Fury in Israel Over Obama's Mossad 'Lies'

[irosie91]

Why because they told you so at the Nation of Issssslam?

I'm not part of the NOI. I know thats your fallback to make yourself feel less stressed. Whenever you start claiming the NOI told me something I know you are having problems with accepting the truth. Its your tell.

I have mentioned many times------I read a lot during my lifetime------I read the crap you parrot way back in the mid sixties to midseventies. You are parroting lots of nonsense way back in those days the study of SOCIOLOGY concentrated on such issues as "why is the cheap hamburger chain named 'white tower' " ? "or who
is it that prefers their cadillacs to be white"??? I already
read your stuff-------and was bored with it by 1975. It is very
contrived and silly

You have never read what I am saying because I dont parrot anyone. Sounds like to me you have issues with accepting true statements and your attempts to rationalize them as nonsense or boring is merely a manifestation of you willful ignorance. If you view had an ounce of validity you would be able to simply debate the points. Remember how you tried to say india never considered Black as beautiful? You were proven wrong and retreated.

try not to be so gross and filthy a liar--------show me that quotation INDIANS NEVER CONSIDERED BLACK BEAUTIFUL from me--------and contrast it with some source
that asserts INDIANS CONSIDER BLACK BEAUTIFUL-----
what are you calling "black"? ONYX??? Leopard?
or BLACK SKIN??? right----Indians never considered
black skin to be preferred over fair skin ----in general I will
NOW state that is a true statement. I am saying it for the first time I am referring to HINDU INDIANS----of the
INDIAN SUBCONTINENT ------of the culture that developed
in the INDUS valley and became literate with invasion by
an Aryan people from northern Europe

Sesame oil does not make skin black Indians of very traditional background I have known used coconut oil----
and for some religious rituals----a paste made of turmeric which stains everything yellow------and contains
strong antioxidants-----also has some fungicide properties

stop reading Jeffries-----he is nuts

This is the second time I posted your claim.

propaganda. Nope----in india black was never beautiful-----

Obviously you call Marco Polo a white guy a liar because as I posted earlier....

"Dark skin is highly esteemed among these people. ‘When a child is born they anoint him once a week with oil of sesame, and this makes him grow much darker" (replaced since by ‘Fair & Lovely’ creams!). No wonder their gods are all black ‘and their devils white as snow. - See more at: 3quarksdaily Marco Polo s India Why is he a liar but a white guy that says white skin was always preferred is telling the truth?

sesame oil does not make the skin dark-----sounds like marco was describing a small city populated by Dravidians-----
who do put oil on their skin. I have encountered dravidians
in the USA-----small, dark in skin color, and considered
caucaision by anthropologists. Usually coconut oil.
you have presented exceptions to the rule to PROVE your point------nice sophistry. If you ever run into a Dravidian----
you will not be seeing a sub-Saharan -----by a long shot----the skin color is ---to me at least----STARTLING-----it is a kind of blue-black. I have even worse news for you----they seem to delight in their straight hair---------it is more straight even
than the average Indian. They use oil on the hair too

 

[irosie91]

try not to be so gross and filthy a liar--------show me that quotation INDIANS NEVER CONSIDERED BLACK BEAUTIFUL from me--------and contrast it with some source
that asserts INDIANS CONSIDER BLACK BEAUTIFUL-----
what are you calling "black"? ONYX??? Leopard?
or BLACK SKIN??? right----Indians never considered
black skin to be preferred over fair skin ----in general I will
NOW state that is a true statement. I am saying it for the first time I am referring to HINDU INDIANS----of the
INDIAN SUBCONTINENT ------of the culture that developed
in the INDUS valley and became literate with invasion by
an Aryan people from northern Europe

Sesame oil does not make skin black Indians of very traditional background I have known used coconut oil----
and for some religious rituals----a paste made of turmeric which stains everything yellow------and contains
strong antioxidants-----also has some fungicide properties

stop reading Jeffries-----he is nuts

This is the second time I posted your claim.

propaganda. Nope----in india black was never beautiful-----

Obviously you call Marco Polo a white guy a liar because as I posted earlier....

"Dark skin is highly esteemed among these people. ‘When a child is born they anoint him once a week with oil of sesame, and this makes him grow much darker" (replaced since by ‘Fair & Lovely’ creams!). No wonder their gods are all black ‘and their devils white as snow. - See more at: 3quarksdaily Marco Polo s India Why is he a liar but a white guy that says white skin was always preferred is telling the truth?

I do not get white skin was always preferred from some white guy-------I get it from Indians-----and their own literature which is more than 5000 years old. Indians have "devils"------can you name the "devil"???? The really scary god for Indians is SIVA-----god of death and destruction-----
he is depicted as black. I do not know the writings of marco polo. I do know that by the time he traveled to India-----
black skin was the low caste thing------the dravidians. BRAHMINS are always described as taller and more light skinned than dravidians and smarter and -----damned "holy"

You must have read something supplied by white people. Here are the Black gods worshipped by ancient Indians. Lets see your link.

http://www.dattapeetham.com/india/tours/2002/nasik/kalaram_mandir.jpg

SUZAR Blacked Out Through Whitewash by SuZar Chapter 1 Pages 5-6

those are depictions of DRAVIDIANS-----an ancient people of the indus valley-----very dark in complexion-----and considered of low caste. -----btw----anthropologists consider them to be CAUCASION in race-----based on some issues like their heads----or something like that ------they have very straight hair-----black and shiny-----tiny little people-----really cute

Dravidians are the original Indians that migrated from Africa. What makes you think they are not Indian and Black? I didnt ask what anthropologists consider them. We already know that they were racist in their making up of the name caucasian in the first place. The term caucasian applies to the whitest of white men from the southern steppes of the caucus mountains as defined by the originator of the word. This delfightful racist named Meiner. Since then the term caucasian has been changed to include Black people so whites could claim credit to ancient civilizations. We all know thats a bunch of BS but its fascinating watching them squirm and change definitions around.

It looks as if not worrying about white authors and concentrating on Black authors has actually gave me more information than you possess. Luckily I dont buy that stuff which comes from reading Black authors and white authors that tell the truth. BTW who told you that straight hair means you are not Black?

who said I got my stuff about India from white authors-----I got it from Indians the current viewpoint of the origin of man is that MAN originated in AFRICA--------that fact does not
make dravdians of india any more a people something like sub-Saharan blacks than it makes ESKIMOS something like sub-Saharan blacks--------gee you are dim. Dravidians are as SUBSAHARAN BLACK as are Swedes

 

[Asclepias]

I'm not part of the NOI. I know thats your fallback to make yourself feel less stressed. Whenever you start claiming the NOI told me something I know you are having problems with accepting the truth. Its your tell.

I have mentioned many times------I read a lot during my lifetime------I read the crap you parrot way back in the mid sixties to midseventies. You are parroting lots of nonsense way back in those days the study of SOCIOLOGY concentrated on such issues as "why is the cheap hamburger chain named 'white tower' " ? "or who
is it that prefers their cadillacs to be white"??? I already
read your stuff-------and was bored with it by 1975. It is very
contrived and silly

You have never read what I am saying because I dont parrot anyone. Sounds like to me you have issues with accepting true statements and your attempts to rationalize them as nonsense or boring is merely a manifestation of you willful ignorance. If you view had an ounce of validity you would be able to simply debate the points. Remember how you tried to say india never considered Black as beautiful? You were proven wrong and retreated.

try not to be so gross and filthy a liar--------show me that quotation INDIANS NEVER CONSIDERED BLACK BEAUTIFUL from me--------and contrast it with some source
that asserts INDIANS CONSIDER BLACK BEAUTIFUL-----
what are you calling "black"? ONYX??? Leopard?
or BLACK SKIN??? right----Indians never considered
black skin to be preferred over fair skin ----in general I will
NOW state that is a true statement. I am saying it for the first time I am referring to HINDU INDIANS----of the
INDIAN SUBCONTINENT ------of the culture that developed
in the INDUS valley and became literate with invasion by
an Aryan people from northern Europe

Sesame oil does not make skin black Indians of very traditional background I have known used coconut oil----
and for some religious rituals----a paste made of turmeric which stains everything yellow------and contains
strong antioxidants-----also has some fungicide properties

stop reading Jeffries-----he is nuts

This is the second time I posted your claim.

propaganda. Nope----in india black was never beautiful-----

Obviously you call Marco Polo a white guy a liar because as I posted earlier....

"Dark skin is highly esteemed among these people. ‘When a child is born they anoint him once a week with oil of sesame, and this makes him grow much darker" (replaced since by ‘Fair & Lovely’ creams!). No wonder their gods are all black ‘and their devils white as snow. - See more at: 3quarksdaily Marco Polo s India Why is he a liar but a white guy that says white skin was always preferred is telling the truth?

sesame oil does not make the skin dark-----sounds like marco was describing a small city populated by Dravidians-----
who do put oil on their skin. I have encountered dravidians
in the USA-----small, dark in skin color, and considered
caucaision by anthropologists. Usually coconut oil.
you have presented exceptions to the rule to PROVE your point------nice sophistry. If you ever run into a Dravidian----
you will not be seeing a sub-Saharan -----by a long shot----the skin color is ---to me at least----STARTLING-----it is a kind of blue-black. I have even worse news for you----they seem to delight in their straight hair---------it is more straight even
than the average Indian. They use oil on the hair too

You are trying too hard Rosie. There is a reason the greeks considered India to be "East Ethiopia".Ethiopia literally means burnt skin or something akin to that. The believed the people to be the same as the Blackest people on the planet . These people worshipped Black gods and came from Africa long before admixed Brahmans got there. I know Dravidian as well. I actually dated one. White people have screwed up the perception but they know. They even have organizations they have modeled after Black organizations here in the US. They know they are Black.

 

[irosie91]

btw------the only people in today's world who consider skin color a marker for determining a human "kinship" are idiots and black nationalists and nazis----
of all possible criteria-------skin color is the least useful

 

[Asclepias]

This is the second time I posted your claim.

Obviously you call Marco Polo a white guy a liar because as I posted earlier....

"Dark skin is highly esteemed among these people. ‘When a child is born they anoint him once a week with oil of sesame, and this makes him grow much darker" (replaced since by ‘Fair & Lovely’ creams!). No wonder their gods are all black ‘and their devils white as snow. - See more at: 3quarksdaily Marco Polo s India Why is he a liar but a white guy that says white skin was always preferred is telling the truth?

I do not get white skin was always preferred from some white guy-------I get it from Indians-----and their own literature which is more than 5000 years old. Indians have "devils"------can you name the "devil"???? The really scary god for Indians is SIVA-----god of death and destruction-----
he is depicted as black. I do not know the writings of marco polo. I do know that by the time he traveled to India-----
black skin was the low caste thing------the dravidians. BRAHMINS are always described as taller and more light skinned than dravidians and smarter and -----damned "holy"

You must have read something supplied by white people. Here are the Black gods worshipped by ancient Indians. Lets see your link.

http://www.dattapeetham.com/india/tours/2002/nasik/kalaram_mandir.jpg

SUZAR Blacked Out Through Whitewash by SuZar Chapter 1 Pages 5-6

those are depictions of DRAVIDIANS-----an ancient people of the indus valley-----very dark in complexion-----and considered of low caste. -----btw----anthropologists consider them to be CAUCASION in race-----based on some issues like their heads----or something like that ------they have very straight hair-----black and shiny-----tiny little people-----really cute

Dravidians are the original Indians that migrated from Africa. What makes you think they are not Indian and Black? I didnt ask what anthropologists consider them. We already know that they were racist in their making up of the name caucasian in the first place. The term caucasian applies to the whitest of white men from the southern steppes of the caucus mountains as defined by the originator of the word. This delfightful racist named Meiner. Since then the term caucasian has been changed to include Black people so whites could claim credit to ancient civilizations. We all know thats a bunch of BS but its fascinating watching them squirm and change definitions around.

It looks as if not worrying about white authors and concentrating on Black authors has actually gave me more information than you possess. Luckily I dont buy that stuff which comes from reading Black authors and white authors that tell the truth. BTW who told you that straight hair means you are not Black?

who said I got my stuff about India from white authors-----I got it from Indians the current viewpoint of the origin of man is that MAN originated in AFRICA--------that fact does not
make dravdians of india any more a people something like sub-Saharan blacks than it makes ESKIMOS something like sub-Saharan blacks--------gee you are dim. Dravidians are as SUBSAHARAN BLACK as are Swedes

I said you got your stuff from white authors. Only white people and Indians that want to be white repeat the stuff you posted. I noticed you came with the white term "Subsaharan" Black like white people often do. What does that even mean? Was there a wall erected to keep Black people out of Northern Africa or something? You do realize that Africa, all parts of Africa was inhabited by Black people long before the Sahara turned into a desert dont you? "SubSahara" is simply a way white people try to separate the continent. Unfortunately for those same white people, that makes absolutely zero sense. Sorry but I dont fall for that nonsense.

 

[irosie91]

I have mentioned many times------I read a lot during my lifetime------I read the crap you parrot way back in the mid sixties to midseventies. You are parroting lots of nonsense way back in those days the study of SOCIOLOGY concentrated on such issues as "why is the cheap hamburger chain named 'white tower' " ? "or who
is it that prefers their cadillacs to be white"??? I already
read your stuff-------and was bored with it by 1975. It is very
contrived and silly

You have never read what I am saying because I dont parrot anyone. Sounds like to me you have issues with accepting true statements and your attempts to rationalize them as nonsense or boring is merely a manifestation of you willful ignorance. If you view had an ounce of validity you would be able to simply debate the points. Remember how you tried to say india never considered Black as beautiful? You were proven wrong and retreated.

try not to be so gross and filthy a liar--------show me that quotation INDIANS NEVER CONSIDERED BLACK BEAUTIFUL from me--------and contrast it with some source
that asserts INDIANS CONSIDER BLACK BEAUTIFUL-----
what are you calling "black"? ONYX??? Leopard?
or BLACK SKIN??? right----Indians never considered
black skin to be preferred over fair skin ----in general I will
NOW state that is a true statement. I am saying it for the first time I am referring to HINDU INDIANS----of the
INDIAN SUBCONTINENT ------of the culture that developed
in the INDUS valley and became literate with invasion by
an Aryan people from northern Europe

Sesame oil does not make skin black Indians of very traditional background I have known used coconut oil----
and for some religious rituals----a paste made of turmeric which stains everything yellow------and contains
strong antioxidants-----also has some fungicide properties

stop reading Jeffries-----he is nuts

This is the second time I posted your claim.

propaganda. Nope----in india black was never beautiful-----

Obviously you call Marco Polo a white guy a liar because as I posted earlier....

"Dark skin is highly esteemed among these people. ‘When a child is born they anoint him once a week with oil of sesame, and this makes him grow much darker" (replaced since by ‘Fair & Lovely’ creams!). No wonder their gods are all black ‘and their devils white as snow. - See more at: 3quarksdaily Marco Polo s India Why is he a liar but a white guy that says white skin was always preferred is telling the truth?

sesame oil does not make the skin dark-----sounds like marco was describing a small city populated by Dravidians-----
who do put oil on their skin. I have encountered dravidians
in the USA-----small, dark in skin color, and considered
caucaision by anthropologists. Usually coconut oil.
you have presented exceptions to the rule to PROVE your point------nice sophistry. If you ever run into a Dravidian----
you will not be seeing a sub-Saharan -----by a long shot----the skin color is ---to me at least----STARTLING-----it is a kind of blue-black. I have even worse news for you----they seem to delight in their straight hair---------it is more straight even
than the average Indian. They use oil on the hair too

You are trying too hard Rosie. There is a reason the greeks considered India to be "East Ethiopia".Ethiopia literally means burnt skin or something akin to that. The believed the people to be the same as the Blackest people on the planet . These people worshipped Black gods and came from Africa long before admixed Brahmans got there. I know Dravidian as well. I actually dated one. White people have screwed up the perception but they know. They even have organizations they have modeled after Black organizations here in the US. They know they are Black.

how do you define "black" ??? "race" refers to a group rendered distinct by genetic isolation. Since according to current knowledge in my major----biology-----HUMANS developed in Africa------to say any people migrated out of
AFRICA is an entirely moot point-----ALL PEOPLE migrated out of Africa-----remotely------including swedes I do not do
politics of stupidity. Todays dravidians are in no way a KINSHIP with what is called "BLACK" by blacks themselves-------of the "ROOTS" mythology and the
religion that includes KWAANZAA. DRAVIDIANS are people who have very dark skin-----tend to be small-----and
if you are a black person of the ROOTS variety or the SOMALIAN variety ------have no more in common with you than did Erik the red. The fact that skin color is used as
a kind of marker by the most idiotic-------is the only commonality. Eskimos have darker skin than do I

 

[Asclepias]

btw------the only people in today's world who consider skin color a marker for determining a human "kinship" are idiots and black nationalists and nazis----
of all possible criteria-------skin color is the least useful

If that was the only criteria you would be correct. However, it is proven there are linguistic similarities along with cultural similarities. The big kicker is DNA. The hapolgroup M1 is shown to have originated in central Africa. Sorry but thats why I dont hold white authors as truth tellers. They like to omit these inconvenient facts. It reeks havoc on their white supremacy theory.

 

[irosie91]

I do not get white skin was always preferred from some white guy-------I get it from Indians-----and their own literature which is more than 5000 years old. Indians have "devils"------can you name the "devil"???? The really scary god for Indians is SIVA-----god of death and destruction-----
he is depicted as black. I do not know the writings of marco polo. I do know that by the time he traveled to India-----
black skin was the low caste thing------the dravidians. BRAHMINS are always described as taller and more light skinned than dravidians and smarter and -----damned "holy"

You must have read something supplied by white people. Here are the Black gods worshipped by ancient Indians. Lets see your link.

http://www.dattapeetham.com/india/tours/2002/nasik/kalaram_mandir.jpg

SUZAR Blacked Out Through Whitewash by SuZar Chapter 1 Pages 5-6

those are depictions of DRAVIDIANS-----an ancient people of the indus valley-----very dark in complexion-----and considered of low caste. -----btw----anthropologists consider them to be CAUCASION in race-----based on some issues like their heads----or something like that ------they have very straight hair-----black and shiny-----tiny little people-----really cute

Dravidians are the original Indians that migrated from Africa. What makes you think they are not Indian and Black? I didnt ask what anthropologists consider them. We already know that they were racist in their making up of the name caucasian in the first place. The term caucasian applies to the whitest of white men from the southern steppes of the caucus mountains as defined by the originator of the word. This delfightful racist named Meiner. Since then the term caucasian has been changed to include Black people so whites could claim credit to ancient civilizations. We all know thats a bunch of BS but its fascinating watching them squirm and change definitions around.

It looks as if not worrying about white authors and concentrating on Black authors has actually gave me more information than you possess. Luckily I dont buy that stuff which comes from reading Black authors and white authors that tell the truth. BTW who told you that straight hair means you are not Black?

who said I got my stuff about India from white authors-----I got it from Indians the current viewpoint of the origin of man is that MAN originated in AFRICA--------that fact does not
make dravdians of india any more a people something like sub-Saharan blacks than it makes ESKIMOS something like sub-Saharan blacks--------gee you are dim. Dravidians are as SUBSAHARAN BLACK as are Swedes

I said you got your stuff from white authors. Only white people and Indians that want to be white repeat the stuff you posted. I noticed you came with the white term "Subsaharan" Black like white people often do. What does that even mean? Was there a wall erected to keep Black people out of Northern Africa or something? You do realize that Africa, all parts of Africa was inhabited by Black people long before the Sahara turned into a desert dont you? "SubSahara" is simply a way white people try to separate the continent. Unfortunately for those same white people, that makes absolutely zero sense. Sorry but I dont fall for that nonsense.

that for which you fall is all nonsense. You are a black nationalist as idiotic as is any white supremacist. SOCIETY produces walls. You are one of the elements of society that LOVES YOUR WALL--------you have decided to
convince yourself that those you call "white people"-----the ones who also first came about in Africa-------are obsessed with declaring you something SPECIAL. You have decided that you are even MORE SPECIAL than anyone could possibly have thought --------YOU ARE BLACK ----big deal.---------I find it fascinating--------I learned about BRAHMINS-----from a Brahmin----who actually rejected the idea-------some of his relatives clung to it. You are a form of
the kind of BRAHMIN he rejected--------you are a BLACK BRAHMIN

 

[Asclepias]

You have never read what I am saying because I dont parrot anyone. Sounds like to me you have issues with accepting true statements and your attempts to rationalize them as nonsense or boring is merely a manifestation of you willful ignorance. If you view had an ounce of validity you would be able to simply debate the points. Remember how you tried to say india never considered Black as beautiful? You were proven wrong and retreated.

try not to be so gross and filthy a liar--------show me that quotation INDIANS NEVER CONSIDERED BLACK BEAUTIFUL from me--------and contrast it with some source
that asserts INDIANS CONSIDER BLACK BEAUTIFUL-----
what are you calling "black"? ONYX??? Leopard?
or BLACK SKIN??? right----Indians never considered
black skin to be preferred over fair skin ----in general I will
NOW state that is a true statement. I am saying it for the first time I am referring to HINDU INDIANS----of the
INDIAN SUBCONTINENT ------of the culture that developed
in the INDUS valley and became literate with invasion by
an Aryan people from northern Europe

Sesame oil does not make skin black Indians of very traditional background I have known used coconut oil----
and for some religious rituals----a paste made of turmeric which stains everything yellow------and contains
strong antioxidants-----also has some fungicide properties

stop reading Jeffries-----he is nuts

This is the second time I posted your claim.

propaganda. Nope----in india black was never beautiful-----

Obviously you call Marco Polo a white guy a liar because as I posted earlier....

"Dark skin is highly esteemed among these people. ‘When a child is born they anoint him once a week with oil of sesame, and this makes him grow much darker" (replaced since by ‘Fair & Lovely’ creams!). No wonder their gods are all black ‘and their devils white as snow. - See more at: 3quarksdaily Marco Polo s India Why is he a liar but a white guy that says white skin was always preferred is telling the truth?

sesame oil does not make the skin dark-----sounds like marco was describing a small city populated by Dravidians-----
who do put oil on their skin. I have encountered dravidians
in the USA-----small, dark in skin color, and considered
caucaision by anthropologists. Usually coconut oil.
you have presented exceptions to the rule to PROVE your point------nice sophistry. If you ever run into a Dravidian----
you will not be seeing a sub-Saharan -----by a long shot----the skin color is ---to me at least----STARTLING-----it is a kind of blue-black. I have even worse news for you----they seem to delight in their straight hair---------it is more straight even
than the average Indian. They use oil on the hair too

You are trying too hard Rosie. There is a reason the greeks considered India to be "East Ethiopia".Ethiopia literally means burnt skin or something akin to that. The believed the people to be the same as the Blackest people on the planet . These people worshipped Black gods and came from Africa long before admixed Brahmans got there. I know Dravidian as well. I actually dated one. White people have screwed up the perception but they know. They even have organizations they have modeled after Black organizations here in the US. They know they are Black.

how do you define "black" ??? "race" refers to a group rendered distinct by genetic isolation. Since according to current knowledge in my major----biology-----HUMANS developed in Africa------to say any people migrated out of
AFRICA is an entirely moot point-----ALL PEOPLE migrated out of Africa-----remotely------including swedes I do not do
politics of stupidity. Todays dravidians are in no way a KINSHIP with what is called "BLACK" by blacks themselves-------of the "ROOTS" mythology and the
religion that includes KWAANZAA. DRAVIDIANS are people who have very dark skin-----tend to be small-----and
if you are a black person of the ROOTS variety or the SOMALIAN variety ------have no more in common with you than did Erik the red. The fact that skin color is used as
a kind of marker by the most idiotic-------is the only commonality. Eskimos have darker skin than do I

One thing I dont do is define Black as sub Saharan. I know this is a radical concept to you. It also seems as you have become a hypocrite in your admonishments to me. You seem perfectly content to believe the white superiority theory by white authors but mysteriously you don't lend any credence to Black authors. Of course I am going to believe what my people and science show. Why would I believe white people with nothing but propoganda?

Dravidian's know they are Black and out of Africa. At least the ones I talk to know this. They study African and African American history. Did you know they have a Black Panther party in India? They call it the Dalit Panthers.

 

[irosie91]

btw------the only people in today's world who consider skin color a marker for determining a human "kinship" are idiots and black nationalists and nazis----
of all possible criteria-------skin color is the least useful

If that was the only criteria you would be correct. However, it is proven there are linguistic similarities along with cultural similarities. The big kicker is DNA. The hapolgroup M1 is shown to have originated in central Africa. Sorry but thats why I dont hold white authors as truth tellers. They like to omit these inconvenient facts. It reeks havoc on their white supremacy theory.

one haplogroup does not a kinship make------every gene has a natural mutation rate -------in order to cite DNA -----you need a lot more information than "I GOT A SINGLE COMMON HAPLOTYPE"

 

[Asclepias]

You must have read something supplied by white people. Here are the Black gods worshipped by ancient Indians. Lets see your link.

http://www.dattapeetham.com/india/tours/2002/nasik/kalaram_mandir.jpg

SUZAR Blacked Out Through Whitewash by SuZar Chapter 1 Pages 5-6

those are depictions of DRAVIDIANS-----an ancient people of the indus valley-----very dark in complexion-----and considered of low caste. -----btw----anthropologists consider them to be CAUCASION in race-----based on some issues like their heads----or something like that ------they have very straight hair-----black and shiny-----tiny little people-----really cute

Dravidians are the original Indians that migrated from Africa. What makes you think they are not Indian and Black? I didnt ask what anthropologists consider them. We already know that they were racist in their making up of the name caucasian in the first place. The term caucasian applies to the whitest of white men from the southern steppes of the caucus mountains as defined by the originator of the word. This delfightful racist named Meiner. Since then the term caucasian has been changed to include Black people so whites could claim credit to ancient civilizations. We all know thats a bunch of BS but its fascinating watching them squirm and change definitions around.

It looks as if not worrying about white authors and concentrating on Black authors has actually gave me more information than you possess. Luckily I dont buy that stuff which comes from reading Black authors and white authors that tell the truth. BTW who told you that straight hair means you are not Black?

who said I got my stuff about India from white authors-----I got it from Indians the current viewpoint of the origin of man is that MAN originated in AFRICA--------that fact does not
make dravdians of india any more a people something like sub-Saharan blacks than it makes ESKIMOS something like sub-Saharan blacks--------gee you are dim. Dravidians are as SUBSAHARAN BLACK as are Swedes

I said you got your stuff from white authors. Only white people and Indians that want to be white repeat the stuff you posted. I noticed you came with the white term "Subsaharan" Black like white people often do. What does that even mean? Was there a wall erected to keep Black people out of Northern Africa or something? You do realize that Africa, all parts of Africa was inhabited by Black people long before the Sahara turned into a desert dont you? "SubSahara" is simply a way white people try to separate the continent. Unfortunately for those same white people, that makes absolutely zero sense. Sorry but I dont fall for that nonsense.

that for which you fall is all nonsense. You are a black nationalist as idiotic as is any white supremacist. SOCIETY produces walls. You are one of the elements of society that LOVES YOUR WALL--------you have decided to
convince yourself that those you call "white people"-----the ones who also first came about in Africa-------are obsessed with declaring you something SPECIAL. You have decided that you are even MORE SPECIAL than anyone could possibly have thought --------YOU ARE BLACK ----big deal.---------I find it fascinating--------I learned about BRAHMINS-----from a Brahmin----who actually rejected the idea-------some of his relatives clung to it. You are a form of
the kind of BRAHMIN he rejected--------you are a BLACK BRAHMIN

I see it the other way around. As a person that speaks about knowledge you are sure one sided in you acceptance of it. You talk a big game but in the end you only believe what white people tell you. You still never explained why you used the term sub saharan as if it had an ounce of legitimacy. I ask again. What does that mean?

White people occurred in europe not Africa. No where did I declare Black people were superior. Whats funny is that is the typical response white people seem to have upon being confronted with a truth they cannot disprove. Where did I state Blacks were special? Dont get butt hurt. Just argue the facts. Facts are not emotional.

 

[Asclepias]

btw------the only people in today's world who consider skin color a marker for determining a human "kinship" are idiots and black nationalists and nazis----
of all possible criteria-------skin color is the least useful

If that was the only criteria you would be correct. However, it is proven there are linguistic similarities along with cultural similarities. The big kicker is DNA. The hapolgroup M1 is shown to have originated in central Africa. Sorry but thats why I dont hold white authors as truth tellers. They like to omit these inconvenient facts. It reeks havoc on their white supremacy theory.

one haplogroup does not a kinship make------every gene has a natural mutation rate -------in order to cite DNA -----you need a lot more information than "I GOT A SINGLE COMMON HAPLOTYPE"

You do realize you either have not researched this topic thoroughly or you are misinformed right? These people share the same DNA as the ancient Dravidians. Are you saying these people are not Black people that migrated from Africa?

 

[irosie91]

try not to be so gross and filthy a liar--------show me that quotation INDIANS NEVER CONSIDERED BLACK BEAUTIFUL from me--------and contrast it with some source
that asserts INDIANS CONSIDER BLACK BEAUTIFUL-----
what are you calling "black"? ONYX??? Leopard?
or BLACK SKIN??? right----Indians never considered
black skin to be preferred over fair skin ----in general I will
NOW state that is a true statement. I am saying it for the first time I am referring to HINDU INDIANS----of the
INDIAN SUBCONTINENT ------of the culture that developed
in the INDUS valley and became literate with invasion by
an Aryan people from northern Europe

Sesame oil does not make skin black Indians of very traditional background I have known used coconut oil----
and for some religious rituals----a paste made of turmeric which stains everything yellow------and contains
strong antioxidants-----also has some fungicide properties

stop reading Jeffries-----he is nuts

This is the second time I posted your claim.

propaganda. Nope----in india black was never beautiful-----

Obviously you call Marco Polo a white guy a liar because as I posted earlier....

"Dark skin is highly esteemed among these people. ‘When a child is born they anoint him once a week with oil of sesame, and this makes him grow much darker" (replaced since by ‘Fair & Lovely’ creams!). No wonder their gods are all black ‘and their devils white as snow. - See more at: 3quarksdaily Marco Polo s India Why is he a liar but a white guy that says white skin was always preferred is telling the truth?

sesame oil does not make the skin dark-----sounds like marco was describing a small city populated by Dravidians-----
who do put oil on their skin. I have encountered dravidians
in the USA-----small, dark in skin color, and considered
caucaision by anthropologists. Usually coconut oil.
you have presented exceptions to the rule to PROVE your point------nice sophistry. If you ever run into a Dravidian----
you will not be seeing a sub-Saharan -----by a long shot----the skin color is ---to me at least----STARTLING-----it is a kind of blue-black. I have even worse news for you----they seem to delight in their straight hair---------it is more straight even
than the average Indian. They use oil on the hair too

You are trying too hard Rosie. There is a reason the greeks considered India to be "East Ethiopia".Ethiopia literally means burnt skin or something akin to that. The believed the people to be the same as the Blackest people on the planet . These people worshipped Black gods and came from Africa long before admixed Brahmans got there. I know Dravidian as well. I actually dated one. White people have screwed up the perception but they know. They even have organizations they have modeled after Black organizations here in the US. They know they are Black.

how do you define "black" ??? "race" refers to a group rendered distinct by genetic isolation. Since according to current knowledge in my major----biology-----HUMANS developed in Africa------to say any people migrated out of
AFRICA is an entirely moot point-----ALL PEOPLE migrated out of Africa-----remotely------including swedes I do not do
politics of stupidity. Todays dravidians are in no way a KINSHIP with what is called "BLACK" by blacks themselves-------of the "ROOTS" mythology and the
religion that includes KWAANZAA. DRAVIDIANS are people who have very dark skin-----tend to be small-----and
if you are a black person of the ROOTS variety or the SOMALIAN variety ------have no more in common with you than did Erik the red. The fact that skin color is used as
a kind of marker by the most idiotic-------is the only commonality. Eskimos have darker skin than do I

One thing I dont do is define Black as sub Saharan. I know this is a radical concept to you. It also seems as you have become a hypocrite in your admonishments to me. You seem perfectly content to believe the white superiority theory by white authors but mysteriously you don't lend any credence to Black authors. Of course I am going to believe what my people and science show. Why would I believe white people with nothing but propoganda?

Dravidian's know they are Black and out of Africa. At least the ones I talk to know this. They study African and African American history. Did you know they have a Black Panther party in India? They call it the Dalit Panthers.

did you know that DALIT does not mean DRAVIDIAN.
Dalits are not a RACE-----they are derived from all sorts of
persons marginalized in hindu society for a myriad of reasons--------they are not all aboriginals of the indus valley and-------their VERY REMOTE connection to Africa is as moot a point as is Queen Victoria's very remote connection to Africa. You are DESPERATE for a caste system of your
own making--------in order to exclude Han Christian Andersen

 

[Desperado]

It's amazing that Israel chastises the U.S. so frequently. Don't bite the, and btw ONLY, hand that feeds you Israel.

Perhaps if America wasn't run by a muslim sympathizer, things would be different!

Israel has been chastising the U.S long before Obama was President. Nothing new here

 

[irosie91]

those are depictions of DRAVIDIANS-----an ancient people of the indus valley-----very dark in complexion-----and considered of low caste. -----btw----anthropologists consider them to be CAUCASION in race-----based on some issues like their heads----or something like that ------they have very straight hair-----black and shiny-----tiny little people-----really cute

Dravidians are the original Indians that migrated from Africa. What makes you think they are not Indian and Black? I didnt ask what anthropologists consider them. We already know that they were racist in their making up of the name caucasian in the first place. The term caucasian applies to the whitest of white men from the southern steppes of the caucus mountains as defined by the originator of the word. This delfightful racist named Meiner. Since then the term caucasian has been changed to include Black people so whites could claim credit to ancient civilizations. We all know thats a bunch of BS but its fascinating watching them squirm and change definitions around.

It looks as if not worrying about white authors and concentrating on Black authors has actually gave me more information than you possess. Luckily I dont buy that stuff which comes from reading Black authors and white authors that tell the truth. BTW who told you that straight hair means you are not Black?

who said I got my stuff about India from white authors-----I got it from Indians the current viewpoint of the origin of man is that MAN originated in AFRICA--------that fact does not
make dravdians of india any more a people something like sub-Saharan blacks than it makes ESKIMOS something like sub-Saharan blacks--------gee you are dim. Dravidians are as SUBSAHARAN BLACK as are Swedes

I said you got your stuff from white authors. Only white people and Indians that want to be white repeat the stuff you posted. I noticed you came with the white term "Subsaharan" Black like white people often do. What does that even mean? Was there a wall erected to keep Black people out of Northern Africa or something? You do realize that Africa, all parts of Africa was inhabited by Black people long before the Sahara turned into a desert dont you? "SubSahara" is simply a way white people try to separate the continent. Unfortunately for those same white people, that makes absolutely zero sense. Sorry but I dont fall for that nonsense.

that for which you fall is all nonsense. You are a black nationalist as idiotic as is any white supremacist. SOCIETY produces walls. You are one of the elements of society that LOVES YOUR WALL--------you have decided to
convince yourself that those you call "white people"-----the ones who also first came about in Africa-------are obsessed with declaring you something SPECIAL. You have decided that you are even MORE SPECIAL than anyone could possibly have thought --------YOU ARE BLACK ----big deal.---------I find it fascinating--------I learned about BRAHMINS-----from a Brahmin----who actually rejected the idea-------some of his relatives clung to it. You are a form of
the kind of BRAHMIN he rejected--------you are a BLACK BRAHMIN

I see it the other way around. As a person that speaks about knowledge you are sure one sided in you acceptance of it. You talk a big game but in the end you only believe what white people tell you. You still never explained why you used the term sub saharan as if it had an ounce of legitimacy. I ask again. What does that mean?

White people occurred in europe not Africa. No where did I declare Black people were superior. Whats funny is that is the typical response white people seem to have upon being confronted with a truth they cannot disprove. Where did I state Blacks were special? Dont get butt hurt. Just argue the facts. Facts are not emotional.

wrong again- white European people migrated out of AFRICA There were humans in Africa before there were humans in the RHINE VALLEY--------as to being one sided---- I am not the person who chooses reading material based on which "race" wrote it------that's YOU.

I would no more choose a book by the color of the skin of the author------than I would choose a book by the color of the book's binding

 

[Asclepias]

This is the second time I posted your claim.

Obviously you call Marco Polo a white guy a liar because as I posted earlier....

"Dark skin is highly esteemed among these people. ‘When a child is born they anoint him once a week with oil of sesame, and this makes him grow much darker" (replaced since by ‘Fair & Lovely’ creams!). No wonder their gods are all black ‘and their devils white as snow. - See more at: 3quarksdaily Marco Polo s India Why is he a liar but a white guy that says white skin was always preferred is telling the truth?

sesame oil does not make the skin dark-----sounds like marco was describing a small city populated by Dravidians-----
who do put oil on their skin. I have encountered dravidians
in the USA-----small, dark in skin color, and considered
caucaision by anthropologists. Usually coconut oil.
you have presented exceptions to the rule to PROVE your point------nice sophistry. If you ever run into a Dravidian----
you will not be seeing a sub-Saharan -----by a long shot----the skin color is ---to me at least----STARTLING-----it is a kind of blue-black. I have even worse news for you----they seem to delight in their straight hair---------it is more straight even
than the average Indian. They use oil on the hair too

You are trying too hard Rosie. There is a reason the greeks considered India to be "East Ethiopia".Ethiopia literally means burnt skin or something akin to that. The believed the people to be the same as the Blackest people on the planet . These people worshipped Black gods and came from Africa long before admixed Brahmans got there. I know Dravidian as well. I actually dated one. White people have screwed up the perception but they know. They even have organizations they have modeled after Black organizations here in the US. They know they are Black.

how do you define "black" ??? "race" refers to a group rendered distinct by genetic isolation. Since according to current knowledge in my major----biology-----HUMANS developed in Africa------to say any people migrated out of
AFRICA is an entirely moot point-----ALL PEOPLE migrated out of Africa-----remotely------including swedes I do not do
politics of stupidity. Todays dravidians are in no way a KINSHIP with what is called "BLACK" by blacks themselves-------of the "ROOTS" mythology and the
religion that includes KWAANZAA. DRAVIDIANS are people who have very dark skin-----tend to be small-----and
if you are a black person of the ROOTS variety or the SOMALIAN variety ------have no more in common with you than did Erik the red. The fact that skin color is used as
a kind of marker by the most idiotic-------is the only commonality. Eskimos have darker skin than do I

One thing I dont do is define Black as sub Saharan. I know this is a radical concept to you. It also seems as you have become a hypocrite in your admonishments to me. You seem perfectly content to believe the white superiority theory by white authors but mysteriously you don't lend any credence to Black authors. Of course I am going to believe what my people and science show. Why would I believe white people with nothing but propoganda?

Dravidian's know they are Black and out of Africa. At least the ones I talk to know this. They study African and African American history. Did you know they have a Black Panther party in India? They call it the Dalit Panthers.

did you know that DALIT does not mean DRAVIDIAN.
Dalits are not a RACE-----they are derived from all sorts of
persons marginalized in hindu society for a myriad of reasons--------they are not all aboriginals of the indus valley and-------their VERY REMOTE connection to Africa is as moot a point as is Queen Victoria's very remote connection to Africa. You are DESPERATE for a caste system of your
own making--------in order to exclude Han Christian Andersen

Who told you Dalit meant Dravidian? I know I didnt say that. Are you trying to say the Dalits are not comprised predominantly of the people known as Dravidians? If so you have no clue about that which you speak. The Dalits are marginalized due to their darkness which anyone in India that is truthful will tell you. They are placed in low caste due to their coloring. The aboriginals of the indus valley looked just like the people in the picture I posted above. These people are direct immigrants from Africa as proven by the Andaman Islanders.

 

[Asclepias]

Dravidians are the original Indians that migrated from Africa. What makes you think they are not Indian and Black? I didnt ask what anthropologists consider them. We already know that they were racist in their making up of the name caucasian in the first place. The term caucasian applies to the whitest of white men from the southern steppes of the caucus mountains as defined by the originator of the word. This delfightful racist named Meiner. Since then the term caucasian has been changed to include Black people so whites could claim credit to ancient civilizations. We all know thats a bunch of BS but its fascinating watching them squirm and change definitions around.

It looks as if not worrying about white authors and concentrating on Black authors has actually gave me more information than you possess. Luckily I dont buy that stuff which comes from reading Black authors and white authors that tell the truth. BTW who told you that straight hair means you are not Black?

who said I got my stuff about India from white authors-----I got it from Indians the current viewpoint of the origin of man is that MAN originated in AFRICA--------that fact does not
make dravdians of india any more a people something like sub-Saharan blacks than it makes ESKIMOS something like sub-Saharan blacks--------gee you are dim. Dravidians are as SUBSAHARAN BLACK as are Swedes

I said you got your stuff from white authors. Only white people and Indians that want to be white repeat the stuff you posted. I noticed you came with the white term "Subsaharan" Black like white people often do. What does that even mean? Was there a wall erected to keep Black people out of Northern Africa or something? You do realize that Africa, all parts of Africa was inhabited by Black people long before the Sahara turned into a desert dont you? "SubSahara" is simply a way white people try to separate the continent. Unfortunately for those same white people, that makes absolutely zero sense. Sorry but I dont fall for that nonsense.

that for which you fall is all nonsense. You are a black nationalist as idiotic as is any white supremacist. SOCIETY produces walls. You are one of the elements of society that LOVES YOUR WALL--------you have decided to
convince yourself that those you call "white people"-----the ones who also first came about in Africa-------are obsessed with declaring you something SPECIAL. You have decided that you are even MORE SPECIAL than anyone could possibly have thought --------YOU ARE BLACK ----big deal.---------I find it fascinating--------I learned about BRAHMINS-----from a Brahmin----who actually rejected the idea-------some of his relatives clung to it. You are a form of
the kind of BRAHMIN he rejected--------you are a BLACK BRAHMIN

I see it the other way around. As a person that speaks about knowledge you are sure one sided in you acceptance of it. You talk a big game but in the end you only believe what white people tell you. You still never explained why you used the term sub saharan as if it had an ounce of legitimacy. I ask again. What does that mean?

White people occurred in europe not Africa. No where did I declare Black people were superior. Whats funny is that is the typical response white people seem to have upon being confronted with a truth they cannot disprove. Where did I state Blacks were special? Dont get butt hurt. Just argue the facts. Facts are not emotional.

wrong again- white European people migrated out of AFRICA There were humans in Africa before there were humans in the RHINE VALLEY--------as to being one sided---- I am not the person who chooses reading material based on which "race" wrote it------that's YOU.

I would no more choose a book by the color of the skin of the author------than I would choose a book by the color of the book's binding

White people did not appear until about 8K years ago. The Africans that migrated to europe where Black people. You really need to read more on the subject. There were definitely humans in europe such as neanderthals but they were not homo sapiens.

The reason i read Black authors is because white ones are notorious for lying. There are few white ones that tell the truth. The white ones that tell the truth I read.

 

[irosie91]

btw------the only people in today's world who consider skin color a marker for determining a human "kinship" are idiots and black nationalists and nazis----
of all possible criteria-------skin color is the least useful

If that was the only criteria you would be correct. However, it is proven there are linguistic similarities along with cultural similarities. The big kicker is DNA. The hapolgroup M1 is shown to have originated in central Africa. Sorry but thats why I dont hold white authors as truth tellers. They like to omit these inconvenient facts. It reeks havoc on their white supremacy theory.

one haplogroup does not a kinship make------every gene has a natural mutation rate -------in order to cite DNA -----you need a lot more information than "I GOT A SINGLE COMMON HAPLOTYPE"

You do realize you either have not researched this topic thoroughly or you are misinformed right? These people share the same DNA as the ancient Dravidians. Are you saying these people are not Black people that migrated from Africa?

researched WHAT ? most of the DNA on the HUMAN GENOME is shared by the entire human population of the world--------you mentioned one haplotype as some kind of proof that dravidians are closer in relationship to other humans in Africa than are swedes because they have a single common haplotype--------population genetics is not your forte

 

[irosie91]

sesame oil does not make the skin dark-----sounds like marco was describing a small city populated by Dravidians-----
who do put oil on their skin. I have encountered dravidians
in the USA-----small, dark in skin color, and considered
caucaision by anthropologists. Usually coconut oil.
you have presented exceptions to the rule to PROVE your point------nice sophistry. If you ever run into a Dravidian----
you will not be seeing a sub-Saharan -----by a long shot----the skin color is ---to me at least----STARTLING-----it is a kind of blue-black. I have even worse news for you----they seem to delight in their straight hair---------it is more straight even
than the average Indian. They use oil on the hair too

You are trying too hard Rosie. There is a reason the greeks considered India to be "East Ethiopia".Ethiopia literally means burnt skin or something akin to that. The believed the people to be the same as the Blackest people on the planet . These people worshipped Black gods and came from Africa long before admixed Brahmans got there. I know Dravidian as well. I actually dated one. White people have screwed up the perception but they know. They even have organizations they have modeled after Black organizations here in the US. They know they are Black.

how do you define "black" ??? "race" refers to a group rendered distinct by genetic isolation. Since according to current knowledge in my major----biology-----HUMANS developed in Africa------to say any people migrated out of
AFRICA is an entirely moot point-----ALL PEOPLE migrated out of Africa-----remotely------including swedes I do not do
politics of stupidity. Todays dravidians are in no way a KINSHIP with what is called "BLACK" by blacks themselves-------of the "ROOTS" mythology and the
religion that includes KWAANZAA. DRAVIDIANS are people who have very dark skin-----tend to be small-----and
if you are a black person of the ROOTS variety or the SOMALIAN variety ------have no more in common with you than did Erik the red. The fact that skin color is used as
a kind of marker by the most idiotic-------is the only commonality. Eskimos have darker skin than do I

One thing I dont do is define Black as sub Saharan. I know this is a radical concept to you. It also seems as you have become a hypocrite in your admonishments to me. You seem perfectly content to believe the white superiority theory by white authors but mysteriously you don't lend any credence to Black authors. Of course I am going to believe what my people and science show. Why would I believe white people with nothing but propoganda?

Dravidian's know they are Black and out of Africa. At least the ones I talk to know this. They study African and African American history. Did you know they have a Black Panther party in India? They call it the Dalit Panthers.

did you know that DALIT does not mean DRAVIDIAN.
Dalits are not a RACE-----they are derived from all sorts of
persons marginalized in hindu society for a myriad of reasons--------they are not all aboriginals of the indus valley and-------their VERY REMOTE connection to Africa is as moot a point as is Queen Victoria's very remote connection to Africa. You are DESPERATE for a caste system of your
own making--------in order to exclude Han Christian Andersen

Who told you Dalit meant Dravidian? I know I didnt say that. Are you trying to say the Dalits are not comprised predominantly of the people known as Dravidians? If so you have no clue about that which you speak. The Dalits are marginalized due to their darkness which anyone in India that is truthful will tell you. They are placed in low caste due to their coloring. The aboriginals of the indus valley looked just like the people in the picture I posted above. These people are direct immigrants from Africa as proven by the Andaman Islanders.

YOU are correct in saying that dark skin is a marker in
India------but very incorrect in saying that all people with
dark skin are DRAVIDIANS and even more incorrect in saying that ALL DALITS ARE DARK SKINNED-----some
persons called ----traditionally dalits or untouchables are not dark skinned at all--------some very hot shot high caste persons are dark skinned. You have not known lots of
Indians

 

[Asclepias]

btw------the only people in today's world who consider skin color a marker for determining a human "kinship" are idiots and black nationalists and nazis----
of all possible criteria-------skin color is the least useful

If that was the only criteria you would be correct. However, it is proven there are linguistic similarities along with cultural similarities. The big kicker is DNA. The hapolgroup M1 is shown to have originated in central Africa. Sorry but thats why I dont hold white authors as truth tellers. They like to omit these inconvenient facts. It reeks havoc on their white supremacy theory.

one haplogroup does not a kinship make------every gene has a natural mutation rate -------in order to cite DNA -----you need a lot more information than "I GOT A SINGLE COMMON HAPLOTYPE"

You do realize you either have not researched this topic thoroughly or you are misinformed right? These people share the same DNA as the ancient Dravidians. Are you saying these people are not Black people that migrated from Africa?

researched WHAT ? most of the DNA on the HUMAN GENOME is shared by the entire human population of the world--------you mentioned one haplotype as some kind of proof that dravidians are closer in relationship to other humans in Africa than are swedes because they have a single common haplotype--------population genetics is not your forte

You obviously dont get it. The Andaman Islanders have the exact same DNA as the ancient Dravidians. No mutations. They are in the same hapolgroup. Just like Rameses III is in the same hapolgroup as most African Americans. Of couse we know all people came from Africa but the number of mutations are what separates the races