Hebrew Israelite
Jeff

Framingham, MA

#72871 Aug 21, 2013
NorteMemnon wrote:
Charles Squire "Celtic Myth and Legends"
pg 19
The earliest of these two races would seem to have inhabited our islands from the most ancient times, and may, for our purpose, be described as aboriginal. It was the people that built the "long barrows"; and which is variously called by ethnologists the Iberian, Mediterranean, Berber, Basque, Silurian, or Euskarian race. In physique it was short, swarthy, dark- haired, dark-eyed, and long-skulled; its language belonged to the class called "Hamitic", the surviving types of which are found among the Gallas, Abyssinians, Berbers, and other North African tribes; and it seems to have come originally from some part either of Eastern, Northern, or Central Africa.
Again Brunette European types, NOT racially black people like yourself. In other words Fair Europeans aka BLONDS also known as ---> NORDIC Teutonic <--- vs. Dark Europeans aka BRUNETTES also known as ---> Alpine, Mediterranean, Dinaric <--, NONE of these groups were ever racially black nor described as racially black cause they were NOT black. People back then called racially black people "N*******" and this term was NOT applied towards ANY Europeans and especially NORTHERN Europeans were black people did not have much of an existence, "The Enemy Within" or "NorteMemnon" or "GMoney" or whatever other FAKE name you post under next.

"The generally small differences found between observed and expected values for skin coloration appear to reflect differences between populations in duration of habitation in their respective areas. Populations believed to have inhabited their current area of distribution for 20,000 years (e.g., Iberian, Basques) conform most closely to predicted values for skin reflectance. Those which are thought to have migrated into their current locations more recently (e.g., Aboriginal Australians from Darwin who are migrants from the Central Desert) conform less closely to predicted values." ~ Jablonski et al.
lmao

Bowie, MD

#72872 Aug 21, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, dumbass, SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 are NOT the only alleles that produce light skin in Europeans, jackass. Eurasians were already light skin before they entered Europe since they were living in None Tropical Nothern Eurasian regions with Low UV Radiation that made light skin more cohesive for their survival over YOUR black skin. Two genes, KITLG and ASIP, have mutations associated with lighter skin that have high frequencies in European, Near Eastern and East Asian populations and have estimated origin dates soon after humans spread out of Africa but before the divergence of the European and Asian lineages. Meaning these alleles arose nearly 60,000 years ago in light skin pre-historic Eurasian types, you self hating idiot.
"The generally small differences found between observed and expected values for skin coloration appear to reflect differences between populations in duration of habitation in their respective areas. Populations believed to have inhabited their current area of distribution for 20,000 years (e.g., Iberian, Basques) conform most closely to predicted values for skin reflectance. Those which are thought to have migrated into their current locations more recently (e.g., Aboriginal Australians from Darwin who are migrants from the Central Desert) conform less closely to predicted values." ~ Jablonski et al.
"Over the last 50,000 years, populations have gone from dark pigmented to lighter skin, and people have also gone the other way, from light skin back to darker skin. People living now in southern parts of India [and Sri Lanka] are extremely darkly pigmented. But their great, great ancestors lived much farther north, and when they migrated south, their pigmentation redarkened. There has probably been a redarkening of several groups of humans. Light skin pigmentation evolved in humans not just once nor twice but probably 3 times including in one of our distant ancestors, the Neanderthals. The remarkable testament to the power of evolution." ~ Jablonski
Mutations in SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 are believed to account for the BULK of skin pigmentation differences between Europeans and Non-Europeans. Bulk means: great size, mass or volume so this other nonsense that you are posting, doesn't mean squat! If you left Africa white, how is it that 6,000 years ago, you became white again? And your answer is that a primate/monkey/Neanderthal is the cause?
Jeff

Framingham, MA

#72873 Aug 21, 2013
NorteMemnon wrote:
(The History of Ireland by Thomas Moore)
pg 36.
An army of Northmen called Dubh-Gals or Black Stranger, as being of a different race from those hitherto known in Ireland, having landed in considerable forces in the year 850 b.c. made an attack on the Fin-Gals or Whites already in possession of Dublin.
Once more, stupidass, those were Brunette European types, NOT racially black people like yourself because black people DID NOT EXIST in most Northern European countries. That is why Northern Europeans DO NOT have black admixture. Dubh-Gals and Fin-Gals was in in reference to the different hair, eye, etc colors found in Europeans, and NOT in reference to any racially "black Northern Europeans " because there never was any racially black Northern Europeans, idiot.

Europe is a None Tropical regions with Low UV Radiation that made light skin more cohesive for survival over black skin. That is why native/aboriginal Europeans are among the lightest humans on earth and especially Northern Europeans who carry TWO SETS of the SLC45A2 because they live in regions of Europe, i.e. British Isles, Scandinavian countries, Danes, etc where Lowest UV Radiation is found, dingleberry, which is why Northern Europeans also happen to be the lightest of all humans. Meaning YOUR black skin would not have been cohesive for survival in those Northern regions.

"Studies of genetic diversity provide some indication of the origin and expansion of the Viking population. The Haplogroup I1 (defined by specific genetic markers on the Y-chromosome) is sometimes referred to as the Viking haplogroup. This mutation occurs with the greatest frequency among Scandinavian males: Norway, Denmark, and Sweden, and peaking Finland. It is also common near the southern Baltic and North Sea coasts, and then successively decreasing further to the south geographically. Genetic studies in the British Isles of the Y-DNA Haplogroup R1a1, seen also across Scandinavia, have demonstrated that the Vikings settled in Britain and Ireland as well as raiding there. Both male and female descent studies show evidence of Norse descent in areas closest to Scandinavia, such as the Shetland and Orkney Islands. Inhabitants of lands farther away show most Norse descent in the male Y-chromosome lines. A specialised genetic and surname study in Liverpool demonstrated marked Norse heritage: up to 50 percent of males who belonged to original families, those who lived there before the years of industrialization and population expansion. High percentages of Norse inheritance—tracked through R1a1 haplotype signatures—were also found among males in the Wirral and West Lancashire. This was similar to the percentage of Norse inheritance found among males in the Orkney Islands."
Jeff

Natick, MA

#72874 Aug 21, 2013
NorteMemnon wrote:
Saying stupidass and dummy might you the persona as if you know what you talking about but that work on novice. You still losing
Calling you stupidass because that is what you are. The only one loosing is you, "The Enemy Within" or "NorteMemnon" or "GMoney" or whatever other FAKE name you post under next, you self hating identity confused reject.
Jeff

Natick, MA

#72875 Aug 21, 2013
lmao wrote:
<quoted text>
Africans didn't have to evolve. To be black is to be perfect! MUTATIONS occurred when the parent race left ALKEBULAN and went into Asia and finally Europe. A mutation is an organism or individual differing from the PARENTAL strain. The Black man and the Black woman are the parental strain and everyone else is just a MUTATION.
SLC24A5 is a mutation that causes pale skin in Europeans but not in Asians. This mutation happened 6,000 years ago, not 43,000 years ago when the first humans got to Europe.
In your delusional Afrocentric dreams, maybe. The SLC24A5 mutation is only ONE allele that contributes the light skin of Europeans. There are many others that arose nearly 60,000 years ago in prehistoric Eurasian types who were already light skin before they entered Europe since they were living in None Tropical Northern Eurasian regions with Low UV Radiation that made light skin more cohesive for their survival over black skin. The SLC24A5 just made Europeans even MORE lighter then they originally were, that is why Europeans tent to be among the lighest of all most humans, especially Northern Europeans, dingleberry. I already gave you TWO genes these early prehistoric light skinned Eurasian carried long before they entered Europe, KITLG and ASIP, have mutations associated with lighter skin that have high frequencies in European, Near Eastern and East Asian populations and have estimated origin dates soon after humans spread out of Africa but before the divergence of the European and Asian lineages. Meaning these alleles arose nearly 60,000 years ago in light skin prehistoric Eurasian types.

Wrong, doofus, those migrants who left Africa soon EVOLVED to various types due to the fact that they were living in different climates, eating different diets, etc that help play a role in their evolution process. And guess what even those who remained in Africa EVOLVED and aren't the same as those prehistoric types. Even Stringer, one of the scientists who developed the Out-of-Africa model states that evidence of evolution continuing in archaic humans after their emergence from Africa as well as those who remained there.

"It is a confused picture and suggests that racial differences were still developing, and should be viewed as a very new part of the human condition. It is an important point, for it shows that humanity's modern African origin does not imply derivation from people like current Africans, because these populations must have also changed through the impact of evolution over the past 100,000 years." ~ Stringer.
Jeff

Natick, MA

#72876 Aug 21, 2013
lmao wrote:
<quoted text>
Mutations in SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 are believed to account for the BULK of skin pigmentation differences between Europeans and Non-Europeans. Bulk means: great size, mass or volume so this other nonsense that you are posting, doesn't mean squat! If you left Africa white, how is it that 6,000 years ago, you became white again? And your answer is that a primate/monkey/Neanderthal is the cause?
Seriously how stupid are you? SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 are NOT the only alleles that produce light skin in Europeans, jackass. Eurasians were already light skin before they entered Europe since they were living in None Tropical Nothern Eurasian regions with Low UV Radiation that made light skin more cohesive for their survival over YOUR black skin. Two genes, KITLG and ASIP, have mutations associated with lighter skin that have high frequencies in European, Near Eastern and East Asian populations and have estimated origin dates soon after humans spread out of Africa but before the divergence of the European and Asian lineages. Meaning these alleles arose nearly 60,000 years ago in light skin pre-historic Eurasian types, you self hating idiot. What part are you having a hard time understanding that YOUR black skin was NOT cohesive for surivival in NORTHER Eurasian regions?

"The generally small differences found between observed and expected values for skin coloration appear to reflect differences between populations in duration of habitation in their respective areas. Populations believed to have inhabited their current area of distribution for 20,000 years (e.g., Iberian, Basques) conform most closely to predicted values for skin reflectance. Those which are thought to have migrated into their current locations more recently (e.g., Aboriginal Australians from Darwin who are migrants from the Central Desert) conform less closely to predicted values." ~ Jablonski et al.

"Over the last 50,000 years, populations have gone from dark pigmented to lighter skin, and people have also gone the other way, from light skin back to darker skin. People living now in southern parts of India [and Sri Lanka] are extremely darkly pigmented. But their great, great ancestors lived much farther north, and when they migrated south, their pigmentation redarkened. There has probably been a redarkening of several groups of humans. Light skin pigmentation evolved in humans not just once nor twice but probably 3 times including in one of our distant ancestors, the Neanderthals. The remarkable testament to the power of evolution." ~ Jablonski
NorteMemnon

El Monte, CA

#72877 Aug 21, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Calling you stupidass because that is what you are. The only one loosing is you, "The Enemy Within" or "NorteMemnon" or "GMoney" or whatever other FAKE name you post under next, you self hating identity confused reject.
can yoy read it says Short and Blavk origins maybe CENTRAL AFRICA. You a special type of stupid.
NorteMemnon

El Monte, CA

#72878 Aug 21, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Once more, stupidass, those were Brunette European types, NOT racially black people like yourself because black people DID NOT EXIST in most Northern European countries. That is why Northern Europeans DO NOT have black admixture. Dubh-Gals and Fin-Gals was in in reference to the different hair, eye, etc colors found in Europeans, and NOT in reference to any racially "black Northern Europeans " because there never was any racially black Northern Europeans, idiot.
Europe is a None Tropical regions with Low UV Radiation that made light skin more cohesive for survival over black skin. That is why native/aboriginal Europeans are among the lightest humans on earth and especially Northern Europeans who carry TWO SETS of the SLC45A2 because they live in regions of Europe, i.e. British Isles, Scandinavian countries, Danes, etc where Lowest UV Radiation is found, dingleberry, which is why Northern Europeans also happen to be the lightest of all humans. Meaning YOUR black skin would not have been cohesive for survival in those Northern regions.
"Studies of genetic diversity provide some indication of the origin and expansion of the Viking population. The Haplogroup I1 (defined by specific genetic markers on the Y-chromosome) is sometimes referred to as the Viking haplogroup. This mutation occurs with the greatest frequency among Scandinavian males: Norway, Denmark, and Sweden, and peaking Finland. It is also common near the southern Baltic and North Sea coasts, and then successively decreasing further to the south geographically. Genetic studies in the British Isles of the Y-DNA Haplogroup R1a1, seen also across Scandinavia, have demonstrated that the Vikings settled in Britain and Ireland as well as raiding there. Both male and female descent studies show evidence of Norse descent in areas closest to Scandinavia, such as the Shetland and Orkney Islands. Inhabitants of lands farther away show most Norse descent in the male Y-chromosome lines. A specialised genetic and surname study in Liverpool demonstrated marked Norse heritage: up to 50 percent of males who belonged to original families, those who lived there before the years of industrialization and population expansion. High percentages of Norse inheritance—tracked through R1a1 haplotype signatures—were also found among males in the Wirral and West Lancashire. This was similar to the percentage of Norse inheritance found among males in the Orkney Islands."
I just showed you how they brought back people.from Mauritania and then the Blacks sack of Fin in 850. Denial is strong with you. Comprehension is scarce. DIDE YOU SEE DIFFERENT RACE. BLACK STRANGERS
Jeff

Natick, MA

#72879 Aug 21, 2013
NorteMemnon wrote:
<quoted text>
can yoy read it says Short and Blavk origins maybe CENTRAL AFRICA. You a special type of stupid.
Nowhere does it describe them as Sub Saharan Africans from Central Africa, you self hating idiot. The term back then used for racially black people was 'N****' and this term was NOT applied towards any of those white groups your dumbass is trying to claim, stupidass.
Jeff

Natick, MA

#72880 Aug 21, 2013
NorteMemnon wrote:
<quoted text> I just showed you how they brought back people.from Mauritania and then the Blacks sack of Fin in 850. Denial is strong with you. Comprehension is scarce. DIDE YOU SEE DIFFERENT RACE. BLACK STRANGERS
No you didn't show anything of the kind, there were no black people from Mauritania who sack of Fin in 850 cause you blacks did not exist in those Northern European regions, "BLACK STRANGERS" was in reference to BRUNETTE Europeans aka WHITE folk VS. BLOND Europeans again White folk. The term used back then for racially black people was 'N****" and this term WAS NEVER applied towards any Europeans let alone Northern Europeans where you blacks never had a presence, that is why Northern Europeans have ZERO black admixture cause racially black people DID NOT exist in those areas, you self hating "The Enemy Within" or "NorteMemnon" or "GMoney" or whatever other FAKE name you post under next.
lmao

Bowie, MD

#72881 Aug 21, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously how stupid are you? SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 are NOT the only alleles that produce light skin in Europeans, jackass. Eurasians were already light skin before they entered Europe since they were living in None Tropical Nothern Eurasian regions with Low UV Radiation that made light skin more cohesive for their survival over YOUR black skin. Two genes, KITLG and ASIP, have mutations associated with lighter skin that have high frequencies in European, Near Eastern and East Asian populations and have estimated origin dates soon after humans spread out of Africa but before the divergence of the European and Asian lineages. Meaning these alleles arose nearly 60,000 years ago in light skin pre-historic Eurasian types, you self hating idiot. What part are you having a hard time understanding that YOUR black skin was NOT cohesive for surivival in NORTHER Eurasian regions?
"The generally small differences found between observed and expected values for skin coloration appear to reflect differences between populations in duration of habitation in their respective areas. Populations believed to have inhabited their current area of distribution for 20,000 years (e.g., Iberian, Basques) conform most closely to predicted values for skin reflectance. Those which are thought to have migrated into their current locations more recently (e.g., Aboriginal Australians from Darwin who are migrants from the Central Desert) conform less closely to predicted values." ~ Jablonski et al.
"Over the last 50,000 years, populations have gone from dark pigmented to lighter skin, and people have also gone the other way, from light skin back to darker skin. People living now in southern parts of India [and Sri Lanka] are extremely darkly pigmented. But their great, great ancestors lived much farther north, and when they migrated south, their pigmentation redarkened. There has probably been a redarkening of several groups of humans. Light skin pigmentation evolved in humans not just once nor twice but probably 3 times including in one of our distant ancestors, the Neanderthals. The remarkable testament to the power of evolution." ~ Jablonski
What a brain dead primate/Neanderthal you are. ASIP and KITLG, in addition to "European, Near Eastern and East Asian populations" can also be found in African Americans and in West Africans. ASIP, specifically allele 8188G is significantly associated with skin color variation in African-Americans not Neanderthal/Europigs so get that out ya mouth fool!
SLC24A5, 6,000 years ago pale face, not 43,000 years ago!
lmao

Bowie, MD

#72882 Aug 21, 2013
Now this is the genealogy of the sons of Noah: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And sons were born to them after the flood. The sons of Japheth were Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras. The sons of Gomer were Ashkenaz, Riphath, and Togarmah.

Ashkenaz are from Japheth not Shem. Kill that noise!
lmao

Bowie, MD

#72883 Aug 21, 2013
JOHNS ON TOP OF IT wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!!!! Man why don't you just call him by the scientific term "oculocutaneous albinism?"
It's coming! lol

Level 6

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#72884 Aug 21, 2013
lmao wrote:
Now this is the genealogy of the sons of Noah: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And sons were born to them after the flood. The sons of Japheth were Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras. The sons of Gomer were Ashkenaz, Riphath, and Togarmah.
Ashkenaz are from Japheth not Shem. Kill that noise!
You're a racist twisted and befuddled by cult dogma, and by your cultishness become a useless sociopathic and marginal individual, pointless and impotent, a raving lunatic on the streetcorner.

You are a clown.

And you are not a Hebrew.
Jeff

Natick, MA

#72885 Aug 21, 2013
lmao wrote:
<quoted text>
What a brain dead primate/Neanderthal you are. ASIP and KITLG, in addition to "European, Near Eastern and East Asian populations" can also be found in African Americans and in West Africans. ASIP, specifically allele 8188G is significantly associated with skin color variation in African-Americans not Neanderthal/Europigs so get that out ya mouth fool!
SLC24A5, 6,000 years ago pale face, not 43,000 years ago!
African Americans only have KITLG due to their WHITE admixture, stupid, given to them thanks to Europeans. It is NOT common among West Africans, that is why African Americans are lighter skin then their West African ancestors, its due to the European admixture, moron.

"A mutation in this gene, A326G (rs642742[24]), has been positively associated with variations of skin color in African-Americans of mixed West African and European descent and is estimated to account for 15–20% of the melanin difference between African and European populations.[25] This allele shows signs of strong positive selection outside Africa[18][26] and occurs in over 80% of European and Asian samples, compared with less than 10% in African samples.[25] "

In other words, idiot, KITLG and ASIP, have mutations associated with lighter skin that have high frequencies in European, Near Eastern and East Asian populations. These alleles are NOT common among black Africans. They have estimated origin dates soon after humans spread out of Africa but before the divergence of the European and Asian lineages. Meaning these alleles arose nearly 60,000 years ago in light skin prehistoric Eurasian types, you self hating idiot pretending to know about human evolution but just exposing your idiot self for the novice that you are.

"For the most part, the evolution of light skin has followed different genetic paths in European and East Asian populations. Two genes however, KITLG and ASIP, have mutations associated with lighter skin that have high frequencies in both European and East Asian populations and have estimated origin dates after humans spread out of Africa but before the divergence of the European and Asian lineages.[16]"
lmao

Bowie, MD

#72886 Aug 21, 2013
Sinajuavi wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a racist twisted and befuddled by cult dogma, and by your cultishness become a useless sociopathic and marginal individual, pointless and impotent, a raving lunatic on the streetcorner.
You are a clown.
And you are not a Hebrew.
Cry me a river! And you are not a Hebrew, descendent of a wolf, gorilla, none of that. You are a mutated descendent of the Black Man and the Black Woman. In other words, you are our lil beeyoch!

“IT IS WHAT IT IS, PPL”

Level 1

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#72887 Aug 21, 2013
Ben YISRAEL wrote:
<quoted text>bet you cant make the hebrews that ran into africa in 588BC came out,hahah show them coming out an back home to live with the chaldeans, hahah can you show that? so where they go the Hebrews that ran into africa an was promised by CREATOR to be ship to all nations with the curses out lined in the book where they go jeff? this is a hebrew form we gone ask hebrew history questions where they go to in africa?
B stay on his azz..put foot to azz

Level 4

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#72888 Aug 21, 2013
Scientists are lying with the dates. Drop a zero. For the madmen, drop 3.

Level 4

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#72889 Aug 21, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Meaning these alleles arose nearly 60,000 years ago in light skin prehistoric Eurasian types, you self hating idiot pretending to know about human evolution
We did not evolve. We fell. Carbon dating is as garbage as the neanderthal and alien hoaxes. Area 51 has ancient black technology. Adam was perfect. Whites, the youngest, have inherited all sin/genetic errors of their ancestors, the wicked dead. This is why he lies and tries to change the times and laws, like the affront to marriage by the deviants, bringing about global lawlessness in the time of the end.

Daniel 7:25
He will speak against the Most High and oppress his holy people and try to change the set times and the laws. The holy people will be delivered into his hands for a time, times and half a time.
Chlo

Eatonton, GA

#72890 Aug 21, 2013
African AE wrote:
<quoted text>Ruddy means a healthy reddish tint in the face. Usually a white man spending a lot of time out of doors would get a ruddy complexion. David is also described as being fair. No black person is described as being fair! Solomon is described as white and ruddy. So the ancient Israelites looked exactly like their descendants the Samaritans! Some of them look really ruddy.
What color of red are the using as a comparison? The only shade of red that would be able to describe someone's color is of the red soil. Red soil looks more like a reddish brown.

BLACK PEOPLE COME IN ALL SHADES! There are LIGHT SKINNED black people!

Also the scripture doesn't say that David was fair skin, the scripture says that he becomes ruddy, so he blushed! Black people are able to blush as well!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

African-American Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
I conducted a Studies that shows WW prefer BM a... 1 min NSDAP 15
The Great Con of Illuminati ??? 1 min selina london 9
What does WM and Rubbish Bins Have in Common? 1 min The Black Foreigner 1
a bm invented CALCULUS back in 1908 1 min T BOS 20
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min THE DEVIL 1,264,987
News Donald Trump explains why there won't be anothe... 1 min I see triplets 46
Are white people aware of white privilege? 1 min I see triplets 203
the moors were black africans not arabs!!! (Jun '08) 1 min Curious Me 35,051
So many white women are having sex with black men (Jan '14) 1 min trish_b 124
BW are evil, devious, vindictive and WM can hav... 1 min kojo 150
Trump will destroy America ! 47 min PolakPotrafi 98
Africans did not sell their own 49 min selina london 182
More from around the web