer. The suitors of Telemachus resemble Ipuwer’s Egyptians helping themselves to the Pharaoh’s store house. Insecurity of property rights led to the failure to farm reported by Ipuwer. Starving people then headed away from their own collapsed societies that they had looted to places that had not as yet collapsed where there was still something to loot, so that in the final stages of the collapse, one area’s insiders became another area’s outsiders.

  5. tgmoderator says:

    I remembered reading about read headed mummies so I did a bit of google. https://sites.google.com/site/naomiastral/ancient-kemet/the-science-of-ancient-egyptian-hair

    Apparently some do not believe the obvious explanation that ancient egypt held caucasians. If modern science were not suffering from political correctness we would have answers to much of this by now. Study genetic similarity between neandertals, ancient egyptians, caananites, persians, and sub saharan africans. I would expect the data to be definitive.

  6. anon says:

    It’s not Hyskos, it’s Hyksos, you ignorant dolt.

  7. Alec says:

    It seems likely that the angel of death spared the Hebrews not (just) because they did not murder their own children, but because their rituals of diet and cleanliness were very hygienic (especially in comparison to the other inhabitants of Egypt).

    • jim says:

      The white race came into existence about ten thousand years ago. The modern white race emerged after someone suspiciously similar to Aryans conquered large areas at the start of the bronze age. So if you go back far enough, everyone is non white.

      There are two conflicting strands of PC. The PC want to deny the role of genocidal conquest in human history, and the PC want to believe that ancient Egyptians who built the pyramids were black – which would require a recent genocidal conquest since modern Egyptians are sort of Arab.

      Chances are that both contradictory PCs are wrong, and Egypt was subject to genocidal conquest at the start of the neolithic and the start of the bronze age, but not since the start of the bronze age.

      Since they have been importing black slaves and black illegal immigrants ever since, we may suppose the early bronze age conquerors to be fairly white.

      However, the official story, for which there is supposedly a weight of evidence, is no genocidal conquest (ever), hence always brownish.

    • jim says:

      Whites and east asians evolved from blacks, as humans evolved from chimps. The white race is only ten thousand years old, the east asian race only a little older.

      • B says:

        What color were Neandertals?

        • red says:

          They were white with red hair. Doesn’t mean they were white in the senss we think of it. The pre Japanese primitive tribes of the northern japan look very white but are not genetically related to the people we call white.

          • B says:

            I suspect that there is more to the story here than “whites evolved from blacks 10KYA.” Carleton Coon probably had it more right.

          • Red says:

            As I understand it the mutation that caused white skin in neanderthals is different than the one found in humans. Of course this could be a lie to protect the negro centric outlook, but I don’t have any evidence for it.

          • B says:

            I doubt it. I believe the Eurasian variants of microcephalin, FOX2P, TAS2R38 come from Neanderthal admixture.

    • VXXC says:

      Jim I was joking.

      If it’s true…well..I don’t mind.

      • jim says:

        Many a truth was told in jest.

        I knew you were joking, which is why I needed to tell you you spoke truth.

        Whites and east asians evolved from blacks, as blacks evolved from chimps.

  8. VXXC says:

    And who were these socialists who wandered in having looted other societies?

    Hmm? Speaking of Dreams to Pharaoh, who then hoarded grain. During Famine he did feed the free peasants, who weren’t free anymore in exchange.

    Sometimes God favors free enterprise, and there’s winners.
    Sometimes God Favors Statism [including the mass murdering kind] and there’s winners. Mind you the Germans turned the tables on that one.

    Sometimes God favors Central Banking.
    Sometimes God Favors repealing Glass Steagall.
    Sometimes God favors bank bailouts.

    God seems strangely attached, obsessed it seems with pornography.
    I guess it’s his dirty little secret?

    God also seems to find organized crime quite useful.

    God seems to bless – for a time – those who make category errors of confusing primates for bovines, until faces get torn off with primates teeth.

    I can only hope that someday Protestants in America, the country I love, learn to really read the Old Testament instead of merely recite it. It’s indeed history. And what History it is. You’ll never do anything but laugh at accusations of racism again.

    Oh they’re not the problem. But their one Hell of an opportunistic infection.

    Run like Hell. I know most are innocent. It’s never mattered before and won’t this time either. In good will, RUN.

    • B says:

      Where will YOU run to?

    • Zerg says:

      I wonder why such an extraordinarily high percentage of you Jew-haters are pedophiles.

      • B says:

        I doubt they are pedos, but do find it funny how they always imagine themselves as wielding the pitchforks and torches, or maybe making inspiring speeches to the wielders, as opposed to being on the wrong end of those pitchforks. If your whole theory is that due to being pure and good you are marginalized by the manipulative forces of evil, why would you (sucking at manipulation by definition) come out ok out of a King Mob scenario?

        • VXXC says:

          Dearie. I was busting Jim’s balls. Not yours.

          Your fate is in God’s hands. Well and some angry men. I have other matters to attend to, however from time to time Jim needs a dose of his own stick he likes to swing. I for instance have some black friends, Jim likes to blame them for everything, I like to swing back. Jewish friends as well. I have defended them, their rights, against false calumny, Israels right to exist [verbally] and so on. But Jim needs his own stick from time to time.

          Your problem is everything I put up there is true. There’s extraordinary over-representation in Evil and Predation. And your fatal and recursive error is in not cleaning your own house. A tiny number are going to drag you all into the shit again.

          As to pedophilia – what’s the representation there? Byran Singer for instance brings drugged up teenage minor boys to business meetings. All that’s missing is a leash. Woody Allen is still getting away with it. What business is that again?

          No one else could get away with that.

          When the money implodes, calling people pedophiles won’t work either.

          Good luck to the innocent.

          • B says:

            There’s extraordinary over-representation of Jews in everything, good and evil. Nobody cares about incest and pedophilia in the projects, trailer parks and quiet suburbs. When it happens, it’s an item in the local paper. When a Hollywood director does it, it’s big news.

          • jim says:

            Supposing God is managing the fate of the Jews, which I of course do not believe, but B and you do, on past performance, supposing God is pulling the strings, they are going to have a hard time.

            Either way, whether God is pulling the strings or not, they are going to have to reconquer Gaza and annex it, and then adopt an ideology that allows them to annex it and not give Gazans a vote. Meanwhile, the “international community” aka the State Department is moving to a one state solution. Annex and give them the vote.

          • B says:

            Having a hard time is one of the quintessences of life. When you stop having a hard time, you are either dead or about to be dead.

            On a bigger scale, the Middle East is suffering from a lack of native managerial talent. They will need someone to fill this vacuum. The traditional management-exporting states have suffered from a collapse of will and birthrates. So, it’s got to be us. I mean, there’s market pull-these guys can’t keep starving and cutting each others’ heads off forever.

            According to Zechariah, thus says the LORD of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold, out of every language of the nations, even shall take hold of the tzitzit of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you

            Now, we have four tzitzit (fringes.) Each has 8 strings. So, with a literal interpretation of this prophecy, at 12 million Jews, half male, we’d be looking at managing 192 million non-Jews, meaning most of the Middle East.

            • jim says:

              Comparing today’s Jews with the British during the early days of empire.

              The British had a benevolent attitude towards their subjects, such that their subjects found it plausible that British supplied order would benefit them, that allying with Britons was a good idea, and at the same time a cheerful willingness to loot, burn and indiscriminately slaughter. Today’s Jews are deficient in both regards.

              Much as MRAs have to think really really badly of women in order to avoid self destructively pedestalizing them, Jews have to really hate Arabs to nerve themselves to engage in ridiculously minimal and urgently necessary defensive violence. Israelis tend to screw over their Arab allies, for example the Southern Lebanese Christians, horribly badly, while going to ridiculous lengths to avoid harming their enemies.

              Or to say the same thing in different words, you are relying on God to do the heavy lifting.

          • B says:

            >Comparing today’s Jews with the British during the early days of empire.

            There is a difference. For instance, in this week’s Torah portion, we get some of the laws of warfare. With places that are far away, a surrender is acceptable and means that the population accepts a subservient status. With the tribes in the Land, there is no such option; those who don’t run away need to be wiped out. I’m not saying that these laws apply to the Arabs of Israel, just saying that there is a big difference between the Brits building their empire and us with our country.

            >Israelis tend to screw over their Arab allies, for example the Southern Lebanese Christians, horribly badly, while going to ridiculous lengths to avoid harming their enemies.

            This is, indeed, shameful.

            >Or to say the same thing in different words, you are relying on God to do the heavy lifting.

            Correct. But I’m seeing attitudes changing in the right direction. For instance, Gideon Levy, a leftwing journalist writing for Israel’s equivalent of the NYT, now needs bodyguards in the streets of Tel Aviv, Israel’s most left-wing city. Leftwing protesters in Tel Aviv were getting beat up during the war. Nobody believes the Cathedral line, and very few pretend to believe it, and none of my secular, left-wing high-tech associates even pretend to be offended when I say we need to bulldoze Gaza and run the population off. Some agree explicitly. And once a critical mass is achieved, the politics will change.

      • VXXC says:

        I’m staying here. Better or worse.

        Listen I don’t hate you. Certainly not racially, I don’t really believe in race.

        I’ve learned that others, pretty much most do and act accordingly.

        And that’s a list of indictments. It’s done.

        It’s different when it happened.

        When you get asked why directly, answer because we were available.

      • VXXC says:

        Is this Bryan Singer or Woody Allen asking about pedophiles?

        Not much of an answer. Stupid insults. There being no answer.

        Well the answer is we weren’t watching and so deserve what we got, yes?

        Don’t suppose you got the missing $100T USD, do you? That would smooth a lot of feathers.

        We’ll do what we can for the innocent, but for the guilty..pfffft.

        • B says:

          >We’ll do what we can for the innocent,

          What is this “we”? Keep your favors.

          Was “not watching” how you got control of the Western Hemisphere at first, and then the entire Pacific and half of Europe? Just kind of, you know, fell into your hands, eh, Brother Jonathan?

          How much is 70 years of nuclear hegemony worth to you? How much money were you able to make because of the work of the Jews on your nuclear arsenal and nuclear fleet? What’s the commercial worth of the lifetime output of a Richard Feynman, or a Hyman Rickover? Or, for that matter, a Victor Krulak?

          • Steve Johnson says:

            “How much is 70 years of nuclear hegemony worth to you?”

            Funny you should ask:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg

            “How much money were you able to make because of the work of the Jews on your nuclear arsenal and nuclear fleet?”

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard

            Should probably stick with Jews in medicine when pulling out positive examples.

          • B says:

            If not for Einstein, the Rosenbergs would not have had anything to steal (and if not for massive support from WASPs during the 30s, Stalin wouldn’t have had an empire to have them steal for.)

            If not for Rickover, Friedman and co., Pollard would not have had anything to steal (and I have yet to see any indication that his theft caused any damage to US interests.)

            But, yes, we can also bill you guys for the difference in productivity you gained via the elimination of polio.

  9. VXXC says:

    Oh the history of Egyptian Central Economic Planning is actually acknowledged.

    http://valuesandcapitalism.com/joseph-and-the-famine-does-god-favor-economic-centralization/

    • B says:

      Yes, well, it’s verbatim in the Bible. On the other hand, the difference between our legal code and that of others is that ours is built to acknowledge a reality which changes. Egypt, like Mesopotamia, had (has) a hydraulic economy, depending completely on the Nile’s flood cycle and on central planning of massive irrigation projects requiring the mobilization of large human resources and their efficient use in accordance with long-term projections. Other places are different:

      10 For the land, whither thou goest in to possess it, is not as the land of Egypt from whence ye came out, where thou sowed thy seed and watered it with thy foot, as a garden of herbs.
      11 But the land, whither ye go to possess it, is a land of hills and valleys, and drinketh water of the rain of heaven,
      12 a land which the Lord thy God careth for. The eyes of the Lord thy God are always upon it, from the beginning of the year even unto the end of the year.

      In a case like this, central planning is bad (unless you have something like today’s situation with desalination in Israel.) A legal system which demands central planning where it’s not workable is as bad as one which rejects it where it’s necessary.

      • jim says:

        A legal system which demands central planning where it’s not workable is as bad as one which rejects it where it’s necessary.

        Pol Pot had a plausible economic argument that central planning was necessary. Most food in Cambodia is grown on the flood plain, and the ditching and diking of peasants upstream affects peasants downstream.

        Central planning is hard. Pharaoh always fucks up even if he has a perfectly good economic argument that central planning is necessary.

        • B says:

          Central planning is hard, but civilization in general is hard. You need massive, centrally planned infrastructure to enable private enterprise. You can’t just let people build highways and power plants when they personally need to drive somewhere and turn on the lights. From the history of Egypt, we see that there is never a period without central planning of some (high) level, and that Pol Pot moments are few and far between. Ditto the Mesopotamian states and the Sistan cultures. You can’t live in those places in any serious population density without massive engineering and corvee labor to build and maintain massive irrigation projects, with planning of years in advance.

          If reality contradicts a dogma, so much the worse for the dogma.

          • J says:

            “central planning is bad (unless you have something like today’s situation with desalination in Israel.)”

            It is bad in Israel’s water supply system too. Mekorot is a monopoly and desalting is bleeding us white. We in Israel pay more for water than everywhere except Germany (they have crazy environmental laws).

          • B says:

            The larger point is that the only way you’ll get a national desalination infrastructure is either through central planning by a government or by a corporation with a bureaucracy and decision-making apparatus larger than that of Pharaonic Egypt. I suspect that a corporation acting on a national scale rapidly becomes indistinguishable from an arm of the state, and a state which contracts with corporations to undertake national projects eventually becomes indistinguishable from them. See: Northrop-Grumman or KBR in the US.

  10. Kamran Maharramov says:

    You people are fucking crazy.

    The aryans didn’t come from europe.

    They came from the volga-urals region in russia.

    They fucking conquered europe, south asia, and central asia.
    Europeans, indians, central asians, and indo-european-speaking west asians, don’t have all that much “aryan” blood. The populations most similar to aryans today are the moksha of the volga-urals region.

    The reason europeans became so white, is because of genetic drift most probably. Ancient european hunter-gatherers like La-Brana from spain were brown skinned. He died 7000 years ago.

    Please learn some science guys, your scribble will teach you nothing.

    Follow this forum: http://eurogenes.blogspot.ae/

    It will teach you about the genetic changes in west eurasia from the early bronze age till now. Reading scribbles will not.

    • jim says:

      You people are fucking crazy.

      The aryans didn’t come from europe.

      Who said that they did?

      • Konkvistador says:

        He understood white as necessarily implying European since obviously no one outside of Europe ever evolved fair skin. Also obviously ancient Aryan people’s couldn’t have been fair skinned despite being depicted as such in Egyptian sources because Aryan is a racist word and real Aryans must either have not existed or been brown master race.

        Yes that stupid.

        • Kamran Maharramov says:

          No dumbass,

          Read this blog: http://eurogenes.blogspot.ae/

          Learn about genetics, SNPs, and whole genome sequencing of ancient remains.

          The indo-europeans expanded from far eastern europe, the middle volga about 4,000 years ago, this understanding is widespread now among genome bloggers. It’s the truth, whether you like it or not.

          Were these people white?

          That depends how you define white, it’s a pretty loose word, just like brown is.

          Let’s put it this way: Europeans are a mixture of 3 components, western hunter gatherer (a DNA sequence from an ancient spanish HG from La-Brana), ancestral north eurasian (A DNA sequence from a 24,000 year old boy from south siberia), and early european farmer, who came from the middle east.

          You can believe scribbles and paintings on a wall, or you can believe modern DNA research.

          Were the aryans white? Yes, DNA sequencing tells us that most of them had blonde hair and light-colored eyes.

          Are they similar to modenr europeans? Not that much, except eastern europeans.

          • Kamran Maharramov says:

            The aryans spread from the volga both west into europe, and east and south into central asia, iran, and india. They mixed with a lot of different people on their way in both directions.

            But they never reached Egypt. Egytpian was an afro-asiatic language and there never was an indo-european language spoken there. Care to show me some evidence?

            Also, why do you have this platonic idea of race? You do know that “white” people are mixtures of different peoples who migrated into europe, from the oldest hunter gathers to the middle eastern farmers, to the indo-european invaders?

            Consider this: Ancient european hunter gathers like the La-Brana man were brown-skinned, AND YET they were more european than any european alive right now. They were more european genetically than any “white” european.

            • jim says:

              But they never reached Egypt. Egytpian was an afro-asiatic language

              That merely shows that they did not completely genocide and replace the previous population of Egypt the way they did much of the world. On the edges of the area conquered and genocided by aryans, you find vast areas merely conquered temporarily by them. Since Egypt is not very far from lands that suffered total population replacement, Egypt had to have suffered some substantial Aryan incursions.

              Also, why do you have this platonic idea of race?

              You are still talking to the demons in your head. Almost everyone who uses the word “Aryan” uses Darwin’s idea of race.

  11. VXXC says:

    To be honest if I’m irritated about anything J word, it’s that the actions of a few – quite known and unchecked – have placed my innocent J friends in peril.

    From people like me who are slightly less granular and discriminating about guilty vs innocence. I can make the argument not to waste resources on the innocent and solve the problem, but to be honest …skepticism.

    Don’t worry, I’m sure that answering every valid point with “you’re a pedophile” will work. Sure.

  12. Sam says:

    The real tragedy of the Exodus is all that heavy gold and silver the Jews had to carry. The Egyptians probably made the Jews carry all this heavy stuff because they were slaves.

    “…Now the sons of Israel had done according to the word of Moses, for they had requested from the Egyptians articles of silver and articles of gold, and clothing; 36and the LORD had given the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they let them have their request. Thus they plundered the Egyptians…”

  13. phillip_k.slick says:

    I don’t know. I’m thinking the vast majority of Egyptians were the same as the vast majority of modern Egyptians were. I think there were minorities, probably from the beginning. These minorities (some lighter some darker) were probably just thought of as Egyptian rather than being though of as an other. It makes sense that sometimes (though probably not often) some of theses minorities even made it to the highest levels of Egyptian society. I don’t see why we can’t use the art to judge the person’s true features when they look black African but we can when the features are clearly non-black African.If we judge from the features of the art, not just this but also other depiction of Amanhotep III and then Amanhotep IV they clearly of black African features. I can’t really see how that’s a problem. This isn’t taking anything away from what the ancestors of modern Egyptians achieved, it just means they may not have treated people like shit for looking different from the majority.

    Also, not I’m not an Afrocentrist or Negrocentrist (as you put it) trying to take someone elses culture. I prefer to learn of my own, Nubians, Ethiopians, West Africa, East and South, but learning of Nubia you can’t help but learn something of Egypt which I have little interest in, but the Nubians sure had interest in.

Leave a Reply