dinsdag 6 augustus 2013


6 AUGUST 2013



6 AUGUST 2013


Many persons ask for sources, without consulting those sources. Many seem to mean: ‘Did a white professor discovered the things you say?’ No, but I use sources written by white and black researchers. although the synthesizing of all my information and knowledge is by me. So the blue blood theory is only found in my books, with a long or short list of books I consulted. In discussion I like to emphasize that people already know a lot about the elements that make up my research. First I ask them if they have any sources that proof that many historical persons were white? They are not critical what their colonial masters presents them with, but suddenly for my research they are supercritical.

I like to point out that most people accept that the first Europeans came from Africa. So no discussion there. But next revisionist science says they became white 6000 years ago. And they also say: ‘our ancestors came from the middle east 6000 years ago.’ Recently I read in Archeology, a magazine, that it has proven to be impossible to establish a link between present day Europeans and the ancient hunter/gatherer Europeans from 45.000 years ago. It means that the present day European descent from others who came from elsewhere, says Archeology. The present day Europeans are the whites and they started coming around 6000 BC to Europe, from Central Asia. As usual there is no consensus about where whites come from so I stick to my own guns. In Central Asia the so-called Ice mummies were found from persons who were blond and blue eyed, and do not resemble the Chinese-like people who live there. This gives credence to my idea that whites came out of Africa, moved overland to Central Asia, became a fixed white nation, and next came to Europe 6000 years ago. But mostly around 400 AD.

Whites are descendants  of  albino’s who interbreed in geographical isolation to become a foolproof white nation. They still resemble albino’s although because of admixture with others, many whites can tan and do not immediately burn in the sun. furthermore albinism comes in many types, with some already being able to tan, and having dark hair and eyes. Albinism can hardly be considered a disease as albinos function on all levels of society. They just have to protect themselves against the sun, like some otherwise healthy functioning people have to avoid sugar, or milk, or gluten etc. it does not mean their minds are affected, or that I’m out to insult whites who are obsessed with the idea that albinism is a sickness.

 I do not think Blacks are superior, it’s just that they were the first, so they peopled the whole world and  did all the big inventions and thus civilized the whole world. Unfortunately the part that elevated itself in an noble elite by 1100-1200 considered themselves as being the first Europeans, as true Europeans from the soil, and oppressed and exploited the whites who they saw as latecomers.

From my Jane Austen research I understand that they equally looked down on the bourgeoisie who was also black and brown of complexion, as they did on the whites. By reconstructing those times I’m not saying Blacks are superior, but that the brown and black complexioned elite saw itself as superior over whites. They even used the skin of whites to bind books, make clothes and shoes. Church doors were lined with human skin, some sources on the web inform us. Because of human skin as shoe leather and a need for a historical Declaration of Rights of Man, I understand that whites were not considered humans.

The invention of Human Races since 1760 also lead to a hierarchy between these supposed races. Next there was no agreement about how many human races there were and what they were. The numbers  were 3, 5, 7 and 45. This fact alone marks the invention of Human Races as unscientific. So I wondered what need there was for human races, what was going on in Europe for them to invent such a unscientific concept. Blacks came way down below, but just above apes. Why?

Apes were declared to be degenerated humans who were morally bad, and Blacks were just a step above total degeneration. Rousseau who is described by James Boswell as ‘a genteel black man’ claimed he could not tell the difference between Blacks and Apes. Why did he say such a thing? What did Blacks do to make him so angry?

From certain 17 century painting we can derive that the nobility was sometimes depicted as apes, sometimes dressed in all the extravagant noble fashions. The nobility self-identified as Black by the use of heraldic Moors in family crests. Or having Moors, classical African face type, in their employ. These Moors on portraits are then not real people but rather symbols of blue blood and black supremacy. If they were real we would have been able to know their identity.

Another important source are statements that old master paintings needed to be restored because the paint had darkened. This started in 1848, and became a new way of maintenance of a collection. The book by Alison McQueen, The Rise Of The Cult Of Rembrandt(2003) lead me to understand that this cult had portrait restoration at its center, although the writer did not know this. They invented a new biography for Rembrandt and claimed he, like Shakespeare, depicted or presented the ordinary folks. the once we call serfs or villains, and who were the third estate till 1848. as I had already discovered that the third estate were the whites, and the elite was brown and black complexion, I could synthesize that the revolutionary governments inherited a great body of precious old master paintings that showed the Ancien Regime and their aesthetics and brown and black faces and bodies on genre pieces. To prevent back sliding and groups claiming power because of former rights, they had either to destroy the priceless works by Rembrandt, Rubens, or Mierevelt; or had them altered. They claimed the paint had darkened, and the painters intention was to depict whites, so the portraits were all whitened with beige and pink. It seems that there was deadline around 1880 and that some families themselves took to painting. There are examples were the over paint is very badly, and crudely done. And some persons now have a solid pink face above a subtle, shining harness done by a master painter. X-rays of portraits can reveal the double layers of paint, indicating over painting. A portrait of Nicolaas van der Meer and its pendant of his wife by Frans Hals were investigated and it was found that hands and face were over paints with pigments that were only discovered in the 18 century. As the portraits remained in the family, the reason for the over paint was not discovered. They were over painted with beige to hide the brown or black skin. With this paragraph I tried to name a few sources, and show how by comparison and argument I synthesized my knowledge.


This brought me to the final stage of my research, telling the world about the over paints in all museums. And why it seems there are no brown and black writers, inventors, scientist, rulers etc., because they all have been repainted beige to whiten them.  I also found that the Greek and Roman civilizations were invented by brown and black complexioned Europeans. This part of history was whitened in the same way and by the same people that whitened the medieval European civilization. The rulers, like Alexander the Great who was described and depicted as ‘swarthy’ which means very dark or black skinned, were brown and black Europeans. A book like Frank Snowden, Blacks in Antiquity(1971) is misguided because he regards the Blacks he find as immigrants in Europe. Like the books by JA.Rogers who speaks of ‘a Black strain’ or ‘a fixed mulatto race.’  The nobility was found by brown and black complexioned Europeans, and not whites who married or invited Blacks to join them. They became white after 1880 by force and to keep their belongings and power. By calling them a mulatto race Rogers caters to the prejudice that mulatto’s are intelligent because of the white blood they have that cancels out the low Black blood. They were deceived by the then available research, and nobody realized that all the portraits were over paints since 1848.


Egmond Codfried
Detail Sir Joshua Reynolds, Elizabeth Keppel. De Moorress symbolises high nobility, or blue blood, and Black Supremacy.
Aanoud Joost Keppel, grandfather of Aarnood Joost van Der Duyn van Maasdam, and grandfather of the grandmother of George Keppel. 
Baron Aarnoud Joos van der Duyn van Maasdam, uncle of George Keppel: described as 'chimney sweeper,' 'swarthy' and 'black brown.' This is obviously a whitened portrait.
Adam Francois Jules van der Duyn was a grandson of Aarnout Joost van der Duyn. This type of engraving shows a degree of dark skin.
Elizabeth Keppel by Reynolds, with a heraldic Mooress that symbolises nobility. Elizabeth was closer in look to the Moorress than the whitened portrait suggests.
George Keppel by Francis Cotes (1764), Earl of Albemarle. A whitened portrait.
George Keppel by Francis Cotes (1755). The engraving showing the dark complexion was taken from this painted portrait. The engraving shows the dark skin on the painting, presumably just after its production. So the claim of darkened paint is wrong and hereby disproven. This portrait is also wrongly named wiliam Keppel, who was the son of George Keppel. But it shows George Keppel in his younger years (1755)
The dark complexioned engraving, showing what the 1755 painting looked like. The family was described as 'swarthy, 'so they looked very dark skinned and were portrayed like this.


[George Keppel by Francis Cotes (1764)] A whitened over paint. Engraving after the original painting showing the true, dark complexion. This engraving was presumably made shortly after the painting was produced, before the paint supposedly ‘darkened.’ The family was famous for being ‘swarthy.’ His uncle Aarnoud Joost van der Duyn van Maasdam was described as ‘chimney sweeper’ and  ‘black brown.’ He was compared by Isabelle de Charrière in her poem ‘A son teint noir et basané’ (1776)(Courtney 1993) with the Greek war god Mars, who was depicted as dark, and came from Africa.  Adam van der Duyn, Aarnoud Joost’s father was compared to Adam, who was from the earth. (Van der Aa) So presumably black as the earth.

General William Keppel by Francis Cotes (1755). Another whitened portrait. Resembles the engraving and William is George’s son born in 1772. The internet link is wrongly named. Adam Francois Jules van der Duyn, grandson of Aarnout Joost.
[Baron Aarnoud Joost van der Duyn van Maasdam (1718-1785)], described by James Boswell as ‘chimney sweeper.’ And ‘black brown’ by De Charriere.(Courtney 1993) But looking white, so the painting was ‘restored’ or whitened with beige and pink. This painting I saw in The Hague, in storage. The RKD wanted more pictures of the Van der Duyn Collection, but the quest ended. They were probably shown the collection and took fright at the black faces of the highest nobility. The Duchess of Cornwall, Camilla Parker Bowles, is a descendant of this family. George Keppel, an engraving showing the swarthy complexion, which his family was famous for. I found this image on the web, and after I start writing about it, it disappeared. I reintroduced a print, but did not register its date or provenance. Now I realize that with the date of the print I can proof that the painting already showed a dark complexion. The painter painted a dark, swarthy person. This will be the next format of my emissions on this head. The engravings proof what the paintings looked like on production, while the persons or relatives were described as dark, brown, black or even swarthy.
George Keppel, 3rd Earl of Albemarle, From Wikipedia, George Keppel, 3rd Earl of Albemarle. General George Keppel, 3rd Earl of Albemarle KG PC (London, 8 April 1724 – 13 October 1772), styled Viscount Bury until 1754, was a British soldier nobleman best known for his capture of Havana in 1762 during the Seven Years' War. He came from a wealthy and powerful Dutch family from Gueldres close to the Princes of Orange that had moved to England in the seventeenth century. His father was Willem van Keppel, 2nd Earl of Albemarle. Through his mother, Lady Anne Lennox, he was a great-grandson of King Charles II of England. He started his military career in the Netherlands fighting against the French and in 1745 participated in the Battle of Fontenoy as an aide to Prince William, Duke of Cumberland. Historici.nl: DUYN (Aarnout Joost van der), geb. 's Gravenhage 18 Jan. 1718, overl. Breda 28 Sept. 1785, zoon van Adam Adriaan (kol. 541), heer van 's Gravenmoer, Maasdam, Benthorn en Hinkelenoord, werd 2 Nov. 1744 kolonel-commandant van het regiment gardes dragonders, 5 Oct. 1747 chef van dit regiment, 30 Dec. 1747 luitenant-generaal, 9 Juni 1761 gouverneur van Breda en 10 Mei 1771 generaal der cavalerie. Voorts was hij hoogheemraad van Delfland, luitenant-houtvester en meesterknaap van Holland, terwijl hij in 1755 beschreven was in de ridderschap en edelen van Holland. Hij heeft nog juist den tijd mede beleefd, waarin de patriotsche partij het gezag van den stadhouder begon af te breken; doch hij schijnt geen krachtige persoonlijkheid te zijn geweest, om dat gezag te helpen schragen. 17 April 1742 huwde hij te 's Gravenhage Anna Margaretha van Aerssen, aldaar geb. 9 Aug. 1713 en overl. 1 April 1803, dr. van François (2) heer van Sommelsdijck en Maria van Aerssen tot Wernhout (III kol. 12).(Anna Margaretha van Aerssen was een kleindochter van Goveneur Cornelis van Aersen van Sommelsdijck en wordt door haar neef james Boswell liefdevol beschreven als ‘black as chimney.’) (Courtney 1993)
C.P. Courtney: Isabelle de Charrière (Belle de Zuylen). A biography. Oxford, Voltaire Foundation, 1993. 810 p. There Are No Letters Like Yours. Janet Whatley and Malcolm Whatley, The Correspondence of Isabelle de Charrière and Constant d'Hermenches, Bison Books, 2000. Biographisch Woordenboek (Van der Aa)

Geen opmerkingen:

Een reactie posten